Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 11 September 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Bolshevism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Bolshevism at the Reference desk.

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers Links from this article with broken #section links : ] You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Quote by Putin

Putin'd opinion about the issue is irrelevant, since he is not an expert in the subject. It also cannot be used as an "example" of anything, because such an example will be WP:NOR of a wikipedia (example of what?). Examples of this kind must come from scholar sources which explain what exactly this example is about. - Altenmann >t 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Аgree 100%.--Galassi (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The President of a country's understanding regarding that country's formative history is meaningful, even in the absence of scholarly/academic qualifications. I would place Putin's qualification to opine on the history of the Soviet Union over that of some random author who got a book published. Further, the reverting editor argued that the article is about the "stereotype" versus the actual composition of early soviet government. If true, then certainly the current President's perception (or, if you prefer, buy-in of the "conspiracty theory" as the article labels itself) is incredibly meaningful. Either way, it should stay. John2510 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We quote government officials on issues all the time. Of course, in this case, the question is, what is the purpose of Putin's contention (or, how does the news article position it)?

"Jewish" could mean intellectual (radical) tradition, religious tradition, or both. There's ample evidence that historical circumstances are the former—I haven't read any reputable contention that any of those "%", regardless of the actual number, were religiously observing Jews. Can't say that's what Putin meant, for all we know he might be saying don't blame the Russians for Soviet atrocities. I'd hope not, of course.

It seems to me that contemporary Russian attitudes have a direct bearing on perceptions of the Bolshevik revolution and leadership of Soviet Russia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course Putin's statement on the subject is important. He's the head of the country and as such, would know more about his country than foreigners or Misplaced Pages's guardians of falsehoods. Unless you're going to claim this former communist is actually an anti-semitic NAZI and liar? But just as important as that, the most important communist newspaper since its founding in 1912, PRAVDA, called Putin's statement a fact. Regarding Jewish domination of the party, PRAVDA said "These facts were treated, at best, silently, and often, for some unknown reason, were regarded as rabid anti-Semitism." But of course there is nothing new about covering up these truths. Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote "200 Years Together" which discusses in great detail Jews major role in the communist party and their major role in atrocities carried out against Ukrainians and Russians. And this book has been censored in the USA and England. It has never been translated into English due to Wikipedians and their ilk. Prior to that there were many reliable and well documented papers on the major role that Jews played in communism, all written by "anti-semites" of course; please; you've lost all credibility." Even Jews big ally and hero Winston Churchill wrote an article on Jews dominating the party.

Pravda article "Putin smiled to Jews. Will Jews smile back?" http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/17-06-2013/124852-putin_jews-0/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.245.161 (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Any statement added must be supported by a secondary source that the subject was speaking about "Jewish Bolshevism, otherwise it is OR." I do not see how Putin's support of a Jewish library has anything to do with the article. TFD (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"It has never been translated into English due to Wikipedians and their ilk." What do you mean by that statement exactly? Does it fit in nicely with the comment you made here?Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Between the comments here and the editing, there appears to be a consensus, however mild, to have some reference to this remain. Consistent with the article's current structure, I've created a separate block within "Outside Nazi Germany" for "Russia." Whether Putin's comment should be taken as evidence of the validity of the "conspiracy theory" or as an example of its persistency in modern times, and at the highest levels of government, is for the reader to determine. John2510 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus. Also, you need a source that links Putin's comments to the conspiracy theory. My reading is that he said despite most of the leaders being Jewish they did nothing for Jews rather than the revolution was part of a Jewish conspiracy, in league with Jewish bankers, to dominate the world. TFD (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're attempting to redefine the subject of the article. The opening line of the article provides the following definition: "Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism is the conspiracy theory that Jews have been the driving force behind Communist movements, or more specifically Soviet Bolshevism." Bankers and world domination aren't the issue. President Putin's statement that that the first Soviet government was "...was 80-85 percent Jewish" suggests that the perception of the role of Jews in the formation of the Soviet Union persists to this day, and at the very highest level of Russian government. Nothing could be more relevant to the article. John2510 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Note the key term "conspiracy theory". It is not the theory that most Communists were Jews, but the conspiracy theory that the Jews were the driving force behind Communism. Furthermore it is original research to interpret Putin's words as if he were defending the conspiracy theory unless a source says he was. And yes "Jewish Bolshevism" is part of the larger Jewish conspiracy theory that has Jewish Bolsheviks and Jewish bankers working together. TFD (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Jews" as opposed to "Jews" (the language this article definition contains). You seem to be drawing a distinction without a difference. When someone specifically notes that 80-85% of an originating group were part of a relatively small minority, then it means that they were a driving force. It speaks clearly for itself without the need for research or interpretation, and none was offered or required. If the quote remains, WP readers may draw their own conclusions about the significance of the statement. Without it, a signficant observation by the country's President is concealed. It's interesting to contrast this article with the article on the History of Jews in Russia. It's as though a strawman argument is being made here and then carefully protected from any conflicting information that doesn't fit the hypthesis (e.g., that the President believes that Jews played a major role in the Russian communist revoloution). John2510 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand the concept of the article. It is a conspiracy theory that the Jews (i.e., all the Jews) were behind Communism, not necessarily that Communists were Jews. For example most signers of the U.S. declaration were Masons, but that does not mean they were part of the (alleged) Masonic conspiracy. TFD (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU MAKE ESPECIALLY PROMINENT THE POLISH CONCEPT OF "ZYDOKOMUNA"?

To the author of the entry. - You mention the concept of "Zydokomuna" right at the beginning of the entry, and it seems to be exceptionally prominent in the rest of the entry. Why? Do you say that this concept is worse than, for example, the Russian Soviet or German Nazi anti-Jewish concepts? Why would you pick on Poland and the Poles? Isn't it RACIST on your part? You condemn "antisemitism" but spread Polonophobia, ie. anti-Polish racism? Would you also deny that you're a racist hypocrite? What is your nationality, ethnicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.76.37 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I guess the article is based on Polish sources. I encourage you to add German and Russian sources to make article less biased Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitic?

What is this nonsense that adding reliably sourced information concerning Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik party and Soviet Union is antisemitic? After all what more appropriate article is there to discuss it than the "Jewish Bolshevism" article? You cannot just proclaim information, largely figures, that you disagree with as antisemitic while leaving that you favor in. The majority of the works cited happen to be written by Jewish scholars by the way. Most notably Slezkine. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is called WP:COATRACK. THis article is about a STEREOTYPE/MYTH, not about supposed (over)representation. Mixing the two is also WP:SYNTH.--21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What information that has been added is supposedly COATRACK while the information already present isn't? Both discuss total representation and roles in leadership/revolution which are fundamental to the article's topic of whether "Jews have been the driving force behind Communist movements". I have noted your previous ownership like behavior in the article's history. You are coming up with whatever possible reason to exclude information not conforming to your preferred point of view. This "STEREOTYPE/MYTH" is then perpetuated by historian Norman Cantor who says "Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s, Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume WP:GOODFAITH. Your edit would be appropriate in a different article, such as Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement. This article about a MYTH, as stated in the lede. You certainly wouldn't want to turn that myth into reality, would you?--Galassi (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

My edit is most appropriate in this article. What information have I included that isn't an extension of the type of information already in the article? Why is it ok to mention, for example, that "in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364", but not that "in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent"? I can't turn a myth into a reality from my keyboard, but I can add reliably sourced information that is pertinent to an article's topic and that is exactly what I am doing. The article is about a THEORY. We are not limited to only adding information in support of it being a myth. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The word THEORY in this context is an antisemitic FALLACY. The subject of this article is specifically called a STEREOTYPE by all the Reliable Sources, and I see no reason to take as good faith any attempt to dilute that.--Galassi (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A "STEREOTYPE" as our very own Misplaced Pages points out is a belief that "may or may not accurately reflect reality". Let the readers judge for themselves. Again you fail to answer my questions. Why is it ok to mention that "in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364", but not that "in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent"? Why does the latter constitute a "coatrack", but not the former? The information is not a "dilution" and is on topic just as much as the other information. You first said it was "antisemitic POV" (numbers can apparently be antisemitic) and called it undue weight or a coatrack (despite the fact the information directly addresses the subject just like the already present information). Shoving your cherrypicked quotes into the lead and formulating the article in a way that would permit you to remove any and all statistics not supporting it as a myth is absolutely inappropriate. You have, at the very least, historians Norman Cantor stating Jews played a "disproportionately important role" in Bolshevism/Communism, Yuri Slezkine saying they controlled a "high proportion of the most sensitive positions" in regimes abroad, Zvi Gitelman saying they had a "high visibility" in the Bolshevik regime, and Albert Lindemann saying its "beyond serious debate that in the first twenty years of the Bolshevik Party the top ten to twenty leaders included close to a majority of Jews". The former three are Jewish to rub the point home. Don't remove statistics and information (sourced largely from Jewish historians) that does not conform to your POV and baselessly call them antisemitic in process. I note you've consistently crippled any attempts to expand the article since at least 2011. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This objectively has nothing to do with WP:COATRACK. If this article is about a stereotype (is it?), even so I don't see any basis for omitting historical facts upon which its based, however inaccurate the stereotype itself may be. -- Director (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism is not based on facts, any more than any other conspiracy theory is. It is not our role to persuade readers that the theory is true, merely to explain how it i discussed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but there's the rub. The article repeatedly attempts to distance Jewish involvement from the Bolshevik Revolution, as though to discredit the theory - while editors disallow evidence of Jewish involvement (on a variety of questionable grounds) - e.g., the Putin quote discussed above. I remain unclear on what the supposed conspiracy theory here really is, and suggest that needs to be redefined. If it's that Bolshevism was the product of a worldwide conspiracy among jews to take over the world, then that's one thing (and I think easy proved to be a true "consipracy theory") If the theory is, on the other hand, that the revolution disproportionately involved Jews, whose involvement was critical to its success, then I think that's a whole other theory - and probably not a valid "conspiracy theory." Nor is it antisemetic. Many Jews, and certainly communist Jews, are quite proud of their involvement in the revolution. It was their (quite successful) action to end the opression Jews faced under the Czar. Also, I think when an article declares something a "conspiracy theory" then intellectual honesty and the reader's better understanding demand the presentation of the best arguments supporting the theory - no matter how invalid (or even wacko) they may be. Only by that may the reader understand the basis for the belief. John2510 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's an absurd blank statement. Some conspiracy theories carry more or less credibility than others as with any type of theory, conspiracy related or not. Purposely shaping the article, especially the lead, to enable information solely in support of it being a myth to be added is in severe opposition to NPOV. It's not our role to keep in statistics and information that supports the idea of it being a myth all the while ignoring that which may do the contrary (as has been attempted and succeeded since 2011). The role of Jews in Bolshevism and Communism must be discussed as its fundamental to the article. The fact you have many historians stating the above is more than enough to justify the information that's going in. No amount of fancy footwork and policy shopping will get you around that. A reader can only begin to understand the theory if all the information is availed to him/her. I note Galassi continues to push his policy shopping nonsense without continuing discussion and note he's already received an indef topic ban due to similar conduct in other Eastern European articles (incidentally also conspiracy related) .--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is called "Jewish Bolshevism". Removing relevant, reliably sourced data on actual Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik party is in my opinion ridiculous.. The idea that this article is not about the actual involvement of Jewish people in the Party, but solely about the perception regarding said involvement, seems equally absurd.. and sounds kind of like a POV-pushing excuse. With all due respect Galassi, but perhaps you're not the most objective observer here (being a Jewish person from the former USSR). Personally I find it completely logical and unsurprising that significant numbers of Jewish people were involved in revolutionary movements seeking to overthrow the anti-semitic Tsarist regime (with all the pogroms and relocations etc). -- Director (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the last TFD comment on the "Putin Quote" section above. It applies here too. --Galassi (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It was wrong there, and it's wrong here too. John2510 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is not only only about Russia, but the purported Jewish overrepresentation in all revolutions, which makes current debacle fall under WP:WEIGHT.--Galassi (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Um.. no. No, it doesn't. You're just (rather transparently) fishing for excuses now, and that's obvious: WP:WEIGHT is the standard excuse of last resort for POV-pushers, as anything can be claimed to be "undue". You're personally set on removing information that bothers you. See WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:POVPUSH, and stop edit-warring. -- Director (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You have several concepts of what this article is about, none of which conforms to the article's self-definition. Maybe there should be an article about "Global Jewish Conspiracies" - but this isn't it. This one's about Bolshevism (or at least the Russian communist revolution). John2510 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for one week, so you can have a talk page discussion rather than edit warring. May be we need a sort of WP:RFC to discuss whether this article should include materials of real over-representation of Jews in the early Soviet Government or the article is solely devoted to the myth. 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is not only only about Russia, but the purported Jewish overrepresentation in all revolutions, which makes current debacle fall under WP:WEIGHT.--Galassi (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no undue weight here.. -- Director (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tactfully disagree. Probably RfC is the way go.--Galassi (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you could consider inclusion of the material of (over)-representation of Jews in the ruling Soviet elite in the History of the Jews in Russia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we first need to agree on defining the myth/theory/argument at the core. Are we talking about: 1) the notion that Bolshevism was the product of a supposed global Jewish conspiracy to run the world; or 2) the notion that Jews were overrepresented among Russian communist revolutionaries? They are two very different things that are blended here. I'm starting to conclude that the theory that there's a conspiracy theory going on is, itself, a conspiracy theory.John2510 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather than being "absurd", the idea that the article is about the conspiracy theory and Nazi propaganda concept, and as applied to communism as a whole, not just Russia and the USSR, is explicitly set out in the lead, from the opening sentence on – which defines the topic in those very terms. Those arguing for the inclusion of the disputed material are going to have to get agreement to change that basic point first rather than trying to justify it on the basis that it's somehow directly related to the page as currently set up. Rather than just dumping all these numbers here, you'd need to show and rely on a third-party source that explicitly cites and/or analyses them in the context of the propaganda term. Otherwise it looks simply like a bid to construct an original argument by association or inference on Misplaced Pages, which is of course a form of synthesis. N-HH talk/edits 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My sentiment exactly.--Galassi (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thus far I have heard the arguments of it being antisemitic, WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT, and now WP:SYNTHESIS. You cannot justify excluding statistics and information on your personal arbitrary requirement that it be in the "context of the propaganda term". How can one mention that "in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364", but not that "in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent" on that account? It is absurd to require the article to exist in such a way that only information in support of it being propaganda may only be included and that the second opposing figures are included they are "an original argument by association or inference". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Allowing only numbers presented in the context of discussing the supposed conspiracy theory is no more than an artifice to allow one side of an argument (that it's a conspiracy theory) while disallowing the other (that there is validity to whatever that theory may be). It isn't intellectually honest. Either the numbers have meaning or they don't. John2510 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted below in response and also elsewhere previously, the page here is not a forum for random WP editors to try to fling loads of numbers onto the page in a bid to work out between us whether there were lots of Jews among the Bolsheviks or, conversely, not very many and hence whether an allegation of "over-representation" is fair or not (whatever that would mean anyway). First, WP pages are about topics, not about proving or disproving arguments, and secondly, the topic is here is the Nazi propaganda concept/conspiracy theory not the actual numbers of Russian communist Jews (nor is the Nazi propaganda theme itself simply about numbers anyway). If the raw figures are indeed relevant to the topic, I am sure you or anyone else can find a reliable source that makes that link or cites such numbers as relevant context and thereby include that information here if you really wish to. That is, after all, how pages here are written according to the most basic policies. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its mutually exclusive. The over-representation of Jews manifested itself in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik party, the Soviet Union, and in the regimes abroad. So regardless of whether Bolshevism was a plot to further "International Jewry" or simple over-representation both warrant the information to be included. Having said that the lead will certainly need to be modified. The first line defining the article lacks a proper reference to which page is being cited. The opinions of Hannah Arendt and André Gerrits are cited while that of Norman Cantor, Yuri Slezkine, Zvi Gitelman, and Albert Lindemann are no where to be seen. One is expected to follow the narrative of it solely being "efficient fiction" and a "myth" and the fact that Jews had "high visibility" and a "disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism", ran a "high proportion of the most sensitive positions" in regimes abroad, and composed "close to a majority" of top Bolshevik leadership is to be quickly swept under the rug. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this page on this topic, as currently defined, should not be arguing the toss either way in terms of purported actual numbers. The point is not to try to "prove" or "disprove" the Nazi propaganda concept, or to sweep anything "under the rug", but to explain that concept, how it was used in history and how it has since been analysed in appropriate and relevant sources. In any event, as noted, the propaganda is not merely about numbers but about purported influence and intention, which makes the content in question of even more dubious relevance. As has been pointed out, if you wish to change the topic of the page into a broader one about the actual representation of Jews in communist movements in the USSR and elsewhere, or even create a separate page on that, go ahead and make the case for that if you think you can. But that's not how the topic presented on this page is currently defined nor does have to be changed so that it is so defined. And insisting that information is only included if it is relevant to the context of the topic is not my "personal arbitrary requirement" but a pretty basic principle of writing a page here. N-HH talk/edits 22:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to find sources specifically about the topic. Metapedia presents a fair representation of how the topic is understood, although of course it is not rs. It says, "Jewish Bolshevism is a term used to present the fact that Bolshevism and Marxism were created by the Jews, the Bolshevik Revolution was funded by Jewish banking houses in New York City, the various coups in Europe were instigated by Jews and the system in general is designed explicitly to serve their interests." TFD (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A Google search reveals both its prevalence as a term on neo-Nazi and "revisionist" websites but also that entire books have been written specifically about the topic, which would surely provide useful source material. Eg this one and this one. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem lies exclusively in the nonsensical and overly-negative-sounding title of this article. There is no such thing as a strain of "Bolshevism" known as "Jewish Bolshevism", nor did right-wing propaganda imply such a thing. Not only that, but "bolshevism" is a term that usually refers to Russian communism, and this article has a wider scope. It is precisely the negative-sounding tone of the title that makes adding actual facts here "feel wrong" to people sensitive to such things.

Creating a new article would be a clear violation of policy (WP:FORK). This article should be renamed to Jewish involvement in Communism (or something along those lines), then we can introduce both the objective data, and the history of propagandist abuse of said data, without feeling like we're "vindicating Nazi propaganda" or something. What I'm certain of is that those are not topics for seperate articles. -- Director (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter that the term the nazis used was "nonsensical" and it is not forking to have an article about Jews and Communism given the fact that there were people of Jewish background who became Communists. TFD (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "Communism is Jewish" is not an exclusively Nazi propaganda theme: its much older than the Nazi party, and was common to many conservative, right-wing, ultranationalist movements in the first half of the 20th century (likely earlier as well). (Ultra)conservatives, fascists, francoists, christian socialists, tsarists/whites, its a long list. The dictatorship in Poland prior to 1939, e.g., was pretty antisemitic and incorporated elements of this theme (having lost a war with the USSR). In fact, you could say most of Europe in the Interbellum was headed by regimes that went by this line to one extent or another.

Secondly, you misunderstand what I mean by "nonsensical". While the right-wing did claim "Bolshevism" was "Jewish", they did not postulate the existence of anything called "Jewish Bolshevism" (as opposed to ordinary "Bolshevism"). The term in and of itself means nothing. So its not that the Nazis used a term and it was nonsensical, its that this title is nonsensical because its not a propaganda line. It denotes some seperate kind of "Bolshevism" that never existed and was never claimed to have existed in anyone's propaganda.. for the nazis all "bolshevism" was "jewish".

I say again that separating an objective phenomenon from its abuse in propaganda is a WP:POVFORK. This article just needs a-renamin'. -- Director (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has claimed that "Jewish Bolshevism" was a separate kind of bolshevism. The term implies that Communism is part of the Jewish conspiracy. The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics. TFD (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles