... my book has already reached the fourth edition, but it is only definitely known to me now and in a manner worthy of belief, and that through Jewish sources, that these protocols are nothing other than the strategic plans for the conquest of the world under the heel of Israel, and worked out by the leaders of the Jewish people ... and read to the Councils of Elders by the "Prince of Exile," Theodor Herzl, during the first Zionist Congress, summoned by him in August, 1897, in Basle.
... my book has already reached the fourth edition, but it is only definitely known to me now and in a manner worthy of belief, and that through Jewish sources, that these protocols are nothing other than the strategic plans for the conquest of the world under the heel of Israel, and worked out by the leaders of the Jewish people ... and read to the Councils of Elders by the "Prince of Exile," Theodor Herzl, during the first Zionist Congress, summoned by him in August, 1897, in Basle.
This is the first time Nilus has so much as hinted at the date of the alleged secret conclave of the Elders of Zion, at the close of which, according to the story of 1905 so elaborately contradicted in 1917, the protocols were stolen by a woman. It is perhaps as well to remark in passing that the first Zionist Congress was held in the open and its proceedings freely reported in the press. Now, Herzl stands among the foremost of the intellectual Jews of modern times. All his known work is characterized by clear, clean-cut reasoning and direct and forcefulstatement. All his known writings are characterized by these qualities. Whatever we may think about Zionism, it must be admitted that the great Austrian journalist and critic never lacked the courage of his convictions, as may be seen by anybody who will take the trouble to read his writings or the evidence delivered by him before the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, in 1902. If Herzl wrote these documents he adopted the disguise of the style and method of a much inferior mentality.
Unless we are to believe that he deliberately adopted a style of writing and method of reasoning entirely unfamiliar and unlike his publicly acknowledged work, for the express purpose of hiding his authorship of the protocols—which, if we credit the story that they were presented to a secret conference of the leaders of the alleged conspiracy, is an impossible hypothesis—we are warranted in saying that, whoever wrote them, it was not Theodor Herzl. It would be as reasonable to ascribe a Walt Whitmanchant to Emerson, or a Bernard Shaw satire to Jonathan Edwards, as to ascribe these crude, meandering pages to the crystalline intellect of Theodor Herzl. I do not find in them any suggestion of the trained mind of a scholar and writer of Herzl's attainments; rather, they seem to me to belong in about the same intellectual category as the ordinary propaganda literature of the numerous sects, ancient and modern, based upon peculiar interpretations of Biblical prophecies. Since the outbreak of the World War in 1914, and throughout the whole chapter of revolutionary events following thereupon, there has been a steady flood of such literature. Even the much-discussed forecast of Bolshevism does not in any material respect differ from many similar "prophecies" that have appeared in recent years.
It cannot be denied that Bolshevism actually conforms in a notable degree to the specifications contained in the protocols, which I have already summarized in the preceding chapter. Shall we, then, concludethat the charge is proven and declare the case closed, or is it necessary to examine the evidence further and more critically? I think that a very brief period of honest reflection will convince any fair-minded and intelligent person of the injustice of the rendering of a verdict holding the Jews responsible for Bolshevism upon the basis of such evidence. Let me direct the attention of my readers to a coincidence of dates which once more directs suspicion against Prof. Sergei Nilus and against the alleged stolen protocols. I have already pointed out that in 1903, in the first edition of his book, Nilus did not use the alleged protocols, though he claims that they had been in his possession for two years prior to that time. That this is a suspicious circumstance will, I think, be readily conceded by the open-minded. In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic party was split into two factions, and the word "Bolshevism" came into use as the designation of the policy of one of these factions. In 1905 the first Russian revolution tookplace. In the period between the split in the Social Democratic party in 1903 and the outbreak of the revolution in 1905 the leaders of the Bolsheviki had been active in formulating and propagating their theoretical and political views. During the revolution a sharp conflict occurred between the Bolsheviki and other factions of the Russian Socialist movement, and the Socialist press gave much space to the controversy.
It will be seen from this brief historical sketch that when Nilus published a second edition of his book, late in 1905, he could find in the Russian Socialist press all the materials for such a general description of Bolshevism as that contained in the protocols. Of course, if we believe that the documents are genuine, that they are authentic translations of documents actually stolen in 1896, delivered to Nilus in 1901, and by him first made public in 1905, we have simply a coincidence of dates. I submit, however, that there is not a shred of credible evidence that the documents were so obtained byNilus, or that they existed in 1896, 1901, 1903, or at any date earlier than 1905, the year of their first publication. I submit, furthermore, that it is highly probable that the passages in the alleged protocols which are now hailed as conclusive evidence that the Bolshevist policy had been formulated as early as 1896, were in reality written after 1903 and in the light of already published accounts of Bolshevist theories and tactics. There is not a thing that we know about these documents and their history which does not point directly to the conclusion that they are forgeries.
When I was in London in October, 1920, an English journalist of distinction, well known and influential on both sides of the Atlantic, with great earnestness and evident conviction sought to impress me with the serious importance of these allegedProtocols of the Elders of Zion. He was quite convinced that the documents were genuine, and that they proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy.With great solemnity and manifest sincerity he sought to enlist my co-operation in defense of what he called "Anglo-Saxon civilization," which he seemed to regard as synonymous with Christian civilization. He was quite astonished when I directed his attention to the fact that a well-known French writer, Louis Martin, had published, as far back as 1895, a book in which he attempted to prove the existence of such a world-wide Jewish conspiracy. My friend honestly believed that the existence of this conspiracy had never been known or suspected prior to the publication of the work of the mysterious Sergei Nilus. He was still more surprised when I told him that in his book,L'Anglais Est-Il un Juif?, Martin had attempted to prove that the English people are part of the Jewish race, and that the British government is the principal directing power of the conspiracy; so that the world-wide Jewish conspiracy must, according to Martin, be understood as a secret compact between the Britishgovernment, as a Jewish organization, and the leaders of Jewry in all other lands. Thus is the theory of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy reduced to absurdity. I confess that at that time I was not aware that in the original Russian of the 1905 edition of the work of Nilus this absurd theory of Martin had been reproduced, but carefully omitted from every English translation published in this country and in England. The reason for the omission is obvious; had the passage been given it would have made a laughing-stock of the protocols. I submit, however, that the omission of such an important passage from the text of Nilus without any reference to or explanation of the liberty taken with the text, places those responsible for the several translations in a very unfavorable light.
In closing this chapter it is perhaps well that some record should be made of the sinister use which was made of these alleged protocols during the World War. Not long after the United States had begun activeparticipation in the war against Germany, it came to my attention that typewritten manuscripts purporting to prove that the war was part of a great conspiracy of international Jews were being circulated. On at least three different occasions, early in 1918, I was asked about this charge. I was told then that the British and American governments were in a special sense the agents of this Jewish conspiracy. In July, 1918, in Paris, a fuller account of the documents was given to me by a loyal Socialist, to whom they had been shown. There was not then, as there is not now, the slightest doubt in my mind that the pro-German propagandists resorted to this trick in order to weaken the morale of the principal Allied nations.
Upon the strength of statements made in this collection of documents of mysterious and suspicious origin, a number of papers, including theDearborn Independentand theLondon Morning Post, have attempted to account for and explain the international Socialist movement as part of this Jewish imperialistic conspiracy. Neither in the protocols themselves nor in the newspapers making this particular charge has any shred of authentic evidence been adduced in its support. True, a great deal has been made of the undeniable fact that Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Wilhelm Liebnecht, and other noted Socialists belonged to the Jewish race. Against this fact might very well be set the equally undeniable factthat the foremost opponents of these men, and of Socialism, were also of the Jewish race. Apparently, therefore, we are to believe that the leaders of this Jewish conspiracy set up the Socialist movement and fostered it, while at the same time they enlisted their ablest minds to defeat it. Surely for the normal mind that is not obsessed this is a theory too absurd for belief.
Only those who are entirely ignorant of the history of Socialism and Socialist theories can possibly hold this view of its Jewish origin. Long before Karl Marx appeared upon the scene of action Socialism had already made an impress upon European thought. Marx was a boy of fifteen when the word Socialism first appeared in print as designating the doctrines preached by Robert Owen, the Welshman, for almost twenty years before that time. Was Owen the tool of Jewish conspirators? I have read most of the literature relating to Owen's life and teaching, including his own voluminouswritings, and the innumerable controversies in which he was engaged throughout his life. I have not discovered in all this mass of material a single trace of Jewish influence. He had no Jewish friends or associates during the formative years, the period in which the Socialist ideas and ideals shaped themselves. His Socialism was the direct outcome of his experience as a successful manufacturer. He was not in any sense a man of books. From time to time he required large sums of money for his enterprises. Surely, if those enterprises, and his life's work as a whole, formed part of a great Jewish conspiracy which had behind it the vast financial resources of Jewry, it would not have been difficult for him to secure the financial support he needed. It is a fact of cardinal importance, therefore, that Owen never did receive Jewish financial support. Those who would have us believe that Socialism originated as a part of the great world-wide conspiracy of Jewish imperialism must first of all explain Robert Owen.
Nor does Owen stand alone in the history of Socialism among the Anglo-Saxon peoples. It is a well-known fact, one to which he himself has called attention, that the most important of the economic and sociological theories of Marx were held and promulgated before his time by a number of British writers. As Professor Foxwell and others have shown, the roots of what is called Marxian Socialist theory lie deep in the soil of British political economy. Karl Marx devoted his typically Jewish genius to the exposition of Socialist theories, but the theories themselves were not of Hebraic origin. William Godwin, Charles Hall, William Thompson, John Gray, and John Francis Bray all preceded Marx, and not one of them was a Jew, nor can we find in their writings any trace of Jewish influence. It is the same with Bronterre O'Brien, the first to call himself a Social Democrat. If any or all of these men were the agents of such a conspiracy, it is remarkable that there should be an entire absence of evidence of that fact.It is quite unbelievable that there was any sort of conspiracy which affected them. For the most part they were poor and their books were published in pitifully small editions at great sacrifice to themselves. Incidentally, it is worthy of note, Karl Marx, the Jew, suffered terrible poverty. Certainly, all this does not suggest an international conspiracy backed by the Jewish leaders of the financial world.
Because of the prominence of a few individual Jews in the American Socialist movement in recent years, the writer of the anti-Semitic articles in theDearborn Independentregards as proven the theory that American Socialism originated in Jewish conspiracy. It is another evidence of his entire ignorance of the subject concerning which he writes. If there is anything which can be said about Socialism with certainty, it is that its fundamental theories are mainly of Anglo-Saxon origin. Karl Marx was a boy of nine years when Robert Owen reprinted in England an American Socialist pamphlet,written by an American workingman and published in America a year or two earlier. At about the same time Thomas Cooper, of Columbia, South Carolina, published his book in which the fundamental economic theories of modern Socialism were clearly expounded. When Marx was no more than ten years old we find O.A. Brownson, editor of the BostonQuarterly Review, vigorously preaching here in America the theory of the class war, the abolition of the wage system, and the necessity for a triumph of the proletariat. We find such men as Thomas Skidmore, R.L. Jennings, and L. Byllesby preaching thoroughgoing Socialism. In 1829 these men and others were exercising a notable and considerable influence upon American thought. In vain shall we search their writings and the meager accounts of their lives for any trace or suggestion of Jewish influence or control.
I skip a decade and turn to the Fourierist period of American Socialism. The profound influence of Charles Fourier upon KarlMarx is well known and has been the subject of much learned writing. But if the Frenchman inspired the German Jew, so likewise did he inspire many American non-Jews, the very flower of our race. It was Albert Brisbane who began the Fourierist agitation here, and soon he had associated with him Horace Greeley, Parke Godwin, George Ripley, Charles A. Dana, John S. Dwight, William Henry Channing, Margaret Fuller, John Orvis, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Edmund Clarence Stedman, and many others. Other distinguished Americans who were brought into more or less sympathetic association with the movement included Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Russell Lowell, and Theodore Parker, among others. Certainly it would be difficult to name a body of men and women more truly representative of the highest and best of American life and genius. To suggest that these were all the agents of a Jewish conspiracy, either consciously or unconsciously, is to invite and deserveridicule. In truth, Socialism is as Anglo-Saxon as Magna Charta and as American as the Declaration of Independence, and we might as well attribute either or both of these to Jewish intrigue as Socialism. It is true that the organized Socialist movement in America has long spoken with a foreign accent and borne the imprint of an alien psychology, but that psychology, as I have elsewhere pointed out, is German and not Hebraic.
It would take us too far afield to discuss the origin of French Socialism, even in this sketchy fashion, but I can state with the assurance that is born of intimate knowledge that French Socialism shows as little sign of having been inspired by alien influences, Jewish or other, as British and American Socialism. I stress this point not because I would defend the Jews against the charge that they have manifested unusual sympathy for Socialism (which, indeed, if true, I should hold to be a virtuous distinction), nor to apologize for or to deny the splendidcontributions of individual Jews to the Socialist movement. My concern is to enter protest against the charge that the Socialist movement of the world originated in the ambitions of Jewish imperialists and is neither more nor less than part and parcel of a great international Jewish conspiracy. That is a stupid travesty of history, and a dangerous one.
I have spent the greater part of my life in the Socialist movement, in close and intimate comradeship with both Jews and Gentiles belonging to nearly every civilized nation. I am as proud of the comradeship of my Jewish comrades as I am of that of any others. My readers will perhaps understand that I deeply resent the implication that through all the years of struggle and sacrifice I have been either the unconscious dupe or the willing agent of any kind of selfish conspiracy, Jewish or other. It is, of course, difficult to disprove such an accusation brought against a great movement, and, therefore, by implication againstthe individuals belonging to that movement. If I should charge that Mr. Henry Ford is engaged in this anti-Semitic propaganda for purely selfish and mercenary reasons, that he has become the spokesman and agent of great unscrupulous capitalist interests who seek to destroy their Jewish competitors and to profit thereby, he would find it difficult to establish the contrary by definite and concrete proof. As a matter of justice, nothing of the sort should be expected. The burden of proof rests upon the person making the accusation. In like fashion, when theDearborn Independentcharges that the international Socialist movement is one of the agents of a vicious Jewish conspiracy against Christian civilization, it is in honor bound to submit proofs. This it has not done, nor has any other paper making the charge. Iknowthat the charge is a cruel and cowardly falsehood, a libel upon millions of honest and honorable men and women, to utter which is an infamy and degradation.
The charge is one that has been leveled against practically every movement of protest that has been developed in modern times. It was leveled against the Protestant Reformation; against the French Revolution; against Mazzini and his followers in Italy; against the German Revolutionists of 1848; against British Trade-Unionists. I have no doubt that a little research would reveal the fact that the same charge was directed against the Abolitionists in this country. Vicious interests are never very scrupulous in their choice of weapons. In those Protestant countries in which the number of Catholics is much larger than the number of Jews it is a common practice to charge that movements of protest and revolt are instigated and led by the Catholic hierarchy. Where the number of Jews is very great the appeal is made to racial hatred. In Catholic countries, in the same way, accusation is directed against Protestantism or Judaism, according to circumstance.
Wherever and by whosoever made, appeals to racial and religious prejudices and hatreds in defense of vested interests merit the condemnation of all honest and righteous men. When made in a country which, like the United States, possesses millions of peoples of many diverse lands and races not yet welded into national homogeneity, who must live and work together, such accusations become the most dangerous form of treason. Whoever propagates in this country antagonism to any race or creed represented in our citizenship, whether it be against Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, English, or negroes; or against Judaism, Catholicism, or Protestantism, assails the very foundation of our most cherished and characteristic American institutions.
The anti-Semitic press of both hemispheres charges that Bolshevism in Russia and elsewhere is a movement instigated and led by Jews, as part of a great conspiracy to bring about the Jewish domination of the world. The reasons for making this charge are only too obvious. Bolshevism is repugnant to the great mass of civilized mankind, by whom it is rightly regarded as a sort of moral leprosy. Whatever may be thought of the possibility of Sovietism in industry and government, Bolshevism, the spiritual dynamic as distinguished from the mechanical agent, is the negation of every virtuous principle which mankind holds in reverence. It frankly bases government upon brute force wieldedby the few, and denies the ideal toward which all nations are striving, the ideal of government based upon the sanction of the governed. It unites in a terrible synthesis all the worst agencies and methods of tsarism and of militarism. To persuade the people of this or any other civilized country that Bolshevism is essentially a Jewish movement, part of a conspiracy to reduce civilization to chaos, and so prepare the way for a Jewish supergovernment of the world, would mean the rapid organization of the rest of the population against the Jews in every phase of life—politics, commerce, industry, education, social intercourse, and so on.
In support of this most serious charge not a single shred of credible evidence has ever been adduced by any anti-Semitic writer or organ. For the universally known fact that there are Jews among the leaders of Bolshevism, in Russia and elsewhere, is not evidence that Bolshevism isessentiallyorprimarilya Jewish movement; neither is it evidence that Bolshevism is a part of aJewish conspiracy to obtain world domination. All that it proves is that which needs no proof—that there are Jews among the Bolsheviki. I repeat that in support of the charge not a shred of credible evidence has ever been adduced. In that shameful book,The Cause of World Unrest, consisting of articles reprinted from theLondon Morning Post, the anonymous author gives a list of fifty names of "persons who either are the actual governing powers in Soviet Russia now or were responsible for the establishment of the present regime there." There is both guile and cowardice in the latter part of this charge. It is easy to argue, with a certain plausibility, that every person who helped in the revolution of March, 1917, must be held "responsible for the establishment of the present regime." I have heard many Russians make the charge that Kerensky, the anti-Bolshevist, was "responsible" for the establishment of the Bolshevist regime. I have heard others charge the same thing against such men as Rodzianko, PrinceLvov, and Professor Miliukov. What these Russians meant was that the failure of these men and others to deal properly with the situation existing at the time of the March revolution made the triumph of Bolshevism possible. In that sense, we might as well go back a stage farther and present the names of Tsar Nicholas II and all his responsible Ministers as "persons who ... were responsible for the establishment of the present regime." This, however, is not what theMorning Postdesires to convey to the mind of the reader. It insinuates, in a most cowardly fashion, that the fifty persons named by it are Bolsheviki and falsely alleges that of the fifty no less than forty-two are Jews.
Concerning this list of names a few observations are necessary. The compiler of the list was not honest; he did not intend to place the reader in possession of the truth. This is evidenced by several facts. In the first place, many influential leaders of the Bolsheviki whose names are familiar to allwho have given even ordinary attention to the subject are conspicuously absent. The reason for the omission is that these men are non-Jews.Their inclusion in the list would have destroyed the author's charge.He has suppressed important facts in the interest of his wretched case. I searched the list in vain for the names of such prominent leaders of the Bolshevist movement as Bucharin, Rakovsky, Miliutin, Raskolnikov, Shliapnikov, Latzis, Rykov, Stalin, Krestinsky, Bonch-Brouyevich, Dybenko, Dzerzhinsky, Krylenko, Gorky, Andreyeva, Nogin, Platakov, Kalinin, Boky, and many others less well known. Anyone who is at all familiar with the subject will recognize in the names I have here given some of the most active and influential leaders of the Bolsheviki. Not one of them is a Jew, and I submit that to omit them from a list of names which pretends to be representative is as dishonest as it is cowardly.
The list is thoroughly dishonest, moreover, in that it sets down as Jews men whoare well known to be Gentiles. For example, Manouilsky, number forty-six on the list, is described as a Jew, whereas it is well known that he is a Gentile, a Ukrainian. Bogdanov, number ten on the list, is likewise wrongfully described. His real name is not Silberstein, as alleged, but Malinovsky. Neither is he a Jew, as alleged, but a Gentile, a Russian. These two illustrations will serve to show how little reliance can be placed upon the list. Whether there are other misrepresentations of the same kind I am unable to say, for the reason that the list contains many names of persons who do not hold and have not held any important position in Russia, either under the Bolsheviki or the earlier Provisional Government headed by Kerensky. These persons are absolutely unknown to me, even by name, and they are equally unknown to every Russian revolutionary leader to whom I have submitted them. It is quite probable, therefore, that these names of alleged Jews hide the identity of men who are not Jews at all.
Not only does this precious list studiously omit many of the principal leaders of the Bolshevist regime simply because they are not Jews, and misrepresent well-known Gentiles as Jews; quite as bad is the fact that it includes many names of men who are not only not supporters of the Bolshevist regime, but actually leaders of the most determined opposition to it. Here is a list which is submitted in proof of the charge that "nearly all the Bolshevist leaders are Jews," and in that list I find the names of ten men who are known to me to be among the most active leaders of the struggle against the Bolsheviki, men who have made heroic sacrifices and risked their lives in that fight. I say that the list includes the names of ten men known to me to be bitter opponents of Bolshevism; there may be others concerning whom I am not informed.
Included in the list I find the name of Izgoev (forty-three), for instance. His real name is alleged to be Goldman, when in fact it is Landau. Not only is he not aBolshevik, but, as everybody familiar with the Russian movement knows, one of the active publicists of the Russian Constitutional Democratic party. Orthodoks, number thirty-five on the list, is not a Bolshevik, but one of the most active members of the group of so-called Socialist Patriots, the "Unity" group organized by the late George Plechanov to support the Allied war aims, an organization that did much to strengthen Russian morale in the early stages of the war and which has vigorously and bitterly opposed Bolshevism and all its ways. Bounakov, number forty-five on the list, is also a leader of the anti-Bolshevist forces. When I was in Paris recently he was there actively engaged with other Socialists in carrying on anti-Bolshevist propaganda. Kamkov, number fifteen on the list, was one of the leaders of the Socialists-Revolutionists party, a determined opponent of the Bolsheviki. According to the best information at my command, he was one of the men responsible for the assassination of theGerman ambassador, Count von Mirbach, which was a protest against the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and was put to death by the Bolsheviki. Gorev, number eleven on the list, has consistently opposed Bolshevism with the rest of his colleagues of the Mensheviki. The same thing is true of Abramovich (twenty-four), of Dan (seventeen), of Martinov (twenty-one), of Martov (four), and of Meshkovsky (eighteen).
The anonymous author ofThe Cause of World Unrestsays of this list that it is "the result of much labor and the work of several hands." I do not need to characterize it, in the light of the foregoing analysis. The facts to which I have called attention can be very readily verified. I submit that most abject apology is due to the reader from everybody concerned in the preparation and circulation of this book—from the anonymous author, the compiler of the list, the LondonMorning Post, and the publishers. There is nothing more contemptible than such poisoning of the wells of public information.
For the present I have finished with theMorning Post. Let us turn now to Mr. Ford'sDearborn Independent. In its issue of May 29, 1920, this organ of American anti-Semitism desperately tries to bolster up the charge that nearly all the leaders of the Bolsheviki are Jews by a clumsy invention of its own. It says:
Every commisar in Russia to-day is a Jew. Publicists are accustomed to speak of Russia as if it were in disorder, but the Jewish government of Russia is not. From a mass of underlings, the Jews of Russia came up in a perfect phalanx, a flying wedge through the superinduced disorder, as if every man's place had been previously prepared for him.
Every commisar in Russia to-day is a Jew. Publicists are accustomed to speak of Russia as if it were in disorder, but the Jewish government of Russia is not. From a mass of underlings, the Jews of Russia came up in a perfect phalanx, a flying wedge through the superinduced disorder, as if every man's place had been previously prepared for him.
For these statements there is no justification in fact. They are absolutely and unqualifiedly untrue, as every person familiar with the facts must know. It is not true that "every commissar in Russia to-day is a Jew." Not even a majority of the members of the Council of People's Commissars are Jews. Lenin, who is at the head of the government, is not a Jew. Tchitcherin, whois in charge of foreign affairs, is not a Jew. Krassin, who is in charge of the trade negotiations with the British government, is not a Jew. These three men wield greater power and influence in Soviet Russia than all the Jewish officials combined. Dzerzhinsky, head of the infamous Extraordinary Commissions, is not a Jew. Lunarcharsky, who has charge of public education, is not a Jew. Rykov, chairman of the Economic Council, is not a Jew. Bonch-Brouyevich, secretary of the Council of People's Commissars, is not a Jew. Kolontai is not a Jewess. There are many other Gentile Commissars. How completely the LondonMorning Postand theDearborn Independentmisrepresent the essential facts I have already shown by my analysis of the pretentious list of fifty names published by the former. I have before me the official list of the members of theSovnarkom—that is, the Council of the People's Commissars of the Soviet government. As is well known, the elaborate and intricate governmental system of Soviet Russiacenters ultimate authority in this Council of People's Commissars, which consists of seventeen members. A most striking refutation of the statement made by theDearborn Independentis found in the fact that of the seventeen members of this supreme Bolshevist authority only one, Trotzky, is a Jew. The official list speaks for itself.
Official NameReal NameDepartment1. N. Lenin[1]OulianovPresident2. G. Tchitcherin[1]G. TchitcherinForeign Affairs3. L. Trotsky[2]BronsteinWar4. E. Raskolnikov[1]E. RaskolnikovNavy5. G. Petrovsky[1]G. PetrovskyInterior6. N. Krestinsky[1]N. KrestinskyFinance7. L. Krassin[1]L. KrassinIndustry and Commerce and Ways of Communication8. S. Sereda[1]S. SeredaAgriculture9. N. Bruchanov[1]N. BruchanovSupply10. A. Lunarcharsky[1]A. LunarcharskyPublic Instruction11. V. Stuchka[1]V. StuchkaJustice12. A. Kolontai[1]A. KolontaiPublic Welfare13. V. Smidt[1]V. SmidtLabor14. A. Rykov[1]A. RykovChairman, Economic Council15. K. Stalin[3]DjugashviliNational Affairs16. Dr. N. Semashko[1]Dr. N. SemashkoPublic Health17. V. Bonch-Brouyevich[1]V. Bonch-BrouyevichExecutive secretary of the Council of People's Commissars[1]Russian[2]Jew[3]Georgian
Of course there are many Jews holding minor positions in the Bolshevist regime.It would be quite impossible to name any part of the Russian population to which that statement would not equally apply. For millions of people, Christians and Jews alike, the only possible alternative to starvation and death is to accept service under the Bolsheviki. Even loyal generals of the Tsar's army have accepted such service in order to avoid the starvation of themselves and their loved ones, despite their hatred of Bolshevism and the Bolsheviki. It is a fact, however, that there are very few Jews holding responsible posts in the Bolshevist government of Russia, while there are many Jews prominently identified with the anti-Bolshevist movement. I have followed very closely the accounts of the proceedings of the Bolshevist movement and of the Communist party, as reported in the official press, and have paid special attention to the activity of the Jews. Up to the present my list of Jews holding prominent positions in either the Soviet government or the Communist party contains less than twentynames, yet I believe it is fairly complete. It includes the names of Trotzky, Steklov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Uritsky, Volodarsky, Sverdlov, Ganetsky, Helfandt (Parvus), Riazanov, Radek, Litvinov, Joffe, and Larin. It will be rather difficult, I think, to name any important omissions. As against this meager list of Jews, a very hastily compiled list of non-Jews who are prominent in the government or in the Communist party contains seventy-five names. In this list I do not include any of the many former generals of the Tsar's army now holding important positions in the Red Army and various departments of the Soviet government. With entire confidence I submit these incontestable facts to my readers in reply to theDearborn Independent.
It is absurdly untrue to say, as theDearborn Independentdoes, that "the Jews of Russia came up in a perfect phalanx" after the overthrow of tsarism. Throughout the revolutionary period the Jews inRussia have presented about the same political divisions as the Russian population in general. Like the overwhelming mass of the Russian people, they are anti-Bolshevist. Even if we confine our attention to the Jewish Socialists, overlooking for the moment the large number of Jews belonging to the Constitutional Democrats and other non-Socialist parties, we shall find absolutely no evidence of anything approaching a united Jewish Socialist support of the Bolsheviki. On the contrary, the most implacable and determined opponents of the Bolsheviki have been, and still are, Jewish Socialists. Such Jews as Martov, Dan, Lieber, Abramovich, and others have distinguished themselves by their relentless and unremitting opposition to the Bolsheviki.
In reply to Mr. William Hard, who called attention to the fact that Jews like Vinaver, Martov, and others have been as active on the anti-Bolshevist side as Trotzky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and others have been onthe Bolshevist side, the anonymous writer employed by theDearborn Independentresorts to a more cowardly and despicable controversial trick than I have hitherto encountered, even in anti-Semitic literature. Having charged that the Jews were united "in a perfect phalanx" in support of Bolshevism, when confronted by Mr. Hard with the evidence that there are Jews at the head of the anti-Bolshevist forces, he coolly abandons his charge and insinuates another. He says: "Look how the Jews control every phase of political opinion in Russia! Doesn't there seem to be some ground for the feeling that they are desirous of ruling everywhere?"
Not often, I venture to say, has any American journalist descended to this low level. I am justified in asking Mr. Ford, who is primarily responsible for theDearborn Independentand for its policy, whether he considers it to be compatible with sound American citizenship and with the traditions of our race to spread broadcast throughthe land such cruelly unjust appeals to prejudice. Surely it is not difficult to see this matter from the viewpoint of the Jew, which in this instance is also the viewpoint of every fair-minded non-Jew. For the Jew it is a case of being damned either way. When it is noted that there are a few Jews holding prominent positions in the Bolshevist regime, the whole race is stigmatized and charged with being engaged in a conspiracy to destroy civilization; but when attention is called to the fact that other Jews, far more numerous, are engaged in fighting Bolshevism and attempting to save civilization, no credit for that fact is given to the race; it is not admitted as a fact modifying the previously formed sweeping judgment, but, on the contrary, is held to be additional evidence of guilt. Nothing that Bolshevist propagandists have attempted to do in this country involves anything like the peril to our institutions that is involved in this deliberate attempt to silence the anti-Bolshevist Jews by making eventheir propaganda against Bolshevism appear as part of a conspiracy against those institutions.
I am not here and now concerned to defend the Jews. Even were my gifts much greater, I should not presume to arrogate to myself that honor. The defense of the Jewish people against the aspersions cast upon them by this cruel propaganda belongs in the first place to Jewish scholars and publicists and can be left to them. My concern is the defense of Christian civilization, of American ideals and institutions, of the noblest Anglo-Saxon traditions. These things are our greatest wealth; they are the heritage of our children. When, therefore, this hateful propaganda imperils these things, it is both my duty and my privilege to defend them. Anti-Semitism has no place in Christian civilization; its spirit and its language are both alien and hostile to our Republic and to the genius of the race of Milton and Lincoln.
It can be demonstrated to the fullsatisfaction of any open-minded person of normal intelligence that Bolshevism is the negation of the faith and morals which constitute the strongest bond of the Jewish people. Trotzky has many times declared that he is no Jew, but a "general proletarian," and Bela Kun, in a formal statement, declared himself to be opposed to all religions and national cultures, the Jewish included, and that he stood only for the economic interests of the proletariat. I could quote many similar statements by prominent Jewish Bolsheviki, were it necessary. The position taken by these men is, of course, entirely logical. Not only is Bolshevism fundamentally opposed to the Jewish religion; it is equally antagonistic to the principle of nationality itself. How, then, can it be possible to regard Bolshevism as typically and essentially Jewish, or as part of an all-Jewish conspiracy? Is it possible to believe that a great conspiratory scheme to direct the whole weight and influence of the Jewish people to a single political end, conceivedand led by the ablest leaders of that great people so remarkable for their intellectual power, would or could rest upon principles diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to the greatest psychological force motivating the conduct of the masses of that people?
These questions by themselves shatter the charge we are discussing. There is, however, an immense mass of direct and positive evidence available to all who desire to know the truth, but which is carefully and studiously ignored by the preachers of anti-Semitism. If such men as Mr. Ford are ignorant of the existence of this evidence, as we must suppose them to be, their offense against America and American ideals is not thereby appreciably lessened; their reckless and irresponsible use of the wealth and other influential agents at their command adds to the sum of their shame and wrongdoing. The greatest and strongest Jewish Socialist organization in Russia and Poland, the "Bund," has stood in solid opposition to Bolshevism and the Bolshevist regimefrom the very beginning until now. Not only have leaders of the right wing, or moderate section of the "Bund," such as Lieber, fought Bolshevism with their full might, but leaders of the radical left wing, such as Kossovsky and Medem, have been equally courageous and uncompromising on the same side[1]. A tiny and negligible minority split off from the "Bund" because of its anti-Bolshevist character and formed a new organization, the "Communist Bund." Similarly, the overwhelming mass of the Zionist party has consistently opposed Bolshevism and all its works, and such men as Doctor Pasmanick, the well-known Zionist leader of Odessa, have given their full support to every anti-Bolshevist movement, political and military.
I have already referred to the activity of the well-known Jewish leader, Vinaver, in the fight against Bolshevism. Mr. Vinaver is not a Socialist; on the contrary, duringmany years he has been a consistent opponent of Socialism and one of the foremost leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party, of whose Central Committee he was, and I believe still is, the chairman. Immediately after the March revolution of 1917, Mr. Vinaver was appointed Senator by the First Provisional Government. He was elected to the Constituent Assembly from Petrograd, and later on, after his escape from Petrograd, served as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of the Crimea. This prominent Jewish anti-Socialist testifies that "not a single Jewish Socialist faction has joined the Bolsheviki." From a report on this subject cabled to this country by Vinaver in July, 1919, I quote the following paragraphs, which speak for themselves.