RSS Feed
January 30th, 2024 
Awake Goy …BY JEWISH BOLSHEVIKS
“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. 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”.
“We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But – Without Jews there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew nothing is more insulting than the Truth. The Blood Maddened Jewish terrorists had murdered 66,000,000 in Russia from 1918 – 1957.”
“Between the years 1917 and 1991 preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is estimated that Communist Jews murdered somewhere between 60 and 135 million innocent people.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
SOLZHENITSYN BREAKS LAST TABOO OF THE REVOLUTION
Nobel laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression
Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Sat 25 Jan 2003 10.32 GMT
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career – the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.
In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together – a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population – contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia.
But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn’s motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-Semitism in Russia.
Solzhenitsyn argues that some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period “consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians” as being behind the genocide. But he states that all the nation’s ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.
In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote:
“If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw – their life was softer than that of others.”
Yet he added:
“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.”
Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experiences. He is currently in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides – and that its Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.
“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.”
But Solzhenitsyn’s book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was “not of any merit”.
“This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes,” said Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress.
“Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.
“This is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory. This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit.”
But DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn’s biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by anti-Semitism.
“I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.”
Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was “absolutely right”.
Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.
“Trotsky’s idea was that the spread of anti-Semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.
“It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn’s book seems much more measured than that.”
Yet others failed to see the need for Solzhenitsyn’s pursuit of this particular subject at present. Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said:
“The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change.
“If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-Semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”
Solzhenitsyn’s Damning History of the Jews in Russia – a Review
“The Jews accumulated wealth by cooperating with each other. (p. 31).”
“They made profits by taking the peasants’ grain to the point of impoverishing them (and causing famine), turning it into brandy, and then encouraging drunkenness. (p. 21, 24).”
“Jews forced peasants into lifelong debt and crushing poverty by requiring payment, in cattle and tools, for liquor. (p. 31).”
MORE: History The Jewish Question
The translation of Solzhenitsyn’s book appears to have been done without permission from his family, and this might be why this lengthy and detailed review is no longer available on the page of the book on Amazon.com, where it originally appeared.
The book might disappear altogether from Amazon, so if you want to get your Kindle copy, act now. Otherwise you can find it on many sources on the internet.
Jews had enormous influence in the English and American media at the turn of the century – this is what most people in America and UK were told about Russian Jews
The translator, Columbus Falco, describes the censorship of this book when it appeared in 2002:
“Published in the original Russian in 2002, the book was received with a firestorm of rage and denunciation from the literary and media world, from the Jews, and from almost the entire intelligentsia of the established order in the West…
Immense efforts have been made by the Russian authorities and also by the Western liberal democratic power structure to ignore 200 YEARS TOGETHER, to suppress it as much as possible, and above all to prevent and interdict the book’s translation into foreign languages, most especially into English, which has become essentially the worldwide language of our epoch…
The Russian authorities have to this date refused to allow any official English translation of the book to be published”. (p. 2).
Most of it consists of unremarkable information that can be found in standard, non-censored texts.
Agree with author Solzhenitsyn or not, but recognize the fact that he is no lightweight. Solzhenitsyn goes into considerable detail about many different historical epochs, and clearly has a deep knowledge of the issues that he raises. His approach is balanced. He is sympathetic towards Jews as well as critical of Jews.
The latter evidently does not sit well with many, because it does not comply with the standard Judeocentric narrative, in which Jews are just victims and can do no wrong. Worse yet, a famous writer is bringing sometimes-unflattering information about Jews to light, and this is threatening. Hence the censorship.
Consider the PROPINACJA. The Jews accumulated wealth by cooperating with each other. (p. 31). They made profits by taking the peasants’ grain to the point of impoverishing them (and causing famine), turning it into brandy, and then encouraging drunkenness. (p. 21, 24). Jews forced peasants into lifelong debt and crushing poverty by requiring payment, in cattle and tools, for liquor. (p. 31).
In addition, a system of bribery protected this arrangement. Thus, the Polish magnates were on the “take” of part of the wealth squeezed by Jews out of the peasantry, and, without the Jews and their inventiveness, this system of exploitation could not have functioned, and would have ended. (p. 22). Solzhenitsyn adds that, “…the Jewish business class derived enormous benefit from the helplessness, wastefulness, and impracticality of landowners…” (p. 54).
The Jews kept moving around in order to prevent an accurate count of their numbers—in order to evade taxes. (p. 25). A delegation of Jews travelled to St. Petersburg to try to bribe Russian officials to suppress Derzhavin’s report. (p. 28). In 1824, Tsar Alexander I noticed that Jews were corrupting local inhabitants to the detriment of the treasury and private investors. (p. 32).
Jews were not forced into “parasitic” occupations:
Jewish resistance to assimilation is usually framed in terms of the GOY excluding the Jew. It was the other way around. For the first half of the 19th century, rabbis and kahals strenuously resisted enlightenment, including the proffered Russian education to Jews. (p. 38).
Jews have always tended to exaggerate the wrongs they have experienced from others. (p. 42). This applies to such things as double taxation, forced military service, expulsion from villages, etc. (p. 42, 46, 50).
The Jews of the Vilnius (Wilno), Kaunas, and Grodno regions sided with the Russians during the Poles’ ill-fated January 1863 Insurrection. (p. 69). This confirms Polish sources.
We often hear that Communist Jews were “not real Jews”. This nonsense is equivalent to saying that Lenin and other Russian Communists were “not real Russians”—a contrived distinction that Solzhenitsyn refuses to make. (p. 11
One common exculpation for Jews supporting revolutionary movements, and then Communism, is that of the tsarist system preventing Jews from improving their lot. This is nonsense. Once the Jews accepted the Russian education system, their numbers increased, to such a spectacular extent (by about 1870: p. 63, 71), in Russian higher education, that quotas (numerus clausus) had to be imposed upon them. This nowadays-called affirmative action became necessary because Jews were wealthier and thus unfairly advantaged in schooling-related matters. (p. 88).
Hungary is instructive. There, Jewish grievances were the least valid. Hungarian Jews had enjoyed atypical freedoms and a high standard of living, and there had been no pogroms. Yet the 1919 Hungarian Communism was especially dominated by Jews, and was odiously cruel. (pp. 153-154).
One can easily make lists of Jews in high positions in the Soviet Union. Influential Jews commonly occurred at a rate 10 or more times the abundance of Jews in the USSR. (e. g, pp. 143-on, 225-on). [For more, see comments]. Whether or not motivated by “ethnic solidarity”, Jews in authority tended to promote other Jews to high positions. (p. 138).
However, the Jewish role in Communism goes far beyond what is apparent in any such “grocery list”. For instance, consider what some call the Judaization of academia, and its impact on the bloody events of 1917.
Solzhenitsyn comments, “The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view.” (p. 98).
Now consider the October Revolution. Lenin contended that the Bolshevik success in the revolution had been made possible by the role of the large Jewish intelligentsia in several Russian cities. (p. 119). Furthermore, according to Lenin, the October Revolution was preserved by the actions of Jews against the attempted sabotage by government officials. (p. 128).
The energy and high intelligence of the Jews made them indispensable. (p. 129, 189). In fact, Solzhenitsyn suggests that Soviet Communism lost its ideological fervor, and began slowly to die of “Russian laziness”, already in the late 1960s, all because the Jews were largely gone. (p. 317).SOME
INTERESTING FACTS
Dekulakization was not just an economic measure. It was a tool to uproot peoples and destroy their traditions and culture. For this reason, Stalin’s dictatorship can in no sense be accepted as a nationalist (Russian) phenomenon. (p. 221).
Religious Judaism was never persecuted as intensely by the Communists, in the 1920s and 1930s, as was Russian Orthodox Christianity. (p. 306). High-level Jew Lazar Kaganovich directed the destruction of the Church of the Redeemer. He also wanted to destroy St. Basil’s Cathedral. (p. 223).
The famous mobile gas chambers were not invented by the Nazis. They were developed, in 1937, by Isai Davidovich Berg, a leading Jew in the NKVD. (p. 237).
COMMUNISM IS OK—UNTIL IT NO LONGER SERVES JEWISH INTERESTS
Solzhenitsyn notes the irony that, in the West, there was little effective concern about the victims of Communism until it turned on the Jews. He quips,
“15 million peasants were destroyed in the ‘dekulakisation’, 6 million peasants were starved to death in 1932, not even to mention the mass executions and millions who died in the camps, and at the same time it was fine to politely sign agreements with Soviet leaders, to lend them money, to shake their ‘honest hands’, to seek their support, and to boast of all this in front of your parliaments.
But once it was specifically JEWS that became the target, then a spark of sympathy ran through the West and it became clear what sort of regime this was.” (p. 346;).
NOWADAYS JEWS DODGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND BLAME THE RUSSIANS
Alexander Solzhenitsyn describes the standard double-standard (one which Poles are all too familiar with), as he describes current Jewish attitudes,
“There are so many such confident voices ready to judge Russia’s many crimes and failings, her inexhaustible guilt towards the Jews—and they so sincerely believe this guilt to be inexhaustible almost all of them believe it! Meanwhile, their own people are coyly cleared of any responsibility for their participation in Cheka shootings, for sinking the barges and their doomed human cargo in the White and Caspian seas, for their role in collectivization, the Ukrainian famine and in all the abominations of the Soviet administration, for their talented zeal in brainwashing the ‘natives’. This is not contrition.” (p. 335).
Of course, Solzhenitsyn is not insinuating that Jews are collectively guilty for Communism. However, Jews should accept collective liability for Communism and its crimes in much the same way that Germans accept collective liability for Nazism and its crimes. (p. 141, 321). Until they do so, this issue of the Zydokomuna (Judeo-Bolshevism) will not go away.
JEWISH INFLUENCE IN COMMUNISM WAS FAR GREATER THAN ANY “GROCERY LIST” OF JEWISH COMMUNISTS
We keep hearing that Jews at no time constituted a majority of the leadership in Communism. This is technically true, but it does not tell the whole story.
Refer to: Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, by Albert S. Lindemann:
To begin with, Jewish Communists were noted for their high intelligence, verbal skills, assertiveness, ideological fervor, etc. (p. 429).
Not surprisingly, few non-Jewish Communist leaders approached the caliber of the Jewish Communist leaders. For example, Lindemann reminds us that, “Jewish or gentilized, Trotsky was a man of unusual talents.” (p. 447). In addition, “Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied…” (p. 448). This can be generalized, “Other non-Jews might be mentioned but almost certainly do not quite measure up to Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yoffe, Sverdlov, Uritsky, or Radek in visibility inside Russia and abroad, especially not in the crucial years from 1917 to 1921.” (p. 432).
Finally, influential Jews did not have to act alone. In fact, Jews had the skill of influencing non-Jews to think in Jewish ways. Lenin can validly be understood as a “Jewified gentile” (pp. 432-433). The same can be said for the renegade-Pole Dzerzhinsky (p. 442, 446), as well as the Russian Kalinin, who was called by Jewish Bolsheviks “more Jewish than the Jews”. (p. 433).
I. JEWISH COMMUNISTS INFLUENCED NON-JEWS TO GO ALONG WITH THEIR THINKING
Let us elaborate on Feliks Dzerzhinsky. Refer to: The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police:
Author Leggett describes how Dzerzhinsky grew up in Vilna [Wilno, Vilnius], which he describes as a cosmopolitan city with a strong Jewish element and a focal point of socialist ferment in Tsarist Russia. (p. 34). He adds that, “Dzerzhinsky came under the influence of Martov, future leader of the Menshevik Party, by whom he was introduced into Jewish circles, both proletarian and of the intelligentsia; he made many Jewish friends and zealously learned Yiddish. The Bund—Jewish social democratic workers’ organization in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, founded in 1897—helped Dzerzhinsky in his political activity, for instance in late 1899. Dzerzhinsky’s close friend and schoolmate in Vilna was Mikhail Goldman…” (pp. 24-25).
The strong Jewish influence very much extended to Dzerzhinsky’s personal life. Leggett continues, “Goldman’s sister, Julia, was for several years Dzerzhinsky’s romantic love…formed a deeply romantic attachment, lasting from 1905 to early 1910, for another Jewish woman, Sabina Feinstein, sister of a prominent SDKPiL member. Very soon afterwards, in November 1910, Dzerzhinsky married Sofia Sigizmundovna nee Mushkat, who was likewise Jewish…” (p. 25).
As if to underscore the fact that Jewish influence in Communism is much greater than just the “grocery list” of Jewish Communists, Leggett writes of “Rosa Luxemburg [Luksemburg], celebrated for her intellectual brilliance and her political passion.” (p. 24). So intoxicated had “Bloody Feliks” (“KRWAWE FELEK”) Dzierzinski become of Luksemburg’s ideas that he actually clashed with Lenin on the resurrection of the Polish state. Only that it was the non-Pole Lenin supporting the restoration of the Polish nation and renegade-Pole Dzerzhinsky opposing it, in accordance with Luxemburg. (pp. 23-24).
The foregoing can be generalized. Refer to: The Crucifixion of Russia: A History of the Russians and the Jews A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn comments,
“The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view.” (p. 98).
II. JEWS AS THE “BRAINS” BEHIND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND THE EARLY SOVIET UNION
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JEWS IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AS NOTED BY SOME JEWS
IV. DECADES BEFORE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, JEWS HAD PLAYED AN INDISPENSABLE ROLE IN KEEPING REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS GOING IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY, AND IN MAKING RADICAL MOVEMENTS EVEN MORE RADICAL:
V. COMMUNISM PERMEATED MUCH OF PRE-WWII JEWISH THINKING, NOTABLY IN POLAND
Refer to: Flags Over the Warsaw Ghetto
Moshe Arens wrote: “The years preceding World War II were a time when Socialists throughout the world were preaching the `class struggle’ and `solidarity of the proletariat.’ Many of them, not only avowed Communists, saw the Soviet Union as the pioneer and leader of this `struggle.’ This was also true in Palestine, where the Socialist Zionists had achieved a dominant position in the Jewish community.” (p. 7). The so-called “proletarian” camp included the Socialist Zionists and the non-Socialist Bund. (p. 9).
Arens notes: “The Socialist Zionist movements, attached to Marxist ideology…” (p. 44). ZOB leader Anielewicz was a member of Hashomer Hatzair with its “Marxist approach to Zionism”. (p. 113). Hashomer Hatzair and Left Po’alei Zion showed their true colors (pardon the pun) in preferring that the red flag be hoisted over the fighting Ghetto instead of the blue-white Zionist flag. (p. 287).
ZOB leader Hersh Berlinski exhibited undisguised disloyalty to Poland as he said that his support was to the USSR over Poland. (p. 142). As for the Warsaw Ghetto rank-and-file soldiers, Arens refers to them as: “…younger generation, their orthodox Marxist thinking giving rigidity to their arguments.” (p. 106). Who can blame Poles for their reluctance to support the Uprising owing to its taint of Communism? (p. 71; 200-201; 226)
VI. A RATHER CANDID DISCUSSION, ABOUT JEWS IN COMMUNISM, BY LEADING JEWISH COMMUNISTS
VII JEWISH COMMUNISM AS A FORM OF JEWISH NIHILISM
CONCLUSION: Since Jews Take Collective Credit for Their Albert Einsteins and Jonas Salks, Should They Not Also Assume Collective Liability for Jewish Mass-Murderers Such as Genrikh Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich?
HOW THE MASSIVE OVER-INVOLVEMENT OF JEWS IN COMMUNISM LONG INFLAMED POLISH-JEWISH RELATIONS
The ZYDOKOMUNA (Judeo-Bolshevism) cannot be wished away. In addition, the Jewish share of blame for Communism is not erased just because there were non-Communist Jews. Finally, since Jews regularly call on Poles to “come to terms with the past”, in a collective sense, for the actions of only SOME Poles, the Jews should be held to the same standard.
“There is no farce more saddening than the history being written for pay in American universities.”
“The American financial community demanded a centralized, materialist and Jewish Russia and this they received.”
The White armies in the Russian Civil War received not a cent from the west. Not a shell, not a rifle reached any faction of the White forces from the west. The west was not anti-Bolshevik. Furthermore, the western powers actively supported the Red forces during and after the Civil War.
While the western financial and technical support for the building of socialism has been treated in another paper, it begins with the subject of this one: the western backing of the Red forces consistently from 1918-1921.
The sole and exclusive reason for western intervention is to ensure that no aid would ever be given to Germany from Russia and that assets owned by western powers not fall into the hands of Germany.
The Elites in Favor of the Reds
Famously, Colonel Edward House, the main adviser to Woodrow Wilson, wrote:
That day Colonel House asked me to call upon him. I found him worried both by my criticism of any recognition of the Bolshevists and by the certainty, which he had not previously realized, that if the President were to recognize the Bolshevists in return for commercial concessions his whole “idealism” would be hopelessly compromised as commercialism in disguise.
I pointed out to him that not only would Wilson be utterly discredited but that the League of Nations would go by the board, because all the small peoples and many of the big peoples of Europe would be unable to resist the Bolshevism which Wilson would have accredited (Quoted from Bolton, 2010).
General William Graves was a firm backer of the Red cause. In an excellent article on the subject, Kerry Bolton states that Graves and many others actively sought to destroy the White movement. He refused to deliver 14,000 rifles ordered and paid for by Kolchak. Another 15,000 rifles were blocked from the White Cossack forces by this same General. Most of all, Graves, in full communication with the economic elite in the US, had the Japanese stand down from their attacks on Red forces in the east.
In November of 1918, the Allies signed an agreement with the Reds for full support in exchange for financial concessions. While the Allies initially sought only Russia’s continual action in the war, their attention soon wandered. Once the Treaty of Brest-Litivosk was signed, the west permitted the Reds to re-organized old Russian debts, open Russia to world grain markets and, as the treaty stipulated, hand over the more industrialized parts of Russia’s west.
Kolchak countered by also accepting old debts, initiating a Constituent Assembly and guaranteed the independence of Poland. It was rejected. That Denikin refused to sell off Russia in exchange for aid sealed his defeat (Foglesong, 2011).1
Both Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George recognized Trotsky as the “legitimate” Russian government. Since the Red was the only alternative to the “tsarist whites,” they were recognized. George stated that a unified Russia would be the “greatest threat” to the British empire. Gen. Denikin states in his memoirs that their sole source of supplies were those taken after Red defeats. Red officers had regular salaries and a full staff, strongly suggesting western aid (Gardner, 1976).
The mission of William Bullitt led to an agreement with Lenin and, as always, a total rejection of the Whites. The memorandum asked for the lifting of all embargoes on the Soviet government and for its immediate recognition. Full free trade with the Soviets was also demanded, with the final and most important proviso that all debts to the west be paid (Thompson, 1966)
Western newspapers spoke harshly of the whites, equating them with landlords and “reactionaries” something coming from Bolshevik propaganda. Great Britain sank the Black Sea Fleet while the French, in the memoirs of Kolchak, fought the Volunteer Army. Yet, even with their shortages of ammunition and basic supplies, the White armies fought the Reds to a standstill and began routing them by the Spring of 1919. However, the west had made up its mind. Kolchak had to go (Bolton, 2011).
The White armies during the Civil war confuse many. The common myths are that they were royalist, and served the “landlord” class. Few royalists were part of the White forces and the “landlord” class were the peasants themselves, who by the start of the war owned almost 95% of all Russian land. A false conservative-radical dichotomy is drawn. The Whites were largely loyal to Kerensky and the Assembly. They were hostile to Cossack autonomy and Ukrainian separatism. The “unified Great Russia” was one of the few slogans they all agreed upon.
General Graves was a spokesman for the American ruling class. His work on the situation at the time shows not only his support of Bolshevism, but that of the US government. Few had any idea what “Bolshevism” was. About as many knew what “Marxism” was. Today, educated people have a vague idea of these concepts. Back then, it was just as dark and void as the rest of Russian life. Graves writes in his memoirs about what he wrote to the State Department about Admiral Kolchak:
The Kolchak Government cannot possibly stand and if the Allies support him they will make the greatest mistake in history.
The Government is divided into two distinct parts, one issues proclamation and propaganda for foreign consumption stating that the Government favors and works for a constituent assembly, other part secretly plans and plots a restoration of monarchy. This is perceptible only to those who are part of the Government.
It is a hypocritical government which attempts to convince the peasants that their cause is being fostered and yet looks for the psychological moment to restore monarchy.
Kolchak has surrounded himself with old regime officers whose only salvation for future existence depends on restoration of monarchy (Graves, 1941).
None of this was true and Graves knew it at the time. Immediately upon reading this one is struck by the fact that insisting on the restoration of monarchy was sufficient to destroy the moral nature of Kolchak’s cause in Washington. Second, that this alleged desire is only “in secret,” so it cannot be verified. Finally, since there is no evidence of such a desire anywhere, the need to impute it to him begs the question.
The Ineffectiveness of the White Armies
First, the southwest where the Volunteer army worked with the Cossacks against the purely urban, Jewish red forces. The newly formed Polish army, Ukrainian Rada militia and the Makhno organization made this the most complex theater of the war. The Polish forces were quite effective, and at a crucial moment where the Red forces would have been destroyed, Pidsulsky turns against the Volunteers and saves Trotsky from destruction.
The key moment was the massive war between Wrangel’s 350,000 men and Trotsky’s 200,000. As Denikin had abandoned the cause and left Russia, the confusion in the high command and the use of Makhno from the rear caused a major white loss. A massive force of 150,000 Whites escaped to the west from Crimea.
Second, the Siberian republic. This was a successful political unit from 1917 to 1922 under the command of Kolchak. The press, often portrayed as state-controlled, was highly critical of the Whites. Its economic growth was impressive and local governments were active. His military forces was equally impressive, consisting of 35,000 Cossacks and 80,00 Japanese. The total fore was over 400,000.
Third, the Northwest under General Yudenich, including an Estonian army of 10,000. Britain promised him some aid only under the condition that Estonia be declared independent. Britain, however, became the primary enemy of Yudenich’s army as it threatened St. Petersburg. The Red government, threatened for the first time, saw total inaction from the British troops at Arkhangelsk.
The problem was that these three centers were commanded by generals of different political opinions and strategies. There was no overarching command in the way Trotsky centralized control over the Red forces. Egos, ideology and attitudes towards the monarchy all created fissures in the white movement of such severity that it can hardly be called a single movement at all.
In the Russian language work of Valery Shambarov, the condition of the White armies is made clearer. Just prior to the beginning of the Civil war, the Reds emptied the prisons, promising them freedom in exchange for terrorizing the white and local peoples. Crime had been very low under Nicholas II, but soon shot up 500% by 1917.
Contrary to myth, very few of the White officers came from the old nobility and almost all had no landed property. About 15% of the total had some noble ties or acquired property of any kind. Once Brest was signed, this meant that the Reds were de facto allied with Berlin.
Britain sought a White-Red alliance to continue the war. When the Whites refused, Britain abandoned them, calling them “extremists” and the worst of all, “nationalists.” In July of 1918, MA Morav’yev defected from the Red camp and brought 10,000 men with him. Yekaterinburg fell to the Czechs. Panicked, the Reds sacrificed the tsar and his family in exchange for the promise of victory from infernal powers. Kappel’s men penetrated as far as Kazan, where he captured Russia’s gold reserve worth 50 million rubles. Unfortunately, nothing was for sale. With this immense fortune, the west was unwilling to sell weapons to the Whites.
Food aid and weapons, not to mention tremendous “loans” from The Schiff clan in New York poured in for the Reds (Shambarov, 1999, original text in Russian).
The Whites never developed a firm chain of command and, even worse, the Cossacks had no interest in integrating with regular white structures. Denikin estimated that, at a minimum, 1 rubles were needed for a single month of operations. Kornilov sought the possibility of a military government, earning him the eternal hatred of the west. More than anything else, the west rejected the idea of a strong, unified Russia. Anyone promoting this was rejected without consideration.
The White governments had little real power. The staff of the high command was almost non-existent. The Northern Army had roughly 25,000 men with 600 offices. Because of the total lack of western aid, they were forced to live at the expense of the local population.
The lack of any real identity or ideology of the White movement was one of the essential flaws in it and a major cause for its defeat. Part of this was made possible by the dogmatic belief that a “Constituent Assembly” will be called upon the defeat of the Reds and all pressing social problems will then be addressed. In the meantime, only the military situation mattered.
The urban wealthy were almost to a man, dedicated to the Social Democrats and Kerensky. This included the oligarchs Lv’iv, Guchkov, Ryanbushinsky, Konovalov and Tereshchenko and, once Kornilov rejected Kerensky, these elites rejected the White Armies. The west blocked all White radio transmissions to the public and the Red forces had miraculous recoveries after each defeat.
Both Kolchak and Denikin realized that any aid form the west meant the sale of Russia and the plundering of her natural resources. Trotsky was willing to do this at the behest of his banking contacts. The whites would not. The result was the comment of William Bullitt, head of US intelligence in St. Petersburg, that Trotsky was “our man” in Russia. The French assistant military attache in Russia, Captain Jaques Sadoul, was firmly in Trotsky’s camp (Munholland, 1981). He was also a founder of the International and a communist.
Eventually, he tired of this intellectual fad and abandoned the ideology in 1919.
Herbert Hoover saved the fledgling USSR with generous food aid while American companies developed the first five year plan for the Soviet Union. In 1917, declassified papers from the US Department of State clearly demand that American media outlets stop referring to the Reds as “enemies.”
The Last Hope: Hetman Skoropadsky
In Ukraine, the sole hope for stability was the Cossack Chieftain Pavel Skoropadsky (1873-1945). Universally rejected by western historians, his record was impressive. Though ruling only from April to November of 1918, the Reds feared him and Petliura, a high level occultist and a member of the same lodge as Trotsky, was mobilized to fight him. Skoropadsky was pro-Russian but dd not believe in being a part of the empire. In his short reign he reformed the armed services, limited land ownership, clipped the landlord class and lowered taxes.
Achieving recognition from the Vatican, Austria, Denmark, and more than 30 states, Ukrainian independence had finally become the norm worldwide. Suspiciously, the “Ukrainian nationalist” movement fought him (cf Sagaydak, 2011).
The Hetman was supported by Bishop Nikodemus, labor and the peasantry in general. Imitating the policy of Emperor Alexander III, he chartered the peasant land bank, making it easier to buy or reclaim land. Each peasant family was assured a minimum of 25 hectares that no debt could remove. Grain prices were fixed so as to avoid market fluctuations. Domestic demand was given priority and hard currency was earned with about 35% of all grain exported. Yet this miracle, an independent Ukraine in close union with Russia, was intolerable.
Skoropadsky is the unsung hero of the White idea. Dismissed with almost no consideration by western historians, he proved himself a political genius under the worst of circumstances. Liberal constitutionalism was a suicide pact under the unsettled conditions of war, moral degeneracy and foreign occupation. As Pavel was a distant relative of the Hetman Ivan Skoropadsky (1646-1722), it is fair to say that the Hetmanate had been legitimately restored with his accession.
With almost no money, he succeeded in creating eight army corps of competent fighting strength. Strangely, the Rada state failed to even begin this process. The socialists, not even approaching the fairness of the Hetman’s land policy (even in theory) launched a war against him.
This same group that refused to create a military force under the Rada suddenly had the ability to field an army against the Hetman (Kaganets, 2007).
Within Austria-Hungary, the Hetman had multinational and multi-confessional support. The German army was in negotiations with the moderate left as the Hetman took over and had no interest in supporting Skoropadsky. At the time, his enemies said that England, not Germany, was his sponsor. His opponents approached Germany to fight the Hetman, not support him. His land reform was to benefit small landholders, a group he considered to be essential to rebuilding. He was in the process of putting together a representative ruling council at the time of his absurd dethroning (Kalynchuk, 2013).
The artificial and forced nature of the socialist and “nationalist” opposition to Skoropadsky was such as to bring them to levels of absurdity. He advocated gradual Ukrainiaization of the military and government services. This was ignored by Petliura. His cabinet contained such luminaries as Doroshenko, Kistakovsky, Naumenko, and Stebnytska, but all of this was deemed insufficiently Ukrainian (as Petliura made an alliance with Poland).
During his short reign, his moderate pro-Ukrainian stance converted many Russians nationals living on the territory. Ukrainian independence achieved both de facto and de jure by Skoropadsky, was permanently destroyed upon his overthrow.
Vasyl Lypkivsky and the Hetman were allies, and he successfully mediated a reconciliation of the UAOC and the ROC on his territory. He sought a fully autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox church with its own patriarch. His successes were so sudden and so significant that he even received Uniat support, given that he was the best hope for stability in the region in Vienna’s opinion. Living in Germany after the war, Skoropadsky refused all offers to cooperate with Hitler’s government. He was a man of rare principle in a violent and unsettled age. There is no excuse for the awful treatment this man has received from historians, and the attacks on him from Petliura and the Poles should strongly place his support for Ukrainian independence in doubt.2
It goes without saying that, in the west, all myths created by the Red forces about the Hetman were believed without criticism. Without regard to any facts, he was referred to as a German partisan and hence totally impossible for the Allies to support. A strong Ukraine, anticommunist, yet independently pro-Russian, would have been an immense help to the anticommunist cause.
A comprehensive bibliography of the Hetman can be found here:
Conclusion
The west did everything in its power to ensure the Red takeover of Russia. It had its tentacles into the major banking houses in New York thanks to Trotsky. It was an atheist and thus materialist movement that saw men as nothing more than matter in motion, hence, mass killing had no clear or obvious sanction against it. The Red armies were falling apart in 1918, Skoropadsky was creating a prosperous Ukrainian government in Kiev, and Kappel had a fortune that could maintain the White forces indefinitely. None of this assisted the Whites (Bunyan, 1976).
The American financial community demanded a centralized, materialist and Jewish Russia and this they received. Today, Vladimir Putin is threatened with World War III on a daily basis. Sanctions seek to strangle the Russian economy. This is because Putin is a nationalist.
Noting like this was ever imposed on the USSR. Nationalism, especially the nationalism of a country as large as Russia, was the primary enemy of the banking elite then and now. This is the sole reason the Reds won the Civil War and had the liquidity and investment to continue in power once it was granted to them.
There is no farce more saddening than the history being written for pay in American universities.
Source: Where The Power Lies
Posted in 
Tags: 
