Addendum on keeping Poland in the dark about a probable Soviet invasion in the case of war and adding a “Secret Protocol” to the UK/Poland assistance agreement. That is, on knowingly sacrificing Poland in order to start a general European war against Germany. Bohlen was not the only source.

Kennedy, in a telegram to the American Secretary of State in Washington dated 25 August 1939, reported what was then being said in London about the non-public parts of the Nazi-Soviet pact:

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

The Turkish Charge d’Affaires Mr. Kadri Rizan has informed the Embassy in confidence that he has received following circumstantial information regarding secret annexes of the German-Soviet pact which came from trustworthy sources but which naturally he states with “complete reserve”:

(one) Russia is given a free hand against Japan in the Far East.

(two) Probable partition of Poland and recognition of the special interests of Soviet Russia in the Baltic states: in effect a return to the Russian-German border of 1914.

(three) Territorial advantages to Turkey at the expense of Bulgaria and a kind of subprotectorate for Turkey over whatever is left of Bulgaria.

(four) Division of the Balkans into spheres of influence between Germany and Russia, the Geran sphere to include Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Greece, the Russian sphere Romania and Bulgaria.

Any so-called information regarding secret annexes to the German-Russian agreement is purely speculative.
Neither the Foreign Office nor diplomatic circles however, believe for one minute that Germany did not give Russia something much more substantial than anything that appears in the terms of the public agreement. The supposition above outlined by the Turkish Charge d’Affaires gives a fairly representative consensus of this speculative opinion. A Foreign Office official stated this morning that they had received similar circumstantial information to that set out in points (one) and (two) above.

KENNEDY

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box3/t38a01.html

A most incredible comment about Solzhenitsyn and Bolshevism. What is your source for the following assertion? Didn’t all of the Eastern Christian denominations reject filioque? And wasn’t it introduced by a Spanish monarch rather than a western church council?

But the kind of orthodox religion that had prevailed in Russia from Ivan the terrible and even more so from Peter the Great onwards was based on a satanic theology quite like that of Kabbalah : it was based on the idea of the absence of God in the world as well as on the idea of a god beyond good and evil. It resembled in many ways the worst Hindu theology which stated that the manifest universe was the result of an act of deception, not of generosity by God. This as a consequence of the refusal to mention the clause “filioque” in their credo : man could hope for the exertion of absolutely no positive influence in this world even united with Christ, he could only fight for survival and also vindicate his church by way of deception.

https://rense.com/general97/german-holocaust.php
This article has been running at the top of Rense for the last few days. It is unattributed. It claims nearly 40 million German civilians were killed by forces of ZOG throughout the 20th century. I know you have stated a 15 million German death toll during and after world war two. Would you agree with the claims of this explosive article? Could they be remotely plausible?

https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-writings/large-works-and-novels/two-hundred-years-together
TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, a two-volume history of Russian-Jewish relations, initially grew out of The Red Wheel, his monumental opus on the Russian Revolution. In The Red Wheel Solzhenitsyn had shown the Revolution in full complexity; and indeed—to avoid boiling down that complexity or skewing it via the narrow prism of Russian-Jewish relations—he gave The Red Wheel priority of publication in every major language, ahead of Two Hundred Years Together. Now that the full Red Wheel is well on its way to being published in English, an authorized translation of Two Hundred Years Together is in progress and scheduled for publication in 2024. {Nov 2023 update: the authorized translation was late but is now completed. Next, it will be reviewed for fidelity/accuracy, and all the author’s footnotes double-checked for proper rendition into English. The work involved in finalizing a manuscript of this size is substantial, but as soon as it is done it will be submitted for publication, now likely in the second half of 2025.}

In Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies (in Chapters 9 and 14) that the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 were the result of a “Jewish conspiracy” (just as he had earlier forcefully criticized the extreme nationalists who were and are obsessed with Freemasons and Jews—see, e.g., Russia in Collapse, Chapter 25, “The Maladies of Russian Nationalism”). Two Hundred Years Together was first published in Russian in 2001–02, and several times since. The definitive Russian edition is published by Vremya (Moscow, 2015), as volumes 26 & 27 of their ongoing 30-volume collected works of Solzhenitsyn….

Hello,

On David Irving’s website there is a document detailing a secretly recorded conversation between a Generalleutnant Elfeldt and a Generalleutnant Heim. It is from the CSDIC in the United Kingdom.

This is the english Translation:

Elfeldt: When we were in the Kiev district, my CO of signals (?) came back quite horrified ….. spoken ….. it was an engineer Bataillonskommandeur — and this engineer Bataillon had the task of blowing up that ….. in which were those 32,000 Jews including women and children.

Heim: Even if the figures are not correct, I mean, those are things which can absolutely be characterised as criminal, or even as completely crazy and mad.

Elfeldt: In just the same way as I have obligations towards my family and my nation, so have we of curse a nation, certain rules which we must observe towards the rest of humanity, there’s no doubt at all about that. I can’t behave like wild beast.

Website comments (presumably from Irving): The above CSDIC report translated Pionierführer as ‘signals’ officer, but it has the clear meaning of engineer-, or sapper-, commander or officer. As for the missing elements (…..), we can make educated guesses: The first missing element is probably something like ‘he had’ talked ‘with a fellow officer’ an engineer battalion commander, etc; the second missing word may be something like ‘ravine’. On September 29 and 30, 1941 at Babi Yar the Germans or their collaborators are said to have killed over 33,000 people, most of the Jews, from the region in and around occupied Kiev, then part of Soviet Ukraine, in retaliation for a wave of arson and booby-trap explosions throughout the city.

https://fpp.co.uk/Himmler/interrogations/CSDIC/GRGG221.html

My (CH) question is: What are we to make of this, especially since they are being secretly recorded?

But that doesn’t mean he acted incorrectly.

Unless you consider treason to be ‘incorrect’.

I’m thinking of translating this article and publishing it on one of the Russian forums ( with all links to the author and the original version)

Actually it fully served their purpose to force Hitler’s hand to launch the war against Poland so they could start the war to destroy Germany in the guise of pretending to be “defending” a pure and poor victim of aggression.

Terrific summary and explanation of what forced Hitler’s hand on Poland.

That of course was the US-UK cabal’s plan all along which is exactly how they set up other countries to initiate the use of force against them that they triggered by the pressures they applied to launch other wars, such as WWI, WWII, the Kuwait conflict and the Ukrainian situation.

The pledge to Poland was such an incredibly stupid thing to do.

I hate ZOG/Globohomo as much as the next guy, but I agree that we can’t completely give carte blanche to Hitler’s movement and regime. It’s kind of like the lost cause apologists of the Confederacy–there is a certain romantic notion of the brave soldiers who fought against incredible odds. But what was the Confederacy all about? It was a regime of land-owning aristocrats that had imported the African into the United States and it was crying and complaining that it needed the cheap labor as being essential to their economy. If they were true patriots who cared about the long term prospects of their country, they would have sent all of their African slaves back to Africa on their own.

However, to your point where you say “The war was German imperialism first and foremost.”

I suppose one could argue that the unification of German speaking people into Germany itself was a noble cause. But no one placed a gun against Hitler’s head and told him that he had to take the entirety of Czechoslovakia after he took the Sudetenland. This is what caused Neville Chamberlain to give a war guarantee to Poland. An earlier poster (he may or may not be a Jewish apologist, I don’t know) stated that to not mention this detail is lying by omission.

Obviously, the invasion of Denmark, Norway and the Benelux countries were a pretext to put Germany in a strong position for its war against France and the UK. Could the “phony war” have been prolonged post-Poland invasion? I don’t know, but certainly the fall of France was a major success for Hitler and his generals–a vindication and fitting revenge for the humiliation at Versailles. But this firmly put Germany on full time war footing now and it completely disrupted the balance of power in mainland Europe.

The one thing that never sat right with me was Hitler’s decision to invade the USSR. To me, this seems like a forced error of epic proportions. Stalin was more or less Hitler’s quiet partner at the time–giving him oil and other resources. And the jewish influence on the USSR was actually on the wane at the time. But whenever I ask why Hitler invaded the USSR, I get the following nonsensical explanations:

-“If Hitler didn’t invade first, Stalin was going to” (from Hitler apologists). Even if that were true, I doubt that the Soviets would get very far. Consider that Hitler -almost won- Barbarossa in an offensive operation while being severely outnumbered. Man for man, the Wehrmacht was quite formidable. I think that a strong German military in defensive positions would have whipped the USSR in any defensive war.

-“Hitler invaded the USSR because he said he was going to do it in Mein Kampf. He wanted Lebensraum!”. (from liberal commentators). So what? People write down a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that they are beholden to what they write. But I think this goes back to your point that WW2 was really caused by German imperialism. My view is that Barbarossa was not needed at all — Germany was in a position of strength in 1941–the resources spent on Barbarossa could have been expended to drive out the British from North Africa (possibly).

Was Hitler a jew puppet? I don’t know. There is a lot to admire about the man in terms of the German economic miracle of the 1930s. Germany had asserted itself and was becoming a master in its own house. Its socioeconomic model of right-wing patriotism and traditionalism along with left-wing economics is a desirable one and it is classic Third Option politics. We are not allowed to vote for such a system as liberals are outright traitors and conservatives are not that much better as they meekly play defense on immigration and social issues while they placate big business interests.

I will end my comment with a quote that has been attributed to Charles de Gaulle. I think it encapsulates on what could have been:

Charles deGaulle: “Ah, Stalingrad! All the same, they are a
great people, a very great people.”

AW: “Ah, yes, the Russians…”

Charles deGaulle: “No, I’m not talking about the Russians; I mean the
Germans. In spite of everything, to have pushed so far!”

(WW2 is a tragedy in that Germany poured all of its strength into a lost cause that didn’t have to be lost. Sometimes you can win by not playing the game. I feel sadness for those brave young men who fought the good fight on the Eastern Front, even though it was a catastrophic mistake committed by their leaders)

The Polak nobility, in perpetual civil wars with each other since Poland was on the map, eventually sold their country in the 18th century Partitions to its neighbours, who were genetically better equipped to cultivate their own national unity against all enemies, foreign and domestic: the Germans, the Russian. The moronic inbreds the Habsburgs not withstanding here.

A relentless destruction of the then destitute people, its culture and nationality by the Germans followed. Bismarck even wanted its complete extermination, while admitting that no clear social, economic or political benefit can be obtained from the simpletons and barbarians in the “Polnische Wirtschaft”.

Here is an interesting bit how the once perfect Catholic shabbos goyim, the Teutonic Knights, metastasized after the Peace of Westphalia into fanatical, Vatican defying Protestant UberMensch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions

Polaks are naive simpletons, easily persuaded to focus on trivia, like “the honour”, to act pathetically to their own ruin. Józef Beck, the Polish Prime Minister, and a Jewish twirp, who sold Poland to the British Crown in 1939 for a fake promise, exemplified it best. That’s true. Only an idiot however would seek to destroy a country of no tactical, social, economic or political benefit, that Poland, including the “coveted” Urdeutsche Danzig, was in 1939 to Germany.

1) Gdansk (Dantzig)
The author claims “Danzig was founded in the early 14th century and was historically the key port at the mouth of the great Vistula River. From the beginning Danzig was inhabited almost exclusively by Germans”.

Some historical background taken from wikipedia:

”From at least 1224/25 a German market settlement with merchants from Lübeck existed in the area of today’s Long Market…

At latest in 1263 Pomerelian duke, Swantopolk II. granted city rights under Lübeck law to the emerging market settlement. It was an autonomy charter similar to that of Lübeck, which was also the primary origin of many settlers. In a document of 1271 the Pomerelian duke Mestwin II addressed the Lübeck merchants settled in the city as his loyal citizens from Germany…

In 1300, the town had an estimated population of 2,000. While overall the town was far from an important trade centre at that time, it had some relevance in the trade with Eastern Europe. Low on funds, the Samborides lent the settlement to Brandenburg”

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk#History )

On wikipedia there is a list of all mayors of the city of Danzig, starting from 1342 until today.

And from 1342 to 1945 ALL names on this list are German names (see here).

LIST OF THE CITY MAYORS OF DANZIG

Teutonic order:
1342–1347 – Dettloff von der Osten
1342–1354 – Henrich Burmeister der Ältere
1346–1355 – Steffen von der Osten
1354–1374 – Hillebrand Müntzer
1356–1360 – Johan von Stein
[…]

Kingdom of Poland:
1454–1461 – Wilhelm Jordan
1457–1461 – Jacob Falcke
1461–1475 – Johann von Scheren
1462–1478 – Johann von Walde
1462–1478 – Johann Veere
[…]

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth:
1548–1577 – Johann Brandes
1555–1588 – Constantin Feber
1557–1578 – Johann Proite
1558–1576 – Georg Kleefeld
1577–1585 – Reinhold Möllner
[…]
etc

In 1923, a plebiscite was held in the Free City of Danzig

Total population by language, November 1, 1923, according to the Free City of Danzig census

GERMAN: 348,493 (95.03%)

POLISH/KASHUB/MASURIAN: 12,027 (3.28%)

(Source: Wikipedia)

And finally, a map showing the Germanic settlement area in the first century AD.

(Source: )

It’s well-established that Russia was intending to attack Germany and perhaps other parts or all of Western Europe in 1941, in fact it’s fairly likely Stalin had been intending to attack Germany from 1939 and possibly from as far back as the mid 1930s.

Germany became certain in the second half of 1940 that Russia was going to attack them. By the start of Germany’s Operation Barbarossa (invasion of Russia) in June 1941, Russia had trained the amazing number of 1 million paratroopers (offensive troops) and had built hundreds of forward air bases (offensive air bases) along their border with Germany, and was almost ready to invade Germany. Essentially, what happened was that Germany narrowly beat Russia to the punch.

For more details on Russia initiating the war on the Eastern Front, read this great article on this website by Laurent Guyénot – https://www.unz.com/article/barbarossa-suvorovs-revisionism-goes-mainstream/, which is a review of Sean McMeekin’s book, Stalin’s War, the book can be purchased at https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798.

Yes. But Hitler/Trump comparisons are undermined by the utterly different circumstances. The seismic issue in Hitler’s day was the collision between Soviet Internationalism which began in 1917 and its inevitable Nationalist reaction which began with Mussolini’s March on Rome. Unfortunately, FDR chose the Internationalists thereby bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon.

Interesting point about Hitler “needlessly humiliating” Chamberlain and not realizing the importance of providing one’s opponent with a viable way to “save face”. Although many absurd comparisons have been made between Hitler and Trump, this really may be something they had in common. I’m thinking especially of Trump’s gloating after signing trade agreements with China. I look forward to seeing your book.

– Again: Britain & France did nothing against the Communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east and took 60% of Poland though the treaty with Poland said nothing of exempting the USSR.

Actually, the British guarantee to Poland was modified days before the German invasion in such a way that it did implicitly exempt the USSR. It could be argued that the Poles were purposely misled by the Americans and the British about what they were getting themselves into. For on the same day that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed (23 August), Herwarth von Bittenfeld of the German embassy in Moscow informed his diplomatic colleague at the American embassy in Moscow, Charles E. Bohlen, of the contents of the agreement, including the provisions of the “secret protocol” providing for the partition of Poland between Germany and the USSR in the case of war. Bohlen forwarded this information immediately to the White House [Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History: 1929-1969. New York: Norton, 1973, pp. 82-3.] Had the Roosevelt administration informed the Poles that in the event of war they would be facing an invasion of not only the German Wehrmacht, but also the Red Army, then they may have come to a more realistic assessment of their position and have come to some kind of an understanding with Germany regarding Danzig. Germany had recently presented a 16-point plan that many found reasonable. But an agreement is not what the Roosevelt administration wanted, and the Poles were not told about the “secret protocol”. The British, on the other hand, evidently were, and they too failed to inform the Poles. Instead, on 25 August, 1939, they themselves added their own “secret protocol” to the Anglo-Polish Agreement, in which it was clarified that England would only be bound to aid Poland in the case of “German” attack. Hence when the Red Army invaded Poland on 17 September, England could argue that it was not obliged to declare war also on the Soviet Union. [Secret Protocol Attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between Poland and the United Kingdom Signed on the 25th August, 1939. “Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power […], the other Contracting Party will at once give […] all the support and assistance in its power.” Protocol clarification: “By the expression ‘a European Power’ employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany.” In: Anita J. Prazmowska, Britain, Poland, and the Eastern Front 1939. Cambridge UP, 2004, p. 203].

I won’t read the article because browsing through it I already find revisionism that dwarfs Jewish claims of the Holocaust. It really is funny in a way… both Jews and fringe pro-Nazi historians will lie about history. Though like I said, the latter is funnier because those articles go on to defend Germany all the way back to the beginning of time. It’s also pretty interesting to see the conflict: defending Germany at all cost means defending the Teutonic Order… but the authors of these types of articles often have anti-Christian orientations. I’ll just focus on two points of this column, which sadly are all too common:

———-

1) Gdansk (Dantzig)
The author claims “Danzig was founded in the early 14th century and was historically the key port at the mouth of the great Vistula River. From the beginning Danzig was inhabited almost exclusively by Germans”. The history of Gdansk is well-documented so I won’t linger on that. To be honest I’m not even certain how to “debunk” this. What is the author claiming ? That Swietopelk II Duke of Pomerania did not really exist ? That he did but history is falsified (and always has been I guess… seeing as this type of revisionism is new) and he did not rule over Pomeranian lands and/or wasn’t attacked by Teutons ? This is pretty amusing. But for those interested in a quick refutation: the Teutonic (aka German) invasion of Gdansk in 1308 is, as one can imagine, well-documented too; it even prompted pope Clement V (head of the most influential institution at the time) to write a bull (decree of the highest authority) on the matter; excerpt:

“Latest news were brought to my attention, that officials and brethren of the aforementioned Teutonic order have hostilely intruded the lands of Our beloved son Wladislaw, duke of Cracow and Sandomierz, and in the town of Gdańsk killed more than ten thousand people with the sword, inflicting death on whining infants in cradles whom even the enemy of faith would have spared.”

For the latins among the readers:

“Novissime vero ad nostrum venit auditum, quod dicti preceptores et fratres hospitalis ejusdem dilecti filii nobisg) viri Wladislai Cracovie et Sandomirie ducis terram hostiliter subintrantes in civitate Gdansco ultra decem milia hominum gladio peremerunt infantibus vagientibus in cunis mortis exitium inferentes, quibus etiam hostis fidei pepercisset.”

Too bad the pope was misinformed. The city had not been attacked… in fact it did not even exist prior to the Teutons peacefully arriving !

2) Massacres of ethnic Germans
The author writes: “The Germans in Poland continued to experience an atmosphere of terror in the early part of September 1939. Throughout the country the Germans had been told, “If war comes to Poland you will all be hanged.” This prophecy was later fulfilled in many cases. The famous Bloody Sunday in Toruń on September 3, 1939, was accompanied by similar massacres elsewhere in Poland. These massacres brought a tragic end to the long suffering of many ethnic Germans. This catastrophe had been anticipated by the Germans before the outbreak of war, as reflected by the flight, or attempted escape, of large numbers of Germans from Poland.”
That is correct. Civilians were killed in retribution for the attack. This is the sad reality of war, but Germany was the aggressor. Also, note how that doesn’t justify the aggression anyway… as it happened after the invasion. So what is the author saying exactly ? That (alleged) civilian fear on Polish soil prior to the war was the reason Germany invaded ? Some mental gymnastics…

———-

Many people writing these types of articles will argue that Germany did not have ANY imperialistic objectives ! I agree that there is absolutely no evidence of gas chambers… but just as one has Jews on one side of the revisionist spectrum, a neo-Nazi sits on the other side… every single document of execution lists, every single speech transcript where ethnic minorities were called subhuman, every single diary and testimony, every single letter and communique between Gauleiters and Hitler or Himmler regarding literal genocide are false ! Forgeries I guess…

Delusional. Sure, not everything was black and white… but there was plenty of black on the Nazi side… and the war was not to save Europe from the LGBT and African migration (though of course a Nazi victory would have accomplished that). The war was German imperialism first and foremost.

They can’t discuss Jewish power in a substantial or meaningful way. Proof they are essentially worthless for attempting to understanding what has actually happened. At best you can infer from them some of their unstated premises that are normative for published “academic” society.

Thanks. Sorry for my late response, was off Unz (erratic) for some time. Can you please email me the “Fourth Floor’ to [email protected]. Thanks again.

Solzhenitsyn hasn’t been officially cancelled but he is as good as so : all his literary production now just makes everybody yawn and the matter he treats leaves everybody indifferent. People who read and write in America have always despised the concerns he voices. He is already too boring and despicable to be cancelled. You can only cancel former idols, for instance in Rock music or cinema, but not people who were always known to be un-American by all standards. You cannot cancel Klaus Barbie or General Pinochet or François Duvalier, despite the fact each one of them was hired for specific missions by the American empire : even while being used they bore the label : danger, to be touched at your own risks. Solzhenitsyn right at the time he made himself known by writing Gulag Archipelago was classified as a necessary evil to defeat Soviet power, namely a Nazi and religious fundamentalist of the kind to be favoured in Russia, not in America, a character to be used for the distant empire and also to discourage humanists and leftists at home by bringing disheartening facts and arguments, in that way he ressembles any Taliban leader of the kind that was deployed near the former Soviet border. To be cancelled you need to have been some idol. The idol he was never meant for domestic adoration, he could not be cancelled, he already bore the word poison on his forehead, and he was sold as a poison to throw at foes.

Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, clearly knew what he did and played a very dishonest game right from the start : he counted on the American media machine to enjoy an otherwise very hard to achieve celebrity. Solzhenitsyn is a good novelist, the personal low-level anecdotes he tells about the gulag are very accurate, but the mass figures he gives are mistaken at best and often mendacious. Solzhenitsyn despite his long-hoped for reputation as a first-order antisemite always courted Jewish powers in reality, of the kind he knew were abandoning all concerns for the workers in favour of neo-liberalism, and he presented falsified figures the new generation of media Jews would salivate hearing. The gulag was indeed the horror he describes. But it is simply not true that communism made 60 millions deaths among Russians and was an enterprise to exterminate Russians. What killed so many Russians was WWII, its preparation and its aftermath. The number of deaths due to the gulag system proper always remained small in comparison. The horror of camps in Siberia was greatly superseded by that experienced by far more people on the battlefields and in the besieged cities.

Moreover, that must be insisted upon, only a tiny fraction of the gulag inmates were sent there for reasons of political dissidence of some sort, or for espionage : among let us say 1000 camp prisoners a dissident was lucky if he could meet with two or three people literate enough to understand what he was dissident against. More than 99% were bandits and pillagers of about the same kind and mentality that compose the Mexican Cartels nowadays and most generally they were sent to camps for crimes of sadism. The Russian Empire was not a holy pious society nor even a relatively sane society suddenly taken over by a bunch of sadistic Jews, it was an empire ruled with the aid of many criminals pillaging the pesants for their own interest while protecting the landlord class to enjoy some immunity unless that landlord class would grant them their booty in which case they massacred it in the name of various malevolent ideologies. It is true that the first Bolshevik regime was explicitly satanic and resorted quite explicitly to the darkest occult forces. But the kind of orthodox religion that had prevailed in Russia from Ivan the terrible and even more so from Peter the Great onwards was based on a satanic theology quite like that of Kabbalah : it was based on the idea of the absence of God in the world as well as on the idea of a god beyond good and evil. It resembled in many ways the worst Hindu theology which stated that the manifest universe was the result of an act of deception, not of generosity by God. This as a consequence of the refusal to mention the clause “filioque” in their credo : man could hope for the exertion of absolutely no positive influence in this world even united with Christ, he could only fight for survival and also vindicate his church by way of deception.

why do you mean by saying that Solzhenitsyn “had been ‘canceled’”?

I didn’t have the impression that you were regurgitating the Schiff-supports-Bolsheviks hoax. If I implied that I thought you did then it was a misstatement on my part.

Yes, Schiff did support the Provisional Government which remained at war with Germany. Schiff’s opposition to the war was based at a time when the Czarist monarchy was still in power. That was the basis for his very likely having given some assistance to Trotsky in New York where Trotsky was denouncing the war as an imperialist war. Once Kerensky had taken office Schiff stopped being concerned about opposing the war.

While there are questions about the final testament and the extent to which Krupskaya may have figured into its formulation, no has really been able to dispute the rising conflict which led Lenin to write to Stalin:

“You had the uncouthness to summon my wife to the telephone and swear at her. Although she has given you her agreement to forget what was said .. it goes without saying that I consider something done against my wife to be something also done against me.”

The conflict grew from there. Now some authors like Bill Bland sought to attribute the fallout mainly just to Lenin’s declining health. That is plausible. But the conflict was there.

As I said, Trotsky only joined the Bolsheviks after the July Uprising, instigated by anarchists in July 1917. Here are Lenin’s own words from a letter to Alexandra Kollontai, written February 17, 1917:

“What a swine this Trotsky is — Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to Sotsial-Demokrat!”

There was no alliance between Lenin and Trotsky at this time. It was only after Trotsky had returned to Russia that he and Lenin slowly came to see a need for each other and formed an alliance which had not existed previously.

As for the other comments, No, Jacob Schiff’s grandson never “confirmed” any such nonsensical claim. That statement is just taken off of the gossip-column that appeared in the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949. I characterize it as a gossip-column because that is what it was. This was not the result of a news investigation where a reporter interviews various sources and forms a story out of them. The pseudonym “Cholly Knickerbocker” was used by various successive columnists in the paper for several decades. In such columns the author is allowed to rant without having to carefully match their statements to sources in a way that could be defended as professional journalism.

In this case the columnist made the claim:

“Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, a prominent member of New York society, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”

Where did John Schiff make such a claim? In an interview? No reference is given or suggested. It’s the kind of gossip rumor which people like John Schiff would have learned to ignore. It’s real evidence on the gullibility of Ron Unz that he treats such a column as if it were a major piece of historic evidence about anything other than the way media columnists can repeat rumors.

When I saw that you were referring to a link to a link where Unz references Bendersky then I ran back over to my copy to see if he has anything to say about John Schiff. No, he does not. This is a classic form of trickery which you’re playing here where the reliance upon a gossip column is buried under 3-fold references to give the impression that it is somehow based upon academic sources.

Like I said already, the basic facts are perfectly clear. Trotsky in New York was given support by someone opposed to US alliance with Czarist Russia. Probably it was Jacob Schiff. Trotsky was regarded as a bitter rival of Lenin’s at this time. When Trotsky traveled back to Russia the officers handling things reported that he was carrying 10,000 (not 20,000,000) dollars on him. Probably that was given to him by Schiff. After Trotsky and Lenin had both landed in Russia it took them a few months to patch things up.

Once the Provisional Government had been overthrown (without any help from the Allies, although Germany provided Lenin with material to sent up his newspaper) then the Bolsheviks began looking to send propaganda into Germany. In early 1918 the Allies made contact with them in the hopes of using Lenin against the Kaiser just as the latter had used him against the Russian authorities. There credible reports which imply that the Allies gave the Bolsheviks 20 million for this anti-Kaiser campaign. None of that money would have had relevance to the ability of the Bolsheviks to hold power in Russia, since the monetary economy was already in a state of collapse by early 1918. It was money to be used to foster revolution in Germany.

It didn’t accomplish much until Germany was truly defeated in November 1918. But the Allies were willing to expend the resource on the attempt anyway. There is no evidence that Schiff had anything to do with that Allied policy of 1918, but the bit of gossip contained in that New York Journal-American column is a byproduct of gluing together different stories, as is common with most gossip. The 20 million comes from the later story, whereas the stuff about is the earlier story. All evidence shows that Schiff was against dealing with the Bolsheviks after they took power and he had nothing to do with the Allied policy of trying to fund Lenin’s propaganda in Germany.

Case it point — yet another ignorantl, hate-filled judeobolshevism denialist histrionically spewing a stream of histrionic, logorrheic, semitic supremacist blabber. Thanks for further illustrating the indisputable truth of my observation.

“judeobolshevism denialists”?

Nonsensical.

1. In the Council of People’s Commissars in 1917, of the 16 members only 1 was Jewish, Leon Trotsky. (1 out of 16)

2. In the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic before the Soviet Union was established in 1922, out of the 50 members, only 6 were Jewish. (6 out of 50)

3. Before the Provisional Government walked away in October and allowed Lenin’s rise, there were 30 officials of the Bolshevik party, only 6 who were Jewish. (6 out of 30)

4. On the Central Committee there were 7 members, of 3 who were Jewish. (3 out of 7)

Of the 50 party officials, there was a total of 6 members who were Jewish. (*Total of 12% of the Bolsheviks were Jewish, by 1922 this came down to 5% that was 1.8% of the population).

There existed an anti-Semitic campaign even started by the Red Army in 1918 against the Jews. While their support continued to drop after Trotsky had been kicked out of the USSR in 1929. In the 1930s there existed 36 Jews who held leadership roles in the NKVD, who were then removed in 1939 after the Hitler-Stalin Pact had been signed.

For their disposition in the NKVD as stated by J. Arch Getty, Jews became attracted to the secret police in response to their past treatment under the Tsarist rule. It was their way of assuming authority which they never held before as expelled to the Pale of Settlement where their movement, economy and education had been restricted from the general population.

It’s why Solzhenitsyn focused on “The Red Wheel” as his main work, a 6.000-page tome (and the reason “Two Hundred Years Together” has not received any English translation); this topic is complex rather than the singular subject of Jewish-Russian relations as found in “Two Hundred Years Together” which is why he gave priority over to “The Red Wheel.”

Yet simpletons like to look for simple narratives. John Wear states proudly.

“Solzhenitsyn’s books are all readily available on Amazon except for “200 Years Together”. This later book is threatening to the establishment…”

This myth that “Two Hundred Years Together” is being “suppressed” was started by David Duke. It became a meme in 2013 which Duke used for interviews where he would first recite his hoax Solzhenitsyn quote, explain how the book was allegedly “threatening” then he would tell his audience that they should instead buy his book “The Secret Behind Communism.”

It was a marketing ploy and nothing else.

As stated by Daniel Mahoney (the leading scholar on Solzhenitsyn in English/French) over 3 million copies of “Two Hundred Years Together” were sold, an international bestseller.

Solzhenitsyn does not claim the Jews were behind the breakdown of the Tsarist autocracy or later the overthrow of the Provisional Government that replaced the Tsar in February that kept the system in place and held the Russians in the War that eventually led into October where the Provisional Government then walked away and allowed Lenin’s rise.

The ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevism denialists are really going crazy in this thread.

I never claimed that Schiff supported the Bolsheviks, this is contradictory to his support of the February Revolution and the Provisional Government. Why would Schiff go against his own interests to then switch sides over to the Bolsheviks? It makes no sense.

This narrative comes from people who hear that he supported the Russian Revolution, which he did in February, and being unfamiliar with the subject attach it instead to the wrong event in October.

“Schiff had no interest in getting tied down with any specific party in Russia. But a lone individual without any party who was preaching against WWI would be someone that Schiff would have an interest in temporarily helping.”

Why then did Schiff support the Provisional Government that kept Russia in the War? His issue was not over WW1, instead it came from mistreatment of the Jews. You present Schiff as being a Communist, which he wasn’t, by claiming that he would have promoted a vague “two-stage revolution.”

“As far as the later events with Stalin as General Secretary, Lenin was trying to remove Stalin from that position shortly before his death. He even tried forming an alliance with Trotsky for the purposes of moving against Stalin. Of course Lenin still had no interest in seeing Trotsky emerge as the principal leader of the party. If Lenin had recovered for another year he undoubtedly would have stripped Stalin of the General Secretary position while forming a temporary alliance with Trotsky that would still be only a short-term arrangement.”

This is contradictory, you have claimed that Lenin was trying to remove Stalin to form an alliance with Trotsky to state “Of course Lenin still had no interest in seeing Trotsky emerge as the principal leader of the party.” to “If Lenin had recovered for another year he undoubtedly would have stripped Stalin of the General Secretary position while forming a temporary alliance with Trotsky that would still be only a short-term arrangement.” Stalin would have never been assigned as General Secretary of the Party had, according to you, Lenin distrusted him. Stalin was his loyal servant which is why he established himself through the party becoming 2nd in line.

As for Lenin’s supposed “testament,” there is no evidence that this was genuine, all evidences points to it being an invention of Krupskaya, Lenin’s wife as shown by Stephen Kotkin. see, “Vol. 1, Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928” or a background summary.

Video Link

Your own sources are compatible with what I said.

I thought you said Trotsky wasn’t a Bolshevik?

Your own source specifically states “he sided with Julius Martov’s Mensheviks..”

That split occurred much earlier, in 1903:

During the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party 1903 ideological split he sided with Julius Martov’s Mensheviks against Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

However there is no evidence of Schiff ever having given any support to Lenin’s Bolshevik faction.

I think this comment by Ron Unz should put this issue to rest:

All credible contemporaneous observers, including leading political figures, top journalists, and American, British, and French Intelligence agreed that Schiff had been a crucial financial backer of the Bolsheviks, and his own grandson later confirmed that fact. But you prefer to emphasize that some writers two or three or four generations later say “Nope, it never happened!”

https://www.unz.com/article/solzhenitsyns-two-hundred-years-together/#comment-4545217

Properly speaking, Trotsky wasn’t even a Menshevik. He fell out with both factions in 1903. His writing of Our Political Tasks was a polemic against Lenin. But the Menshevik theory of two-stage revolution was so directly opposed to his own theory of permanent revolution that he couldn’t actually join with them either. This is actually the kind of point which makes it easy to believe that Schiff may have supported Trotsky’s hotel bill in New York in early 1917. Schiff had no interest in getting tied down with any specific party in Russia. But a lone individual without any party who was preaching against WWI would be someone that Schiff would have an interest in temporarily helping.

As far as the later events with Stalin as General Secretary, Lenin was trying to remove Stalin from that position shortly before his death. He even tried forming an alliance with Trotsky for the purposes of moving against Stalin. Of course Lenin still had no interest in seeing Trotsky emerge as the principal leader of the party. If Lenin had recovered for another year he undoubtedly would have stripped Stalin of the General Secretary position while forming a temporary alliance with Trotsky that would still be only a short-term arrangement. But again, this was long after the time when Trotsky was in New York and has absolutely nothing to do with that era.

Your own sources are compatible with what I said. Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks after July 1917. The time that he spent in New York was up to about April 1917. He definitely was not a Bolshevik during that time and moreover the record shows numerous fierce polemics between Trotsky and Lenin right up through that time. Your own source specifically states “he sided with Julius Martov’s Mensheviks..”

As far as “financed the enemies of autocratic Russia” goes, that statement is general enough that it doesn’t warrant more than a small qualifier. The overthrow of the Czarist monarchy was obviously supported by the vast majority of Russians. Anyone who bothers to look through the accounts of how both the 1905 and February 1917 revolutions broke out will realize that much. The Bolsheviks were just one single faction among all of the various revolutionary groups which existed at the time. Even if one were to count the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, two different factions of what was originally the Russian Social Democratic Party, as one unit there would still be plenty of others left. The Social Revolutionaries were much more based on the peasant populace, and the Popular Socialists were an offshoot of the Social Revolutionaries. There’s no reason to dispute that someone like Jacob Schiff tried to support elements who were fighting the Czarist monarchy.

However there is no evidence of Schiff ever having given any support to Lenin’s Bolshevik faction. What someone like Schiff wanted was to create a liberal society in which the monarchy would either be abolished or else it would take the form of the British monarchy in a constitutional order. It certainly is plausible that Schiff would have given aid to Trotsky in New York at a time when Trotsky was trying to argue against US entry into the war against the Central Powers. It’s also plausible that Schiff gave Trotsky the alleged 10,000 dollars that was allegedly found on him when he transported back to Russia. But Schiff never gave Trotsky 20 million dollars and he never gave the Bolsheviks a penny.

But Unz forgets to remind readers that Leon Trotsky was not a Bolshevik.

Not Bolshevik? You need to edit the following wiki entry on Leon Trotsky to make that correction.

Trotsky only became a Bolshevik in 1917, since 1903 he was a Menshevik. Trotsky at the time wrote and opposed Lenin, it’s why they could never get along, only with Trotsky’s influence at establishing the Red Army into the Civil War did Lenin keep him around. Lenin was tactical, Stalin was the 2nd in line as General Secretary of the Party not Trotsky as of their past rivalry.

John Wear says

“I recommend you read David Duke’s book “Jewish Supremacism” some time. It is a really good book. For your information, Duke spent a lot of time with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 2002 while Duke was in Russia. They conducted research in the Soviet archives together. Solzhenitsyn would not have spent so much time with David Duke if Duke was the horrible person that you and the mass media try to make him out to be.”

There is no evidence that Duke ever even met Solzhenitsyn, Duke still in almost 20 years never stated where they allegedly came together, at what meeting nothing that can be validated. Never mind the bogus claim that they did “research” Duke does not speak Russian, and Solzhenitsyn never spoke English. Their works are not in common at all, however much Duke attempts to merge himself while creating a hoax quote that even misrepresent Solzhenitsyn works. Just the same as you Wear as shown above.

Why did Duke not include his invented 2013 quote, in his 2002 or 2007 editions of “Jewish Supremacism” while Solzhenitsyn was still alive? Yet Duke claims it was published in a 2002 newsletter “The Duke Report, “A Life-Changing Conversation in Moscow” which likewise has never been found.

The first recorded time that Duke presented his quote to the world was in 2013 while attempting to source funds from his readers. It was created merely for interest of money and ideology, it certainly does not represent Solzhenitsyn works, writing or even style, but it does of Dukes.

Whatever you think of the ADL, it’s the first time Duke made his hoax quote available.
https://www.adl.org/blog/david-duke-solicits-funds-to-distribute-new-anti-semitic-book

This piece is discredited by its selective usages against Solzhenitsyn.

See the contradictions which shows that author John Wear as never read Solzhenitsyn.

>[Solzhenitsyn had a deep-seated disdain for the Western media, which he revealed in his interview with Sixty Minutes. When asked to respond to an American commentator who had branded him “a freak, a monarchist, an anti-Semite, a crank, a has-been, not a hero,” Solzhenitsyn replied:

“The Western press works in the following way: they don’t read my books. No one has ever given a single quotation from any of my books as a basis for these accusations. But every new journalist reads these opinions from other journalists. They have been just as spiteful to me in the American press as the Soviet press was before.”]

Now see Wear do the exact against same Solzhenitsyn.

“After extensive research, Solzhenitsyn realized that the Russian Revolution was primarily perpetrated by Jews, most of whom were imported into Russia from other countries.”

Solzhenitsyn never claimed either of the Russian Revolution were created and “was primarily perpetrated by Jews”]

See:

“Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies (in Chapters 9 and 14) that the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 were the result of a “Jewish conspiracy” (just as he had earlier forcefully criticized the extreme nationalists who were and are obsessed with Freemasons and Jews—see, e.g., Russia in Collapse, Chapter 25, “The Maladies of Russian Nationalism”).” Meanwhile, readers need to be forewarned that any and all English versions of ‘Two Hundred Years Together’ available on the Internet… are illegal, pirated, and/or entirely unauthorized; often poorly and loosely translated; and redact passages, and indeed whole chapters, that apparently do not support the prejudices of those behind these illegal editions.”

https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-writings/large-works-and-novels/two-hundred-years-together

John Wear claims

>He said in 2002:

“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.

The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.

It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”]

Yet, this is a hoax quotation invented by “Dr.” David Duke he first introduced in 2013 while crowd-funding money for the publication of his, “The Secret Behind Communism” no source of his 2002 newsletter The Duke Report, “A Life-Changing Conversation in Moscow” he claims he first published it in has ever been found, while Duke neither included it in any of his books like “Jewish Supremacism” (2002 or its 2007 reprint) even though Duke quotes Solzhenitsyn in them.

As previously stated in this piece when Solzhenitsyn defended himself against both the US/Russian press calling him an anti-Semite, “The Western press works in the following way: they don’t read my books. No one has ever given a single quotation from any of my books as a basis for these accusations…” John likewise never quotes his work, instead you are dependent on this hoax quote by David Duke that contradicts Solzhenitsyn’s own works.

>Solzhenitsyn wrote a two-volume nonfiction work titled Two Hundred Years Together. The first volume, published in 2001, was Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916 and ran to 512 pages. The second volume, which was published in 2002, was a 600-page investigation titled The Jews in the Soviet Union.[33] This second volume exposed the predominantly Jewish constitution of the Bolshevik Revolution. No English-language translation of this work has been commercially published, and the only version of it offered on Amazon is the original Russian, at $978 as of May 2021.”]

Even this summary of the book is wrong, again it shows that John Wear as never read Solzhenitsyn. “Two Hundred Years Together” was about Jewish-Russian relations as living together for the past 200 years, it has nothing to do with this fantasy claims that it allegedly “exposed the predominantly Jewish constitution of the Bolshevik Revolution.”

Which Solzhenitsyn in the very book himself dismisses, both of 1905 and 1917 (February/October).

John Wear’s “insights” are wholly based off a neo-Nazi translation that is poorly made, selectively edited and redacted whole chapters that contradicts this narrative Wear is attempting to propagate.

“In The Red Wheel Solzhenitsyn had shown the Revolution in full complexity; and indeed—to avoid boiling down that complexity or skewing it via the narrow prism of Russian-Jewish relations—he gave The Red Wheel priority of publication in every major language, ahead of Two Hundred Years Together. And so likewise in English, an authorized translation of Two Hundred Years Together will follow The Red Wheel.”

https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-writings/large-works-and-novels/two-hundred-years-together

>”…Dr. David Duke writes about Solzhenitsyn: “He was a victim of Bolshevism and through his literary genius he laid bare the most horrific killing machine in all of world history.”]

And again, David Duke with his hoax quote influences John’s views which are in contradiction to Solzhenitsyn’s work.

https://archive.org/details/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-you-must-understand-debunked

But Unz forgets to remind readers that Leon Trotsky was not a Bolshevik.

Not Bolshevik? You need to edit the following wiki entry on Leon Trotsky to make that correction.

Excerpts from Leon Trotsky:

Political party
* Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (1898–1903)
* Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) (1903–1918)
* Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (1918–1927)…

During the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party 1903 ideological split he sided with Julius Martov’s Mensheviks against Lenin’s Bolsheviks. Trotsky helped organize the failed Russian Revolution of 1905, after which he was again arrested and exiled to Siberia. He once again escaped and spent the following years working in Austria, Switzerland, France, Spain and the United States. After the 1917 February Revolution brought an end to the Tsarist monarchy, Trotsky returned to Russia and became a leader in the Bolshevik faction…

Once in government, Trotsky initially held the post of Commissar for Foreign Affairs and became directly involved in the 1917-1918 Brest-Litovsk negotiations with Germany as Russia pulled out of the First World War. From March 1918 to January 1925 Trotsky headed the Red Army as People’s Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs and played a vital role in the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922. He became one of the seven members of the first Bolshevik Politburo in 1919…

The following summary of Trotsky’s role in 1917 was written by Stalin in Pravda, 6 November 1918. Although this passage was quoted in Stalin’s book The October Revolution (1934), it was expunged from Stalin’s Works (1949).

All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military Revolutionary Committee was organized.

…

By the end of 1917, Trotsky was unquestionably the second man in the Bolshevik Party after Lenin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

Like I said already, that claim of “Schiff gave the Bolsheviks 20 million dollars” seems to be the offspring of 2 distinct stories merged into a hybrid through the gossip column at New York Journal-American.

Gossip column? Does the same criticism apply to The Jewish Communal Register of New York City?

Excerpt from Jacob Schiff:

The Jewish Communal Register of New York City stated that “Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money markets of the United States.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

While I’m willing to take the time to rake through more muck whether made up by Unz or anyone else, I noticed right away that your link just shows Unz regurgitating the hoax of the New York Journal-American gossip column. Anyone who has looked into the bit of gossip realizes that it was not a news report based upon journalistic investigation of any kind. It was a society gossip column with no credentials behind it. You might just as well cite Ann Landers for proof of the Dachau gas chamber.

When Unz gets to something that has some substance to it, he distorts the facts. He mentions the book by Kenneth Ackerman, Trotsky in New York. But Unz forgets to remind readers that Leon Trotsky was not a Bolshevik. Although Ackerman may be a bit skeptical, there wouldn’t be anything surprising about finding confirmation that Schiff probably did give some aid to Trotsky while Trotsky was in New York. Anyone familiar with Schiff knows that he was opposed to the US joining with the Allies against Germany as long as the Czarist monarchy was in power. Trotsky spent his time in New York telling everyone that the First World War was a bad thing and working people shouldn’t want to join it. There’s no surprise at the suggestion that Schiff may have given aid to Trotsky during this time.

But Schiff never gave aid to the Bolsheviks and Trotsky was not a Bolshevik in early 1917. That understates the matter. Trotsky and Lenin were 2 of the most vituperatively hostile figures on the Russian Left-wing of that time. Since 1904 when Trotsky wrote Our Political Tasks they had been on bitter terms. Lenin’s own comments from February 1917 still show him denouncing Trotsky. There was no reason in the world why Schiff or anyone else would have associated Trotsky with Lenin.

More than that, no one who was familiar with Trotsky’s style would have envisioned him as ever gaining any power anywhere. It was Lenin who built the Bolshevik party-machine with the intent of eventually being able to take hold of power as the Czarist state self-destructed (and he knew that it would eventually). Trotsky, despite many formal differences, shared more in common with Solzhenitsyn than with Lenin. Both Trotsky and Solzhenitsyn gloried in the role as the individualistic outside dissenter; neither had any qualifications for building a functional party that could act as an organized machine; yet both attracted special cults of followers who could be very dedicated to hanging on every word of the great author.

So if Trotsky had not managed to join with Lenin after July 1917 then he would have been politically helpless. He was just a charismatic individual with no organization before July 1917. After being exiled from the USSR Trotsky did attempt to build his own Fourth International. The outcome of that simply showed again that Trotsky had no ability for organizing a coherent apparatus. All that he got out of it were feuding sectarian cults.

Anyway, the point is that if Jacob Schiff had in early 1917 been at all interested in facilitating the rise to power of the Bolsheviks then he would have contacted Lenin but not Trotsky. If somehow Schiff had contacted Lenin and asked him about Trotsky then Lenin would likely have told Schiff to leave Trotsky stuck somewhere in Harlem and don’t send him back to Russia. There was no alliance between Lenin and Trotsky.

Until the July Uprising was launched at the initiative of anarchist in July 1917. That outbreak convinced Lenin and Trotsky together that the time was soon to be at hand for making the revolution. In all of his previous years Trotsky had sharply attacked Lenin’s model of a revolutionary party, yet now in the face of revolution breaking out all across Russia Trotsky suddenly became persuaded of the need to have an effective apparatus. He saw at that moment that his rhetorical skills would not be enough to enable him to lead the revolution.

Meanwhile, having been shipped back to Russia by Wilhelm II, Lenin was also becoming fed up with his own party. Many of the early critiques of Lenin’s party-model made by Leon Trotsky or Rosa Luxemburg had argued that Lenin would simply breed a stale bureaucratic machine of pencil-pushers. Lenin saw this happening when he arrived in Russia. People like Kamenev, Zinoviev and even Stalin at first were simply working to build political careers within the new Provisional Government apparatus. They weren’t showing much sign at first of acting as the revolutionary vanguard. Something needed to be done to shake the party up by bringing in someone new who was more dynamic.

It was in that context that seemingly out of nowhere Lenin and Trotsky joined hands in political alliance, and history was made. But there is no way on earth that Jacob Schiff or anyone in New York could have foreseen something like this before July 1917. While it probably is true that Schiff did support Trotsky in New York out of opposition to US entry into WWI, that had absolutely no bearing on any claims that Schiff or anyone else in New York somehow brought the Bolsheviks to power. It’s a moronic claim popular among the Right, but several times dumber than even Rezun gets.

Like I said already, that claim of “Schiff gave the Bolsheviks 20 million dollars” seems to be the offspring of 2 distinct stories merged into a hybrid through the gossip column at New York Journal-American. There were reports that Trotsky himself was found to be carrying 10,000 during his trip back to Russia from New York. That much is quite plausible, as is the suggestion that he got the money from Schiff. But Trotsky was not a Bolshevik at this time and so not only does this not support the claim of Schiff-aligned-with-Lenin but it flatly contradicts it.

Then there are other reports that after the Provisional Government of Kerensky had been overthrown there were attempts by the Allies to turn the Kaiser’s own trick back at him. Just as the German Army had given Lenin aid in arriving in Russia and setting up his newspaper, the Allies now hoped to fund revolutionary propaganda in Germany. This may have involved the Allies in sending 20 million dollars to Bolsheviks. Of course such money would have had absolutely no relevance in deciding the Russian Civil War. By early 1918 the social breakdown across Russia was such that possessing foreign dollar bills was meaningless for domestic purposes. That money would have been used to fund propaganda abroad, most obviously in Germany.

There is no evidence that Schiff had anything to do with such efforts to fund Bolshevik propaganda in Germany. Nor is there much evidence that attempts to do so had much effect. The uprising among the German soldiers broke out when Ludendorff was forced to concede defeat, but then tried to order the soldiers into a suicidal attack. In any event, the issue of Allied diplomats attempting to fund Bolshevik propaganda in Germany has nothing to do with Trotsky’s stay in New York.

If you expect that Solzhenitsyn in general blames the Revolution on the Jews then you’ll be bitterly disappointed, to say the least.

(As a side note, Solzhenitsyn was a staunch supporter of Israel and Zionism in general, so he already didn’t have a quarrel with that part of the Jewry for sure. Here’s a rare example where it’s discussed in English – with real quotes from 200 Years:

That’s what you wrote. I’m not disappointed at all. In fact, Solzhenitsyn’s treatment on Jews settlement in Israel in “The Birth of Zionism” chapter is completely fair to the point where you don’t even know where his sentiment exists. That’s why he kept saying broaching about Zionism subject always carries reproach on both sides. People don’t read his book, but just label him as anti-Semite or anti-Jews. He treaded the subject with the most objective manners. But that doesn’t say he’s for Israel and Zionism. Zionism also hurts those Jews who were already assimilated to their newly found motherland, either in Russia or Europe. There’s a clash of Jews and Zionists, both in Europe and Russia.

That’s why I said if your claim of AS being pro-Israel and Zionism is widely accepted sentiment, why had he been ‘canceled’?

Well, I thought you’d be well aware of “canceled” parlance in 2021 and how it reflects the discrepancy between the sentiment perceived by the mass and those gatekeepers.

The Chinese FM was masterfully understating. The Western liars guilty of LYING about ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang, seem to have forgotten the genocides of the Indigenous of the Americas, Australia, and Africa, particularly the hecatomb of ten million in the Congo, the utter brutality of Dutch rule in the East Indies, the tens of millions killed in Great Famines in India under English misrule, the horrors of the Taiping Revolution, the Boxer Revolution and the Opium Wars in China, The Nazi genocides, the French atrocities in Algeria, US genocides in Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan etc, etc, etc. The sheer diabolical villainy of Western racist hypocrites is almost beyond belief. Imagine if, as in Canada, they had just unearthed the bodies of over 200 children murdered by the authorities in Xinjiang, surely only one of many such horrors.

Perhaps the Soviet authorities realised that Solzhenitsyn, like the vile Anatoly Sharansky, was just a nassty shit.

I’m not sure what exactly your question is about and what was “canceled”. I posted a link that specifically deals with Solzhenitsyn’s attitudes to Israel including his own words and quotes from the book.

His position was akin to Churchill’s: he hated Jewish (and non-Jewish) Communists – but didn’t have anything Israel and Zionism.

Rand Paul talking about self-declared brainiacs like utu:

Video Link

More Right-wing garbage.

You must have missed this comment by Ron Unz?

Schiff supported the February revolution and the Provisional Government, not the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution which is often misrepresented into the wrong revolution of 1917.

That’s just propaganda and total nonsense. There’s strong even overwhelming evidence that Schiff was a key financial backer of the Bolsheviks, and remained closely aligned with them up to his death in 1920. You might want to read my 2018 article on those issues:

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/

And here’s a short passage from the personal memoirs of Henry Wickham Steed, a leading foreign correspondent and former Editor of the Times of London, then the world’s most authoritative newspaper:

Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference — a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists…
…the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.

A large number of additional links are also provided in a long comment of mine from earlier this year:

https://www.unz.com/article/the-russian-revolution-separating-truth-from-myth/?showcomments#comment-4411642

https://www.unz.com/article/solzhenitsyns-two-hundred-years-together/#comment-4544712

More Right-wing garbage. First of all it should be mentioned that even if your fable of Jacob Schiff giving the Bolsheviks 20 million dollars were true, it would have no relevance to the issue of why did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War. Russia was in a state of collapse and one couldn’t buy votes or anything like that. The Whites were defeated because no one was willing to fight for them. At the beginning when it seemed as if the conflict might be between the Bolsheviks and the rest of the Left then there was a substantive sector of the populace which supported the latter, but that faded away when Kolchak had destroyed. No money was involved in deciding the outcome of the Russian Civil War.

Now the issue what is that fake story of Jacob Schiff giving the Bolsheviks 29 million dollars about and where did it come from? It may have arisen from 2 different stories which are more plausible. First there are reports that in the early months of 1918 the Allies attempted to fund propaganda inside Germany through the Bolsheviks. This has nothing to do with Jacob Schiff.

This would have had no relevance on the course of the Russian Civil War, but may have involved a total like the fabled 20 million. Not that it seems to have had much effect on Germany either. The German troops rebelled in late 1918 when Ludendorff wanted to throw their lives away. But nothing before that seems to have had much effect,

Second, there are reports that when Trotsky was returning to Russia in April 1917 that he was stopped along the way and found to have about 10,000 (not 20 million) mysteriously packaged away. Although no clear source for this has ever been traced, the suggestion that it may actually have come from Schiff is at least worth entertaining. Of course, Trotsky was not a Bolshevik at this time. Anyone familiar with the record knows that Trotsky and Lenin were extremely vituperative opponents of each other in early 1917. That actually gives credence to the idea that maybe Schiff did give Trotsky this bit of aid. If he did, then Schiff would have been giving it someone who was a political exile with no major political party around him. There was no way that anyone in April 1917 could have foreseen that Trotsky and Lenin would join together 3 months later. It was only that reconciliation which made it possible for Trotsky to suddenly gain a position of authority. If Schiff had wanted to fund a revolution he would have contacted Lenin. There’s no evidence that he ever did.

Some decades later there was an entertainment editorial which seems to have merged these 2 stories together into the claim that Schiff had given 20 million dollars to the Bolsheviks to make a revolution. Elizabeth Dilling repeated the legend uncritically and since then the hoax has been passed around on the Right as a fact. Jacob Schiff never gave the alleged 20 million to either Trotsky or anyone else eventually linked with the Bolsheviks.

As I already said, the only time-frame in which monetary aid would even have been relevant would have been in the early to late 1917 when Kaiser Wilhelm II provided some money for helping Lenin set up Pravda and related organs. Even that, however, should not be exaggerated in significance. The Russian Civil War was not something decided by payouts. It happened amidst total social breakdown where trying to buy voters would have been irrelevant. The bad politics of the Whites were the decisive factor in shaping the course of things.

Alan Savory talking about “utu”:

Video Link

Solzhenitsyn may be just honest enough to avoid blathering about a Jewish conspiracy as the cause of the revolution, but his main ideological goal was to obscure the real facts about the revolution.

Jewish conspiracy? Speaking of obscuring the facts, why not mention the humongous role played by Jewish banker, Jacob Schiff? Wasn’t he the man who provided the financing to his “fellow Bolsheviks” to the tune of $20 million (that’s in 2017. In today’s dollars, estimates range from half a billion to two billion)? How does the saying go? Oh, I remember… “follow the shekels!”

By the way, I luv your screen name… Patrick McNally… much more discreet than Shlomo McShmuel.

“If you expect .. bitterly disappointed…”

Even Solzhenitsyn can sometimes be held to a standard which demands more than literary talent. Every single actual historical account of the events in Russia makes it clear that the overwhelming majority demanded the overthrow of the old social order. The only point one can make about Jews and other ethnic minorities such as Poles (Felix Dzerzhinsky) or Georgians (Joseph Stalin) is that the more educated revolutionary leadership tended to come from these non-Russian sectors. All that that signified was that the educated ethnic Russians tended to blinded by their own privileged status to the point where they failed to read the scene around themselves. The uprising of January 22, 1905, had shown how easily a popular spontaneous explosion could break out without and party-handlers managing it, but the Czarist aristocracy closed its eyes to the writing on the wall.

It’s not even correct to say that those Jewish intellectuals who leaned to the Left gravitated towards the Bolsheviks per se. Every examination of the Bolshevik/Menshevik in the Russian Social Democratic Party which happened in 1902-4 showed that Jewish members of the RSDP were more likely to become Mensheviks or else go independent (Leon Trotsky). In the context of the early days of the Russian Civil War it was common for Jewish shopkeepers to eagerly welcome the Whites whenever a town was captured from the Red Army, only to be met with pogroms which forced the Jewish population to turn their support back to the Bolsheviks.

Simultaneously the most important conflict in the Russian Civil War was the war of the Whites against the Russian peasantry who were determined to seize the lands of the old aristocracy. The Whites carried out their own massacres of such peasants in ways which easily compensated for the tensions between the Bolsheviks and non-urban sectors. This was the most important factor in determining the outcome of the Russian Civil War, not anything having to do with Jews. The Bolsheviks were in a rather touchy position because, having taken control of the major cities, they now depended upon taking food from the countryside to feed to urban centers. With the whole country breaking down this clearly led to conflict between the Bolsheviks and the countryside.

But the land-owning aristocracy from Czarist times which defined the orientation of the Whites meant that the primary conflict was always between the peasants and the Whites as long as the latter were undefeated. After the defeat of the Whites Lenin saw the need to drop the “War Communism” which had prevailed throughout the Civil War and adopt the New Economic Policy, which would be dumped later in 1928 when Stalin launched the push for the first five-year plan. However the Civil War could easily have had a different outcome if the White leadership had been dedicated towards building some kind of populist movement among the peasants. But that notion was completely alien to the way of thinking held by Kornilov, Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, Unger, Semyonov and the White leadership overall.

Knowing Solzhenitsyn’s style he probably does not try to go so far overboard as claiming that the revolution was somehow made by a Jewish conspiracy. He more likely simply harps upon any example of a Jewish Leftist being involved in events (even a Menshevik like Julius Martov might be tossed in as part of an ideological rant) but downplays the clear evidence of mass-support for the general revolutionary cause among the overwhelming majority of Russians. The only reason that the Russian Civil War ever even occurred was because of the split which planed the Bolsheviks at odds with the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists and a melange of anarchistic groups. As far as the majority of Russians were concerned, they never fought at all in defense of the pre-revolutionary order.

The Bolsheviks had maintained that for the revolution to triumph it was necessary for a tightly formed revolutionary party to take the vanguard leadership. The Whites did everything possible to prove the Bolsheviks right. If they had been smarter they would have declared their loyalty to the Constituent Assembly that was voted in shortly after the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government. Lenin had made a great demand of Kerensky that elections should be held to the Constituent Assembly. They were held shortly after the October Revolution, and the Left-wing rivals of the Bolsheviks won a huge victory.

That was when Trotsky (who had only joined with the Bolsheviks in July 1917) dismissed the Assembly. The members of the Assembly retreated to the east to form their own potential government, but they were all assassinated and executed by Admiral Kolchak. That put an end to any popular alternative to the Bolsheviks. Solzhenitsyn may be just honest enough to avoid blathering about a Jewish conspiracy as the cause of the revolution, but his main ideological goal was to obscure the real facts about the revolution.

Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution
Nobel laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

“But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

“My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews – their spiritual component,” he said. “I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

Did you read the 200 years together carefully? Not that I don’t want to downplay your view, but the entire book was filled with contemporary references on anti-Jews from every person you can think of and Solzhenitsyn was not anti-Jews at all and favor Israel and Zion?

Are you sure about that?

Even given the benefit of the doubt on his allegedly new found love on Israel and Zion, why had he been “canceled” ?

LeoB

Thanks for the information. I will read the English translation of “Two Hundred Years Together” when it comes out in 2024.

Well I’m glad that this discussion was productive, especially for protecting the legacy of Solzhenitsyn and the proper attribution of his words.

Regarding your question: I read the book years ago (as well as quite a few different works that analyze the book from different sides – all in Russian, of course).

If you expect that Solzhenitsyn in general blames the Revolution on the Jews then you’ll be bitterly disappointed, to say the least.

(As a side note, Solzhenitsyn was a staunch supporter of Israel and Zionism in general, so he already didn’t have a quarrel with that part of the Jewry for sure. Here’s a rare example where it’s discussed in English – with real quotes from 200 Years: http://www.peterbrooke.org/politics-and-theology/solzhenitsyn/shafarevich/israel.html)

And if you’re looking for a confirmation that a certain part of the Jewry was actively involved in the Revolution (as well as its atrocities), then I don’t know why the hell do you need to wait for the translation. This fact is well known for decades and even in Wikipedia you can find tons of info on this (not to mention countless other sources).

Plus 200 Years was translated into French long time ago. There’s quite a few people in France who are dealing with the “Jewish question” one way or another. Some of them are quite well known. Why not to contact them directly and ask what they found, as well as for whatever juicy quotes they can provide – the real ones, with references to their location in the book?

And lastly, it looks like the English translation is expected in 2024: https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-writings/large-works-and-novels/two-hundred-years-together

(BTW, on the same page they also mention that “In Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies (in Chapters 9 and 14) that the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 were the result of a “Jewish conspiracy””… [etc])

You need a PhD to fully understand one’s sentiment, internalize someone else psyche, reflect upon the historical context and project their thoughts. Otherwise, you can’t claim what someone else sentiment could/would/should have been.

Besides, it must be a rigid curricula to fully absorb the authority over someone’s thoughts. An honorary PhD degree won’t do justice. If you’re from Podunk University, you’re out. One plus one makes two only in American Universities with rigid curricula. We are not sure if one plus one makes other numbers in Ukrainian Universities. This is universal value.

By any sane standards Solzhenitsyn discredited himself with his claims that the US should have gone on fighting in Vietnam during his Harvard Address:

“Your short-sighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looks over you. Small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation’s courage.”
— Commencement Address Delivered at Harvard University, June 8, 1978

Chomsky and Herman were being totally fair to Solzhenitsyn when they gave their judgment:

“…the most generous reaction must be pity — and distress at the fact that the Soviet state has reduced so many of its most courageous dissidents to such blindly destructive hostility.”
— The Washington Connection, p. 38.

Except that they’re exaggerating Solzhenitsyn’s courage. When Solzhenitsyn was arrested back in WWII it wasn’t for any explicit dissident act. It was just the paranoia of the GPU/NKVD over some disgruntled sentiments. Certainly it was tragic to be sent to a prison labor camp over this, but it wasn’t an explicit act of courage on Solzhenitsyn’s part. Later when he was released by Khrushchev he was originally encouraged to start writing as part of de-Stalinization. This didn’t require any courage. After Khrushchev had been turned out the Brezhnev clique began to tighten things up, but not like before the “Secret Speech” of 1956.

When the new authorities had enough of Solzhenitsyn they simply deposited him abroad as an exile. The KGB was now much more cautious about casually executing dissidents the way that was done in Latin America during the 1970s. So, sure, Solzhenitsyn lived through some terrible times but this was less a matter of him being courageous and more a case of unwittingly bringing hell down on himself. The way that he positioned himself as an advocate for the New Cold War of the 1980s shows that he was not such an outstanding dissident. He simply would have been more suited for the Cold War as it was in the 1950s. Maybe if he had been exiled 2 decades earlier he might have gone to Vietnam in the 1960s and come out a changed man again. We’ll never know.

If Elizabeth of Russia (1741) said this and described in 200 years together by Solzhenitsyn,

that these jews still find themselves in our realm and, under various pretexts, especially in Little Russia, they prolong their stay, which is in no way beneficial; but as we must expect only great injuries to our loyal subjects from such haters of the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, [G29] we order: all jews, male and female, along with their entire possession, to be sent without delay from our realm, over the border, and in the future not allowed back in, unless it should be that one of them should confess our Greek-Christian religion.”

I won’t be surprised to learn the same sentiment from Solzhenitsyn regarding the aforementioned hearsay.

John Wear,

You could use blockquote to respond somebody’s statement. It’s hard to follow your thought when you doing Q&A without bolding the Q or make it prominent.

You write: ““Do you know that Duke had taken no classes at MAUP ” – Do you know that he took classes?”

My response: I don’t know the details of when and how many classes David Duke took at MAUP to receive his PhD in history. To be honest, I don’t know the details of when and how many classes all of the other historians on the planet took to receive their PhDs in history. These are details I never ask about.

You are, however, the one assuming that David Duke did not take all of the required classes to earn a legitimate PhD in history at MAUP. Until you can provide tangible proof that Duke’s PhD in history at MAUP was not legitimately earned, I will assume that it was.

The article you cite at https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/ has references from the ADL, the SLPC and other biased sources. It also has a number of mistakes:

1. Duke was born July 1, 1950. He is 70 years old, and not age 71 as stated in the article;
2. Duke is referred to in the article as “America’s best-known white supremacist”, even though Duke is not a supremacist;
3. Duke is referred to in the article as an anti-Semite, even though Duke is not anti-Semitic;
4. Duke has always preached non-violence. His KKK never participated in violence, as is implied in this article;
5. The article states that Duke “ultimately threw his support to Democratic contender Tulsi Gabbard.” Actually, as Duke states on his website, Duke never formally endorsed Gabbard. Duke merely said he approved of Tulsi Gabbard’s anti-war stance.

“Do you know that Duke had taken no classes at MAUP ” – Do you know that he took classes?

This article that tries to trace Duke’s itinerary claims that he did not go to Ukraine until 2002 when he he was awarded his honorary degree.

https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/

But the same year he returns to the US to face Federal charges; is convicted in April 2003 and fined $10,000 and sentenced to 15 months in prison. After his release from prison and the half way house he had only 12 months before the ceremony of being awarded his Ph.D in September 2005. But I do not know if he even when to Ukraine for extended period in 2004/2005 to be able to participate in classes. It all looks like a sham that his Ph.D was awarded not differently than his honorary degree three years earlier.

The irony of it all.

You write about David Duke: “Duke was rereleased from Federal Prison in April 2004 and then had to spend several months in the half way house in Louisiana. He was awarded his Ph.D in September 2005. He did not have more than one year to take what a normal student would had to take in a normal university to earn his degree.”

My response: Duke had been in Ukraine before he came back to the United States in 2002. Your statement assumes that Duke had taken no classes at MAUP prior to his returning to the United States. Do you know that Duke had taken no classes at MAUP prior to his release from Federal Prison in Big Spring, Texas and the half-way house in Louisiana?

For your information, I did email Germar Rudolf at Inconvenient History and asked him to change the words before this quote from “He said in 2002” to “David Duke says that Solzhenitsyn told him in a private conversation in 2002.” Hopefully this change will be made in the near future.

While we’re reduced to dotting our Is and crossing our Ts, they’re not willing to budge on one iota of their gargantuan lies.

You write: “I can assure you that there’s something Solzhenitsyn did NOT say in the book: namely, that he’d love people to frivolously misquote him and attribute to him words of someone else (even if his book isn’t available in English).”

My response: You don’t know that Duke frivolously misquoted Solzhenitsyn. For all you know Duke might have quoted Solzhenitsyn accurately.

For your information, I did email Germar Rudolf at Inconvenient History and asked him to change the words before this quote from “He said in 2002” to “David Duke says that Solzhenitsyn told him in a private conversation in 2002.” Hopefully this change will be made in the near future.

I am still curious to know if Solzhenitsyn said anything in “Two Hundred Years Together” about the predominate Jewish nature of the Bolshevik Revolution. Since you speak Russian and have read the book, this should be a simple question for you to answer.

In regard to David Duke, he took all of the classes necessary and wrote his dissertation to earn his PhD in history. Duke is as credible as any other historian.

Duke was rereleased from Federal Prison in April 2004 and then had to spend several months in the half way house in Louisiana. He was awarded his Ph.D in September 2005. He did not have more than one year to take what a normal student would had to take in a normal university to earn his degree. We already know that his dissertation was his book he wrote earlier. Since in 2002 Duke was awarded honorary degree by the same university it is reasonable to assume that Due did not follow a strict course. So your statement you keep repeating that “Duke is as credible as any other historian” is nonsense.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you’ve said – except for the bit about David Irving.

Everyone’s got a breaking point and, if the level of threats and intimidation are sufficient, you too would ‘kow-tow’ to your oppressors.

As the greatest WWII historian that ever lived, the Zio-cabal went out of their way to harass Irving.
He had to be made an example of because his output was so factually unimpeachable, obtained from primary sources and lauded as the benchmark in WWII historical research.
No individual has been demonised from pillar to post, for so LONG, as has David Irving.

They crushed him financially (he lost his house and much of his fortune in the Lipstadt affair), and spiritually (culminating when in September 1999, at the age of 32, Irving’s daughter Josephine committed suicide by throwing herself out of a window of her central London flat).

Make no mistake, alongside Ernst Zundel, no one amongst the revisionists has suffered so greatly.

I am wondering if Solzhenitsyn said anything in his book about the predominant Jewish nature of the Bolshevik Revolution. I suspect he said something, because this book is not available in English.

I can assure you that there’s something Solzhenitsyn did NOT say in the book: namely, that he’d love people to frivolously misquote him and attribute to him words of someone else (even if his book isn’t available in English).

Because that’s the only topic at hand in this discussion.

In the end, you only undermine your own credibility by false-quoting Solzhenitsyn like this. What’s the point.

Isn’t it like when they’re saying Assad is an evil person who killed his own Syrian people with chemicals?

If you listened to his talk, he represents an excellent leader with manners and grace, nothing like Biden or Johnson or any of that leader. He is in fact a medical doctor, later specialized in eyes. His approval rating was like 91% of the 17 millions population.

Sometimes when you observe a person without knowing anything of their background, we humans can easily judge whether or not the person in question is utterly insane or has an ulterior motive.

I can vouch with 100% certainty that Jared Taylor is also the same caliber as a sane person and speaks with clarity so as to why diversity hurts the value and social fibre of White people. But if you search online, the first thing that you’d see in wiki was he’s White supremacist, scares the people out of the diversity context.

Recent MSM take on Asian Americans, especially Chinese Americans, also speaks volumes. MSM is now pushing the narrative that the major driving force behind the Proud Boy patronage and gofundme donations was because of Chinese Americans. You’d see what is up with the Zion-controlled MSM in their sleeves.

The same as when the US, UK and the alike are saying there’s genocide going on Xinjiang, isn’t it? When Chinese Foreign Minister (FM) Wang Yi said “My fellow European friends know much better how the genocide looks like”, German FM said it’s a new low that Chinese FM said such a thing. But there’s a mysterious driving force going on in Europe.

This week Germany announced an apology to Namibia that they were involved in Genocide in 1904 in Africa and promised to reimburse the damage by billions of dollars.

Last 2 weeks, French Macron apologized to Rwanda that they were involved in 250,000 Rwandan genocide in 1994.

UK also apologized for Blacks and Asians.

If an ordinary citizen can understand how the genocide would look like and should look like, you’re seeing how completely the entire republic is controlled by MSM and taking care of dirty business behind our back.

It’s not either pro-whatever. It’s the underlying problem that cognitive ability of European Whites are dwindling at the speed of light at Zion behest.

Utu encapsulates the problem with western “intelligentsia” today.

One timeless characteristic of these people is that due to the multitude of “titles” given to each other with great fanfare, they end up believing that they are superior to the hoi-polloi. The most crass of this class are of course Hollywood actors, who think that just because they played some fake character on a silk screen that they have some special insight and a pretense to being an instantaneous subject matter expert. Since Jews are as overrepresented in the Screen Actors Guild as they are in the Communist Party, there is a large degree of inbreeding and Jewish personality defects involved. Of course, if the Oscars and Emmys that these self promoting groups of people put on weren’t off-putting enough, it gets far worse.

Politicians come close to Hollywood actors in the degree to which they have accomplished nothing in life, yet due to their proximity to other psychopaths they believe that they have a special privilege when it comes to determining “facts”, “truth”, and most of all “the people’s will”. It is all fake, and the hoi-polloi know it but the are forced to listen to politicians blathering on in the same way that they are forced to scan through people like Utu’s inane comments.

Scientists are one of the more obnoxious groups not only due to the number of honors and titles they bestow upon themselves, but even more so in the manner that they continually dog whistle their elitist snobbery to each other. “peer reviewed”, “credentialled”, “nobel prize”, “doctor”, “professor” are among the myriad of ego massaging code words they use to prop up their own prestige and belittle the hoi-polloi. This also made them an easy mark for the Jewish Racial Supremacists who also placed their own fake “scientists” like cuckoo birds among the rare, truly talented. Today, science and scientists have become little more that cock roaches feeding off of the tablescraps thrown their way by the Jews who own the entire planet. The Climate Science Mafia is one of the supreme examples of how scientists have prostituted themselves to the racial supremacists, where cockroach climatalogists all gang up together to dog pile on anyone contesting their “science”, or even worse any of the hoi-polloi who dares to merely speak up. Utu would be at home among them.

But it is Historians who are the true scum at the bottom of the barrel. Of course it is from the holocaust is the most putrid stench of fake history and prostitute historians emanates. Their refusal to even address the 6 million number when even Auschwitz has been continually forced to revise their figures of the number of Jews gassed in 1943 and 44 that reveals their rank corruption. Of course WMD in Iraq and Building 7 come close, but it is with their bitter clinging to the jews holy 6 million holocausted jews that Historians have committed their greatest sin against humanity. 75 years later all of humanity is being bludgeoned with the holocaust bully club daily, yet faux historians like Utu insist on bitterly clinging to fake narratives that prop up their own self importance.

This is why Utu simply cannot accept that David Duke is as legitimate an historian as any Jew ever was, because Duke steadfastly refuses to give ground on the Holocaust. Where even David Irving had to kow-tow, apologize and rescind the truths he had discovered, David Duke refuses to flinch to Jewish Power. In this aspect he actually reminds one of Ernst Zündel or even Ursula Haverbeck. Compared to them Utu is a spineless worm.

I am glad you enjoyed watching David Duke’s interview with Wolf Blitzer. Obviously, Blitzer was losing the debate, so he made up an excuse that the satellite is going down.

I have seen David Duke’s interview with Phil Donahue. This interview was in November 1991 shortly before the Louisiana governor election, which Duke lost to Edwin Edwards. I was impressed at how many news reporters were at this interview in addition to the regular studio audience.

‘Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.’

The ((( Bolshevist ))) Industrial Complex.

Thank you, John Wear, for posting this instructive video of Dr. David Duke being interviewed (attacked) by Wolf Blitzer.

During the short clip, when it was apparent that Dr. Duke was winning the argument, suddenly the interview was concluded because… “the satellite” …don’t you know?!

The media cabal, having seen this performance, would not make this mistake again, and they haven’t.

Here is a clip from Dr. Duke on the Phil Donahue show (1992)…enjoy!

Video Link

You write: “As to “200 Years Together”, I fortunately don’t need any translation as I have read it in Russian. That’s exactly why, when this “quote” appeared in various memes several years ago, I was curious to find out where did it come from. Turned out it’s not from Solzhenitsyn but from David Duke.”

My response: I am wondering if Solzhenitsyn said anything in his book about the predominant Jewish nature of the Bolshevik Revolution. I suspect he said something, because this book is not available in English.

You write: “Ok so you do confirm that “the media” doesn’t care what David Duke says if the last known interview with him was in 2006. Which was my point exactly.”

My response: The major media has censored Duke because he comes off too well in his interviews with them.

You misrepresent the situation with this “quote” as well as what I said.

This quote IS FAKE when attributed directly to Solzhenitsyn (which is what you did). The only way to refer to this quote in an honest and factual way is to specify that it’s a quote from a David Duke’s book where he attributes it to Solzhenitsyn.

As to “200 Years Together”, I fortunately don’t need any translation as I have read it in Russian. That’s exactly why, when this “quote” appeared in various memes several years ago, I was curious to find out where did it come from. Turned out it’s not from Solzhenitsyn but from David Duke.

I’d expect that people who fight for historical truth and against falsification of history would be especially picky when dealing with Solzhenitsyn quotes – and especially strong ones like this quote. If anything, just to avoid being accused of the very same falsification.

The last interview of David Duke in major media I know about was in December 2006

Ok so you do confirm that “the media” doesn’t care what David Duke says if the last known interview with him was in 2006. Which was my point exactly.

John, seeing as you mention one of the world’s prominent war criminals (Tony Blair) in your comment # 160, it’s appropriate that I feature this 3 minute clip which we can all sing along to:

Video Link

Look at that photo of a young Blair at the 15 sec mark and tell me that isn’t a dead ringer for Alfred E. Neumann.

You’ll notice also the mention of the name ‘Miranda’, which was Blair’s nickname when studying at Oxford.
Miranda happens to be one of the moons of Uranus and Blair got that nickname because he had a propensity for going down on all fours and ‘gratifying’ his university colleagues.

You see, like the moon Miranda, Blair tended to orbit Ur-anus.

You write: “And the lack of professional training as a historian exactly showed in your mishandling of the quote you got from David Duke’s book.”

My response: I quoted Duke correctly and told people where I got the quote from. There is nothing wrong with this. Hopefully, we can get Solzhenitsyn’s book “Two Hundred Years Together” translated into English. I suspect we will find similar passages to the one Duke uses if this ever happens.

In regard to David Duke, he took all of the classes necessary and wrote his dissertation to earn his PhD in history. Duke is as credible as any other historian.

David Duke’s PhD dissertation was a modified version of the material in his book “Jewish Supremacism”.

So he wrote his dissertation prior to any association with an academic institution. He was a hobbyist. This does not exclude a possibility that his dissertation was Ph.D worthy but it is not exactly what your previous response was conveying: “David Duke has a PhD in history. He is as credible as any other historian.” that he was trained as a historian. Just like you who also was not trained as a historian with a degree in accounting from Southern Methodist University (1974) and degree from University of Texas Law School (1977) but later in life picked up a hobby. I am all for the hobbyist historians but I am not for misrepresenting ones credentials. And the lack of professional training as a historian exactly showed in your mishandling of the quote you got from David Duke’s book.

You write: “The media” doesn’t really care what David Duke says.”

My response: The media does care what David Duke says. This is why they always say extremely negative things about Duke to attempt to discredit him. This is also why Duke has been totally censored from interviews by all of the major media.

The last interview of David Duke in major media I know about was in December 2006 at the Iranian Holocaust convention. CNN enlisted Tony Blair to say that the Iranians were using a former KKK Grand Wizard to promote Holocaust denial. CNN also had several correspondents speak negatively about Duke, with these correspondents always referring to Duke as a former KKK Grand Wizard.

The interview is still on the internet at https://vimeo.com/34646600. Determine for yourself if what Duke says makes sense.

In comment number 127 on this discussion thread, you write: “…while most of the info is in general correct, this quote is fake…these are not words of Solzhenitsyn. these are words of David Duke, which he attributes to Solzhenitsyn…it’s not a good idea to put David Duke’s words into Solzhenitsyn’s mouth.”

Now, in comment number 156, you write in regard to this quote: “I never even claimed he [Duke] attributes it falsely.” Actually, you did claim that Duke falsely attributed this quote to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. You said that the “quote is fake” and “these are not the words of Solzhenitsyn” and “it’s not a good idea to put David Duke’s words into Solzhenitsyn’s mouth.”

The only way anyone can prove for certain that Solzhenitsyn said these words is if David Duke recorded their conversation. Also, if anyone can translate Solzhenitsyn’s book “Two Hundred Years Together” into English, it might be possible to find similar statements from Solzhenitsyn.

When you see a dark eye Blinken, you’d realize it’s going downhill.

If David Duke had falsely attributed or misrepresented Solzhenitsyn. The media would have been all over it to discredit Duke and his book.

The fact that they remained silent speaks volumes.

“The media” doesn’t really care what David Duke says. And in particular what Solzhenitsyn may or may not had told him in Russian, assuming they ever met at all.

I know it’s very tempting to think that Solzhenitsyn said this. Especially that it’s all over the Internet in all kind of memes. And yet all we know is that it’s the words David Duke attributes to Solzhenitsyn.

And that’s the only way to reference this “quote” (provided the author wants to remain honest, of course).

How do you know that David Duke is falsely attributing this quote to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?

How do you know the opposite? But regardless, whether Duke attributes it falsely or not is not the issue. I never even claimed he attributes it falsely.

In this particular case, all we know that it’s YOU who falsely claims that Solzhenitsyn said it.

If you’re really eager to use this quote from David Duke, then you should have said exactly that: “as per David Duke”, or “David Duke reports” etc.

But to say “He [Solzhenitsyn] said in 2002…” is extremely dishonest, to say the least.

Especially inappropriate in an article about Solzhenitsyn who called us to “live not by the lie” (жить не по лжи).

“Do you believe that teaching and research of history in Soviet Union was up to the standard of western universities?” That’s news, that western universities have high standards in their history departments, but I do believe most people think that, and not only in the west. Western standards stink to high heaven, not just in Europe where you are thrown in jail if you don’t accept the holocaust story that is rammed down the entire population’s throats but in the US too.

David Duke’s PhD dissertation was a modified version of the material in his book “Jewish Supremacism”. This is a truly excellent book. If you have not read this book, I highly recommend that you read it.

The fact that a 2008 U.S. State Department does not like MAUP is of no relevance to me. Do you seriously think that the U.S. State Department is objective in such matters?

I also think that the teaching and research of history in Ukraine is up to the standard of western universities. MAUP apparently allows free speech and open inquiry, while most western universities do not.