Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 18, 2023 18:55:33 GMT
This tidbit also deserves some notice from that link:
"Down with Lenin and horseflesh, Give us the Tsar and pork."
Political sentiments are widely varied enough that it actually quite plausible that some ordinary person (not just a White propagandist) may have scrawled something like this on a wall. But it says a lot about the political bias in the British intelligence reports that they would repeat something like this, yet apparently make no mention of the fact that the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were the only serious political oppositions to the Bolsheviks. The citation of this report about someone having supposedly written "Give us the Tsar" doesn't alter the wider fact that popular sentiment had clearly supported the toppling of the Tsar and any popular sentiment which opposed the Bolsheviks gravitated towards support for the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who had more Jews among their leaders than the Bolsheviks. Trying to obscure this by citing something scrawled on a wall somewhere shows that they were not seriously assessing the mood in Russia in these intelligence reports.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 18, 2023 19:48:11 GMT
Some more nonsense from that webpage of Josh:
"Aleksandr Kerensky who played a leading role in the overthrow of the Tsarist regime, had a Jewish mother, as confirmed in a secret report on the general situation of Petrograd"
Without even bothering to check the accuracy of claims about Kerensky's ancestry, the important point to emphasize here is that the Social Revolutionaries, of whom Kerensky was a leader, were the most popular rival party of the Bolsheviks. No group on the Right-wing or even in a weak liberal Center had any comparable support. Kerensky had been overthrown because of his willingness to continue with the First World War while delaying the program of the Social Revolutionaries. Because of this, it had been possible for Lenin and Trotsky to mobilize the soldiers in the army against Kerensky. But obviously any attempt to win popular support back would have to involve going to the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks who were the only parties capable of winning public support from the Bolsheviks.
Instead, these idiots in British intelligence are harping on the issue of whether or not Kerensky was Jewish. Again, without even addressing that issue, so what? All of the popular rivals to the Bolsheviks had at least as many or more Jews in their leadership than the Bolsheviks, until the White pogroms forced Jews to treat the Bolsheviks as a lesser of two evils. But no political alternative existed in Russia apart from either the SRs or the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks because these were only the political parties which Russians themselves supported.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 18, 2023 21:32:11 GMT
That page by Josh leads off with the comment by the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd. This is from a document which I recall from Volume 1 of the FRUS series for 1918 Russia. As Josh quotes the Netherlands Minister tells us that "Bolshevism ... is a Jewish movement" (which Josh quotes) and then goes on:
"I am also of opinion that no support should be given to any other Socialistic party in Russia, least of all to social revolutionaries, whose policy it is at the moment to overthrow the Bolsheviks, but whose aims in reality are the same..."
Totally irrational. Like it or not, no government was going to unseat the Bolsheviks and hold power in Russia that did not have a majority of Social Revolutionaries in its leadership. That's just a reflection of the parties which actual Russians supported. Anyone who imagines that that reflects a global Jewish conspiracy is simply deluded.
"I will point out that it neither refers to nor cites Wilton"
All of the blather which Wear cites from people like Nesta Webster, Ernest Elmhurst and such is simply a recycled version of lies started by Wilton. The claim from Elmhurst which Wear cites of "the Council of Commissaries consisted of 20 members, of which 17 were Jews and only three Russians" is just Wilton's original hoax repackaged. The claims by Webster that
"Out of a list of 165 names published, 23 are Russian, three Georgian, four Armenian, one German, and 128 Jewish"
"Trotsky arrived from the United States, followed by over 300 Jews from the East End of New York"
are just Wilton hoaxes with no factual basis behind them. When David Francis makes this foolish claim that "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews" he is just recycling Wilton's disinformation. Francis did not have much substantive contact with the new revolutionary government and was in no position to know anything about the percentage of Jews other than to simply see that someone like Trotsky was extremely prominent. But that statement which he makes is just derived from Wilton's bogus reports.
"If you want to quibble about who was on this or that committee or whether some of those listed as Jews are false positives, go right ahead, but it is utterly ridiculous for you to say that Wilton sat down and made up the names"
Wilton made up fake lists of names for various committees and such because he wanted to promote the lie that Jews formed a majority among the key governing bodies of the Soviet government, when they did not. The most one could say is that Jews were overrepresented among all popular Leftist groups in the Russian of that time, with the Mensheviks having had the most Jews, the Bolsheviks the fewest. But a fake list of something like the Council of People's Commissars or the Central Committee of the party is meant to give readers a very wrong impression of what was going then.
The same story about NY Jews going to Russia to support the Bolsheviks appeared in the NYT 1917 (Nov 30); I very much doubt it was made up Wilton. I think you are completely full of it.
"That some of the radicals who went from New York to join the Bolsheviki in Petrograd may have violated the passport regulations of the United States was alleged in a statement issued yesterday by the American Alliance for Labor and Democracy, of which Samuel Gompers is the head. The statement identified some of the men who have gone from New York to Russia as being leaders in the radical socialist movement here and linked their going to Russia with the so-called People's Council, a pacifist organization with headquarters in this city."
"S. Epstein ... J. Voskow ... J. Shubin ... Max Goldfarb..."
"These are only a few of the prominent ones. There have been hundreds who have gone to Russia from here, many of them with the deliberate intention of helping the Bolshevist movement. Of course, Trotzky's own relations in New York are well known."
Your own page shows how ideologically twisted these reports of British intelligence were. Here's an example from your own link:
Once again, you evade the topic. The reports' authors are not the same, one of the things you're most struggling with. Some may be White propaganda, others may not - especially after 1918. I think it's well-understood that the Bolsheviks and their wider crime network exploited an opening in the social fabric, which, frankly, can mostly be attributed to Russia's catastrophic performance in the war and lax measures against trouble-makers. The trouble-makers included the moneyed elite of society and intellectuals, all joining in taking potshots against Russia's leadership. Incompetent management of the situation led to the ensuing disaster, including the dramatically worse Bolshevik rule - worse except for certain people.
Josh links to a set of British reports which includes General Knox reporting that:
"The guard were replaced by a house guard of thirteen, consisting of ten Letts and three Jews..."
I've already brought up above that this was a fake story circulated by the Whites. The actual composition of the team of executioners ay Ekaterinburg is given here:
There was a Jew leading the team, 7 Russians and 1 Latvian. The story that Russians didn't form a major part of the execution team was White propaganda.
The list given there is not given on the basis of any certain information, rather an inference based in part on the Soviet side of the story, which was in part erratic as to details but also disciplined as to the omitting the fate of the rest of the family. Related to this, you also earlier repeat the fake story by Communist liars that there would have ever been a trial, of which no evidence has been found. To the extent that Lenin's reply in Trotsky's narrative that there was "not enough time" can be credited, it ought to be interpreted in favor of "enough time" to make propaganda sense when the people would soon demand the roles reversed given the broken Bolshevik promises. Transporting a couple of prisoners was as easy as transporting themselves, which they easily did several times.
Let's go forward to Petrograd, 1919. Why the result? By adding random affirmative-action hanger-ons, you deliberately list Zinoviev as one among many Soviet leaders, but why, based on your list of lowered Jewish influence, did he gain virtual dictatorial control of Petrograd and the wider Northern Commune? Why was he such a marked personality that his rule was called Zinovievism? Why were Jews under his rule then economically favored during a time of general hardship?
Let me guess: The Whites are still the responsible party. They "forced Jews to treat the Bolsheviks as a lesser of two evils" and now Zinoviev is simply rewarding loyal political clientele. Everything is perfectly neutral, nothing untoward going on here. It's in fact sinful of multiple foreign intelligence agencies to even observe such trends.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 13:49:47 GMT
"The same story about NY Jews going to Russia to support the Bolsheviks appeared in the NYT 1917 (Nov 30)"
None of the names which you've listed there played any notable role in any of Trotsky's activities or in any of the major revolutionary events. Trotsky did not travel with them, and they had no bearing on the events which allowed Trotsky to lead the toppling of Kerensky's government. You're fishing around for a non-story. The New York Times will have carried some reports of various people traveling to Russia who were fascinated with the revolution. But the BS story that these people were accompanying Trotsky and played some role in the Bolshevik Revolution is the hoax put out by people like Wilton.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 13:55:41 GMT
"there would have ever been a trial, of which no evidence has been found."
Louis XVI was given a trial in France and executed. This would have been the optimum procedure for the Bolsheviks as well. Public trial, condemnation and execution. When there was a chance that the Czar and his family might be captured, the decision was made to execute them without trial.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 14:13:10 GMT
"Some may be White propaganda, others may not - especially after 1918."
There simply is no indication of any attempt ever made to separate fact from fiction in any of these intelligence reports.
"Let me guess: The Whites are still the responsible party."
The Whites were responsible for their handling of the other potential parties. In all of the previous messages on this thread I've posted references which anyone can follow up to find the important points which get buried under this sort of garbage nonsense.
Those points are that:
1) The only political parties which had any popular support among Russians (apart from the Bolsheviks, who were indeed capable of winning significant support from sectors of the populace) were the Social Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. There was no popular support among Russians for any sort of conservative party. The alternative to Bolshevik government was a government led by SRs and Mensheviks, nothing else.
2) The Mensheviks and SRs had visibly more Jews in leading positions and anyone who examined all of the parties in 1917 would know that. This isn't good or bad. It's just the way things were. White pogroms against Jews from 1918 and onward (killing around 150,000 or so) caused most Jews to switch their support to the Bolsheviks, but the events of Denikin's march across the Ukraine routinely show that he was welcomed by Jews who were glad to be rid of the Bolsheviks, until the pogroms forced them to change their minds.
3) Even so, it wasn't the proportion of Jews who eventually gave support to the Bolsheviks that resulted in the White defeat. It was the White terror against masses of Gentile Russians which led to the refusal of Russians to support the Whites against the Bolsheviks which gave the latter their victory. Not only did the Whites often casually massacre Russians who looked the wrong way, but the White forces were immensely corrupt in looting supplies which were given to them by Allied nations with the hopes that this would be used against the Bolsheviks.
I've given multiple references in earlier posts on this thread for anyone who honestly wants to explore the facts of the Russian Civil War and why the Whites lost. The White propaganda which tried to portray things as one big stream of Jews all working together while ignoring the real sentiments among Russians was just a way of obscuring the causes of their defeat.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 14:22:09 GMT
"Why were Jews under his rule then economically favored during a time of general hardship?"
Any partial advantages which some Jews would have gotten that are not simply an invention of White propaganda would reflect their simply being of use to the administration. Zinoviev himself certainly never did anything to cultivate any political loyalties from anyone based on their being Jewish and having an ethnic tie with him. Had he actually followed this as a political strategy then Stalin would never have been able to win. The reason it was so easy for Stalin to promote select Jews into positions in the NKVD while expelling Trotsky and Zinoviev was because none of these Jews ever followed any political loyalties based upon ethnic ties.
One has to come back to the point that the myth of Jews who were members of the Bolsheviks working together as Jews was pushed by White propaganda to cover the fact that the White coups d'état which pushed the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks aside were what guaranteed the Bolshevik victory.
If one listens to White propaganda, you might be led to think that Russians were rallying around some kind of Christian conservative party, but the Jews rigged things up to put the Left in power. That is nonsense. Russians supported the Social Revolutionaries in the greatest numbers, and then the rest of Russian support mainly split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The causes of the Bolshevik victory arise from how the Right-wing Whites handled this reality.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 14:28:19 GMT
"exploited an opening in the social fabric, which, frankly, can mostly be attributed to Russia's catastrophic performance in the war and lax measures against trouble-makers."
That's incredibly naive. The events since the 1905 uprising had shown that the population at large was leaning decidedly to the Left, with the Social Revolutionaries promising to becoming the biggest party while in an operable parliamentary system one could expect the Mensheviks to emerge as the big urban labor party. If the Czarist elite had accepted this reality in 1905 then they should have stuck with maintaining free elections to the Duma while avoiding international confrontations. With about 30 years of peaceful parliamentary government in which Leftists would dominate the parliament the country by 1935 could have emerged as a successful modern nation. But dismissing the parliament in 1907 was a sign that the Czarist autocracy was just out of touch with reality.
"the 1905 uprising" lol, about as world-historically significant as every year's French mass protests that the French and international press rightly doesn't bother to cover. Macron is likewise so out of touch with reality that he can continue his activity completely unabated.
It should be noted that it's another example of the communist crime network exploiting Russia's social problems amid and in the aftermath of a war.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 15:26:31 GMT
The revolutionary uprising which broke out in 1905 was completely spontaneous and was not put together by Jews or any other special subgroup. Although it showed that there was far more discontent among the Russian populace in 1905 than among the American colonists in 1776, it failed because of the lack of organization. Spontaneous marches in the streets organized by the police and Father Gapon set it off, and none of the revolutionary groups were prepared for this. When the protests and strikes resulted in the formation of a Duma, all of the revolutionary groups boycotted the first elections. So, the liberal Constitutional Democrats won a sweeping victory at first. Only in the later elections did Left-wing groups begin devising strategies for running in the elections. Although they won big when they ran, but a lot of the spontaneous energy which carried the 1905 uprising forward was already dying down by that time. The Czarist autocracy very foolishly overestimated in its own security in light of this and failed to see it needed to stick to the parliamentary road from here on.
"about as world-historically significant as every year's French mass protests"
France has had many protests and these events are in no way comparable to what broke across Russia in 1905. But that arrogance is exactly what insured the eventual fall of Czarism.
Post by patricksmcnally on Feb 20, 2023 15:39:14 GMT
"NYT 1917 (Nov 30);"
That New York Times piece reflects a lot of World War I propaganda where they are attempting to claim that the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs is "Germanized ... Germanic" (their words) in order to rally support for the US war effort (Debs was opposed to US entry into the war). Again, none of those names of people whom they give played any role in toppling the Kerensky government.
Taking just one name, if you think you know of some evidence which suggests that "S. Epstein, former organizer of the Ladies' Waist Makers, and editor of their journal" played some role in enabling the Bolsheviks to come to power, then describe it. The most detailed description of how Lenin and Trotsky were able to topple Kerensky is probably in Alexander Rabinowitch's 2 consecutive books, Prelude to Revolution and The Bolsheviks Come to Power. The point of Wilton's hoaxes (as repeated by Nesta Webster and John Wear) is not simply that other individuals came from New York as political sympathizers but played no role in important events. It is supposed to be that somehow Trotsky was bringing a special network from New York with him which helped him gain power. That is rubbish.
In pre-Machtübernahme Soviet propaganda as well as later more facile romantic propaganda, the Soviets (councils), which started gaining steam shortly after the Russo-Japanese war began, were labeled "spontaneous" gatherings. "It's just a flash mob, bro" was the agitators' narrative to intimidate weak Russian authorities into inaction. With catastrophic results, the Russian authorities chose not to deal with each and every one of the "Soviets" in the manner in which they should have been dealt with. That particular hoax may have worked before 1917, but I wonder who precisely is Pat trying to fool now other than himself.
Please send comments or concerns to my e-mail with the word " RODOH " in the subjectline (SLSm1701@yahoo.com)