Counter-Currents
The Russian Civil War: Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, Part 4
Spencer J. Quinn
1,751 words
Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here
Solzhenitsyn points out early in chapter sixteen of Two Hundred Years Together that immediately after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks wielded fearsome, unchecked power. And it was the wanton abuse of this power that led to the unspeakable violence of the Russian Civil War and the anti-Jewish pogroms to which Russian history had no equivalent.
Right away, the Red Army was a Jewish creation. Leon Trotsky, along with Ephraim Sklyanksy and Jacov Sverdlov, founded it in 1918 with many Jews in leadership positions. Solzhenitsyn cites several Jewish sources and spends pages naming names. The first Soviet secret police, known as the Cheka, was also disproportionately Jewish in its leadership (especially in places like Kyiv where there were many Jews to begin with), as it was also disproportionately non-Russian. Trotsky himself is on record admitting to this. Solzhenitsyn names names in the Cheka as well.
He also points out how dedicated to terror the Cheka really was. The early days of the Russian Civil War Solzhenitsyn describes not as a war but as the “liquidation of a former adversary,” and the Cheka was the weapon used to effect this. It held the Russian population in mortal fear. It routinely enforced the death penalty without trial. It captured and executed innocent hostages by the thousands (sometimes by mass drownings in barges). Whenever bothering to interrogate suspects, their concern was not to reveal incriminating evidence, but to discern the suspects’ heritage and social class. One’s identity was enough to determine guilt or innocence in the jaundiced eyes of the Cheka. Solzhenitsyn quotes a certain (presumably Jewish) Schwartz promoting nothing less than genocide:
The proclaimed Red Terror should be implemented in a proletarian way. If physical extermination of all servants of Czarism and capitalism is the prerequisite for the establishment of the worldwide dictatorship of proletariat, then it wouldn’t stop us.
Solzhenitsyn quotes a Cheka order to annihilate entire villages and execute their populations. He relays estimates that in Crimea from 1917 to 1921, Red forces murdered 120,000 to 150,000 people. During the Russian Civil War, Crimea became known as the “All-Russian Cemetery.” He also includes a Jewish source who remarks on the striking change which Jewish youth underwent after the Revolution:
We were astonished to find among the Jews what we never expected from them — cruelty, sadism, unbridled violence — everything that seemed so alien to a people so detached from physical activity; those who yesterday couldn’t handle a rifle, today were among the vicious cutthroats.
Things become murky, however, in Ukraine. The Revolution and the resulting Red Terror met with great resistance there. Reactionary forces, represented mostly by the White Army, had their share of victories before their ultimate defeat. And with victory, as was the case during this time, came atrocity. In many places, Jews were blamed for the rise of Bolshevism. This resulted in a series of pogroms that dwarfed the ones of the late nineteenth century. Between 1917 and 1921, an estimated 180,000-200,000 Jews were murdered in Ukraine and what is today Belarus — but not entirely by White forces. The Red Army (believe it or not) as well as various partisan groups (often Ukrainian nationalists who fought against both White and Red) were responsible for nearly eighty-five percent of this. The remainder was caused by the Whites.
Solzhenitsyn vividly describes the horror:
Sometimes during the anti-Jewish pogroms by rebellious peasant bands, entire shtetls were exterminated with indiscriminate slaughter of children, women, and elders. After the pogromists finished with their business, peasants from surrounding villages usually arrived on wagons to join in looting the commercial goods which were often stored in large amounts in the towns because of the unsettled times. All over Ukraine rebels attacked passenger trains and often commanded communists and Jews to get out of the coach and those who did were shot right on the spot; or in checking papers of passengers, suspected Jews were ordered to pronounce “kukuruza” [кукуруза, the Russian word for corn] and those who spoke with an accent were escorted out and executed.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here.
(Note the similarity to the famous Shibboleth episode in the equally bloody Book of Judges from the Old Testament. Coincidentally, the ancient Hebrew word Shibboleth meant an ear of corn.)
Outrages such as these accelerated the Jewish shift to the Left and forced the majority of centrist or neutral Jews to embrace the Reds. Can anyone blame them? Could this have been helped? Could any middle ground have remained during such a turbulent period? After the October Revolution, how could the average Russian peasant, now armed and part of an army, not be seething in hatred for Jews — the very people they believe stole their country from them? In fact, Solzhenitsyn describes the White Army as being “hypnotized by Trotsky” and believing that their country was now being occupied solely by Jewish Commissars.
But there was a non-insignificant number of patriotic Jews who were either sympathetic with the White cause or had actually joined White forces. Solzhenitsyn makes this point often. He also stresses how not all White forces were hostile to Jews. Rather, many tended to remain suspicious of even friendly Jews given how prominent other Jews were among the Reds. And so, in many cases, Jewish allies were either rejected or forced into humiliating supporting roles during the war. Some White generals forbade pogroms entirely, such as Alexander Kolchak in Siberia and Pyotr Wrangel in Crimea.
Sadly, this wasn’t enough. In the West, the pogroms soured public opinion of the Whites and crippled their ability to raise much-needed funds. Winston Churchill, then Britain’s Secretary of War, was sympathetic to the Russian nationalist cause, and wrote to White General Anton Denikin, explaining that the pogroms were making it difficult for him to secure support for the Whites in Parliament. Churchill also feared the influence of British Jews who were already making up a substantial portion of the British elite. Of course, the Bolshevik press took full advantage of every pogrom and did much to manipulate world opinion away from the Whites. That equally enormous Soviet atrocities did little to sway world opinion in the other direction is a testament to how tightly the Jews controlled world media even back then.
It’s a rigged game, this public opinion. Jews make ostentatious victims, but as victimizers, they lurk in the shadows like assassins. This is the two-faced beast all Rightists must face, and was something the White forces may not have understood well enough.
That being said, pogroms and a persistent, almost superstitious, Jew-hate may not have been all that doomed the Whites to defeat. But according to Solzhenitsyn, they were significant factors. When he writes that the Whites were hypnotized by Trotsky, he isn’t exaggerating much. For example, wild conspiracy theories about Trotsky worshipping the Devil and practicing Satanic rituals in the Kremlin persisted in White circles for years after the war. Without pogroms at the very least, the Whites would have been able to raise more money and make more use of Jewish talent and manpower than what they had at their disposal at the time. They also would have made Bolshevism a lot less attractive to centrist or otherwise neutral Jews. And, who knows? This might have made the difference in the war’s outcome.
White racial dissidents today can learn much from this regrettable episode. The Russian Civil War is a unique time in history since it is where racial nationalism, petty nationalism, the Left, and the Jewish Question all meet at a bloody crossroads. How could the forces of Reaction have survived this encounter? How could some semblance of normalcy have been restored in the former Russian Empire? My reading of chapter sixteen of Two Hundred Years Together tells me that a sober appreciation for the Truth — and a good deal of restraint — would have gone a long way. The enemy is the Left — in this case, the Bolsheviks. The driving force behind this enemy is, as always, the Jewish Left. But not all Jews are on the Left, and not all of the Left is Jewish. This, of course, does not mean that the Dissident Right need curry favor with Jews or even with the relatively small subset of them that is favorably disposed to Dissident Right perspectives.
What this does mean, however, is threefold:
- All-consuming hatred is unhealthy, immoral, and bad in and of itself. This should be an axiom not just in war but in life.
- All-consuming Jew-hate plays into the Left’s strengths. In any struggle against the Left, Rightist or Reactionary forces must understand that the propaganda war and the war on the ground are equally important. In at least three of the great Left-Right conflicts of the twentieth century (The Russian Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War) the propaganda war made the difference in favor of the Left. This is what the Left — especially the Jewish Left — is really good at. They’re much better at propaganda than the Right is, in fact. When taking the Left on, the Right needs to understand this and behave accordingly, even if the Left doesn’t have to behave accordingly. This is the price the Right has to pay for coming in second when it comes to propaganda.
- Any Rightist movement in conflict with the Left should do as little as possible to alienate centrist or neutral Jews. Again, this does not mean the Right should seek these people out or curry favor with them. Unabashed philo-Semitism is simply a bad look for any leader of the Right. It seems that a professed Judeo-neutral position might be the best course. It makes the radical Left less attractive, it makes Leftist propaganda harder to fabricate, and it will allow for the Right to utilize a certain amount of Jewish capital, talent, and manpower.
Solzhenitsyn laments at the end of the chapter that the hard swing of Jews towards Bolshevism and the hard swing of the Whites against the Jews “eclipsed and erased the most important benefit of a possible White victory — the sane evolution of the Russian state.”
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the weekly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
38 comments
The three takeaway points at the conclusion of this article are mind-calcifying. The White race, and the Right which must be its champion, will NEVER succeed so long as a single Jew stands in its way. There are no “good Jews.” The “centrist” or “neutral” Jews of which the author speaks are, at bottom, Jews, and thus will never change. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? No Right will be victorious until it names the Jew and pulls up its vile root system of influence once and for all. The propaganda war is won by victory; barring that, the purpose now should be to begin to expose the Jew to the deluded population. Starting with proxy language, like “globalists,” and focusing on prominent Jews like Soros and the Sacklers. Does the Lion concern himself with not alienating the hyena?
Are you a lion?
Are you a Jew?
I don’t know, let me check.
Oy vey! That wonderful jewish humour!
Hi GC,
I want to win as I am sure you do. It seems to me that unabated Jew hate during the Russian civil war caused the the Whites to lose more than anything else. It caused the Whites to lose the propaganda war, which in turn hampered its chances in a myriad of ways. This was solzhenitsyn’s position and he spent decades studying this stuff.
I would prefer to learn from our mistakes and realize that A) there is a propaganda war, B) we are most likely going to lose it. Our key to victory will be to maximize our victory on the ground while minimizing their victory in the propaganda war. This would mean producing *our* propaganda. And what you’re saying is terrible propaganda for us and great propaganda for our enemies.
Please believe me when I say this: Jews *love* it when we speak the way you did above. It makes their job of demonizing us (ie propaganda) much easier to do. It sadly does not matter if what you say is true. It’s just a bad look, not just to Jews and Left who would gladly spend billions in order to destroy us, but also to non white gentiles whom we would hope would stay out of the way during our next big conflict. If our absolutist language applies to jews, in their mind it could apply to them too. Therefore we are shooting ourselves in the foot by alienating 90% of the planet before a single shot is fired.
Yes the Jewish Left is the greatest enemy we face. And yes we need to eliminate its influence over us. But we lost the Russian Civil War and WW2. We dont have the right to call ourselves lions anymore. Lion Cubs maybe, struggling to survive. And we must understand that the most powerful weapons the Jewish Left has at its disposal and what gave it victory in these two conflicts was propaganda.
Remember what Napoleon said: three opposition newspapers are worth more than 100,000 enemy soldiers.
Here’s the propaganda war in the current context, not that this needs repeating:
1) a peaceful protest at Charlottesville was recast as a “deadly” neonazi uprising
2) months of violent protest, looting, desecration and destruction with myriad murders and injuries and billions of damage and the literal and declared armed usurpation of a municipality were cast as mostly peaceful protests by the left.
3) a rowdy perhaps riotous protest at the capitol was cast as an armed insurrection by the left.
It’s hopeless. No matter what we say we are never going to win the propaganda war. We need a new approach, if there is one.
Spencer, I wanted to say at the outset that I am grateful for these articles on ‘Two Hundred Years Together’ that you have written. They are superb! I’m not aware of any full English translation (though, apparently, something in the works), and I currently have too many other reading commitments to work through his tome. You’ve made his work so much more accessible, and I have a greater sense now of what he was saying and its importance in understanding that period of time.
As for naming the Jew, I think we are obligated to do so. To ‘pussy-foot’ around the Jewish Question (which should really be addressed as the ‘Jewish Problem’) hasn’t worked and only serves to weaken our message. We can’t fight a war without specifically identifying the enemy.
At the same time, I think it’s important that we qualify things somewhat, that we bring some nuance and perspective to our concerns surrounding the JQ. We should make it clear that our criticism is primarily directed at Jewish elites and those who enable their anti-White agenda. It’s not necessarily with the average, individual Jew who may have no knowledge or role in our racial and cultural demise as Whites. Many Jews are no different than the average White Goy who go along in life with no awareness of the deeper cultural issues. I don’t see what advantage we would gain by deliberately alienating them and potentially causing them to harden against our people by making no distinction between them and their leaders.
As I understand it, Hitler himself permitted half-Jews (perhaps even full Jews?) to serve in the German military and other positions. Although he stood against international Jewry, his rejection of them was almost exclusively directed at Jewish Bolshevik radicals, Jewish bankers who had manipulated their economic system, Jewish academics who had poisoned the minds of the German people, and Jewish-controlled newspapers that had demoralized Germany’s citizens. In other words, Hitler did not seem to have a blind hatred for Jews as is commonly assumed, and his views seem more on balance than is espoused by the court historians.
I recognize that for Jews their ethnicity and cultural ways are deeply ingrained. In the end, the vast majority of them will defend their people whether right or wrong. Yet, there will always be Jews like Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, Ron Unz and others who will try to call their people to account and to some semblance of sanity. In fact, the real heroes of the Old Testament in almost every case was a Jew who heralded repentance to his own people and who was also hated by them as a result. The same with certain Jews in the New Testament, including Paul and Jesus Himself. The so-called ‘anti-Semitism’ of the New Testament is merely the pronouncements of Jews against other Jews.
The point is, not every individual Jew is our direct enemy and we would be wise to use our words wisely and with greater nuance. Our enemies are not required to be careful with their words because their nature is to malign and falsify, but we are required to win over our people who have been badly conditioned to believe the worst of themselves and only the best of Jews. We have the more difficult and greater task of breaking through the lies and smokescreens without at the same time completely alienating those we are intending to reach (Whites).
As for naming the Jew, I think we are obligated to do so. To ‘pussy-foot’ around the Jewish Question (which should really be addressed as the ‘Jewish Problem’) hasn’t worked and only serves to weaken our message.
If I were a normie Jew I’d be incensed right here and now about this, and any further talk about being wise would be too late. Calling out in public hasn’t worked either, as the article points out.
We can’t fight a war without specifically identifying the enemy.
Can’t we? Can you prove it?
This is like explaining quantum mechanics to a first grader: he doesn’t have the necessary concepts to understand it yet. If discussing quantum mechanics was forbidden by law, what good would it be then to insist explaining it to the first grader? That does not mean that physics laws do not apply anymore, or that we have to ignore them, just that these are the parameters we have to deal with.
“If I were a normie Jew I’d be incensed right here and now about this, and any further talk about being wise would be too late. Calling out in public hasn’t worked either, as the article points out” – Most ‘normie Jews’ are not reading Counter Currents or any other like-minded site. When I mention calling out the Jew, I’m talking about the sort of discourse (or lack thereof) White dissidents have among themselves on their own sites. I’m NOT referring to to having public discussions with Jews about their culturally subversive ways, although this may occur now and then. Rather, it’s the sort of in-house discussions or debates that we as racially-conscious Whites have among ourselves about the JQ. This is NOT about public denunciations of Jews, but about the need to discuss the Jewish problem with Whites, and even among racially-aware Whites who may be fearful of the consequences for doing so.
For instance, on Amren and other sites that are pro-White, there is some hesitance to have the JQ discussed openly. Usually, one must discuss the matter using code-words so as to not get banned or to not arouse the anger of the moderator (although in fairness, Amren has recently become more open to comments about the JQ so long as they are free from raging anti-Semitic screeds).
Again, there is still much uneasiness among Whites (who ought to know better) about ‘going too far’ and addressing typical Jewish cultural subversion. It’s a ‘bridge too far’ for many of our people. But we must face it. My point is that while the JQ must be raised, we need to be careful in how we present it.
“We can’t fight a war without specifically identifying the enemy. Can’t we? Can you prove it?” – There’s really nothing to prove. It is a self-evident truth. No army can effectively fight its enemies if it fails to identify them, their nature, and tactics. Remaining in the dark is not an effective strategy. Why does something as simple as this have to ‘proven’ to you?
There is a very important difference between identifying as in pointing finger and identifying as in being aware.
Right after Stalin’s demise all over the Eastern Europe and USSR there was a deaf but intense and long struggle for power (decades) between foreign and native communist leaders. Slowly but steadily the natives gained ground. The details of this struggle might make a very interesting study. Not for one moment was there even thinkable to openly point the finger, as in the beginning the leaders of the secret services and also of the army command and political command structures were mostly Jewish.
I would say that Amren speak is still very open and direct than what would be possible in the future US if things stay on this track.
They have already labeled half the country Nazis, you know the half that’s overwhelmingly pro Israel and as for other non jewish groups they have convinced them that we’re pure evil already, even asians who are getting beaten left and right are blaming White people for it. If civil war kicks off I don’t think anything less than mass suicide on the part of the conservative White faction would get the media to say anything positive about them.
I understand there are only 14 million to 24 million Jews on earth, depending whether you ask ultra-0rthodox rabbis or reformed groups. And there are approximately 800 million peoples of Aryan-European-White heritage, again depending upon which group counts which other groups. So, you would think that our larger numbers would be able to out-maneuver such a motley-crew, yet we continually find ourselves stymied. I only know that we can never, in the future, announce any of our plans anywhere near them, for they are masters at sniffing out secrets. So, we surely need to be better organized — to the point of having some such thing as an ‘underground railroad’ or other secret society operating in a ‘temple-like’ structure, but whose rules and constitutions and rituals are blurred from view, in secrecy and absolutely loyalty. Can we do such a thing? Contemporary Christianity cannot shelter us, for 90% of Christian organizations of any sort have subscribed to ‘Liberation Theology’, which is a 100% Leftist diatribe.
And then, there is money — and I get the impression that most WNs are opposed to capitalism, mercantilism, and corporatism, which is precisely how money is made. saved, invested and moved around the planet with ease. So — what are our plans for doing the same? I am convinced that if all Jewish money worldwide, were piled in one place and then equally distributed to the 24 million Jews in existence, each one would still be a billionaire. So, I say, we need to catch up. This is an underground battle we can win and still keep quiet about until it is time to strike. Look what a bunch of teenagers were able to pull-off a couple months ago with Gamestop.
Well, these are just two of my observations on regaining our place of power and control. Actually, I believe we have never lost the top of the mountain, but we are being pushed and shamed into believing we have. Instead, step up and into your Privileged Position. Take back the board, one square at a time, silently.
Alienating all Jews was a serious mistake, but the most crucial was the neglect of russian peasantry. Whites had no serious offer for them and couldn’t even bother to prop up a reliable tzar figure that would officially grant them land they desired. We were able to stop the Bolsheviks near Warsaw in 1920 because premier Wincenty Witos (a leading peasant politican) rallied the rural masses to fight for independent Poland and reject communist promises.
Right wing populists should take those lessons to heart and embrace lower and middle class peoples who desire a little piece of fortune they can work for and eventually obtain.
I think the historical memory played a huge part too. Wherever the Russians soldiers stepped they left enduring memories … especially for the peasants.
Land reforms played a part as king Ferdinand of Romania understood so well.
The peasant question in Poland was a serious one since the abolition of serfdom was conducted by tzar Alexander II, not by polish elites (before and after partitions) who failed to solve the problem on their own. Second Polish Republic among its many challenges faced the agrarian reform, that became a contentious issue since the landowner lobby held a portion of inluence in the parliament and goverment coalitions were unstable. Many peasants held dear their language and traditions, but remained distrustful of the elites, especially the noblemen and their intelectualist descendants. To become Poles in a Polish state, but without any land of their own to plough, or with pitiful scraps wasn’t exatly an enticing prospect for them. On the other hand, radical agrarians and communists carried powerful slogans, especially in the segment of abolishing church and landowner property. In the end it was the centre-right agrarians of Polish Peasant Party “Piast” under Witos that managed to convince the majority rural population, that the fledgling state is worth fighting for and we all bleed the same polish blood.
Sadly, the agrarian reform that came later was insufficient and badly implemented which eventually resulted in peasant strikes when Great Depression hit. In the end it was the communist Polish People’s Republic that introduced a definitive land reform and thankfully refrained from complete collectivization.
Thank you. Very interesting. And your conclusion is certanly right.
The Russians invaded the Romanian states at 23.5 years on average in the last two centuries. The Romanian peasants had no doubt regarding the Russians – be them christian or bolshevik.
As a side note. The tsarist general Aleksey Brusilov was cheerleading along Trotsky and Kalinin for the war against Poland.
Fortunately when communists struck in Hungary, Romanians already knew that nothing good will come out of it and overthrew the scum. One of the reasons why both our countries were able to cooperate in an alliance during the interwar period. It’s a shame that this time of friendship became rather forgotten in polish popular memory (at least it’s being taught in mid-level schools), we owe you for not betraying us to either side in WW II, despite the geopolitical pressure you faced. Wielkie Dzięki from Poland!
As a side note. The tsarist general Aleksey Brusilov was cheerleading along Trotsky and Kalinin for the war against Poland.
True, the subject of Imperial Army veterans and civil servants who chose to support bolsheviks is often omitted. Another notable example was count Alexei Ignatev (Алексей Алексеевич Игнатьев), imperial general and diplomat/spy who resided in France as military attaché when the civil war erupted. He had massive state funds deposited in Banque de France at his disposal (for arms pruchases), but he refused to send them to Whites. He kept them locked (never defrauded even a tiny sum) and in 1924 transferred the entire 225 mln rubbles (around 2 billion $ at the time) worth of deposits to the Soviet government. Despite becoming a pariah for russian émigrés he lived in France unti 1937 when he moved to USSR and started to serve in RKKA as kombrig (with his entire pre-revolutionary service acknowledged and validated in his service records), later becoming a head instructor in Leningrad (Kirov Medical Academy) and receiving general-major rank when Stalin restored general ranks. He was never purged, depsite distrust from fellow officers and participated in military parades where (with some nostalgia) he noticed how similar unit organization often resembled the imperial one.
Very good information.
It strengthens my opinion that the Russian Army and Ochrana were working to get rid of tsar either as a proxy of foreign interests (especially German), a good for nothing expense, a symbol of past times that is destroying Russia – in fact the Empire.
The plot went terribly wrong being derailed by the usual suspects. But the heavy duty fighting was done by Russians.
Agree. This is a good point. Thanks.
Well, seeing as how Solzhenitsyn most certainly wasn’t a Jew, and that the Whites most certainly did not win, it might be wise to listen to him, and at least consider his arguments. He wasn’t always right, of course, but he understood the dynamics of the Left in a way that few can. Morality aside, it’s hard to see what the Whites gained by conducting pogroms, even from the standpoint of cold self interest.
I very much liked the article. I’m not sure if the mistake is the authors ,as I suspect, or Solzhenytsyns but Symon Petliura was a nationalist Ukrainian socialist who frequently fought against the White Army My grandfather was one of his officers. It’s a very convoluted narrative,I know as Kyiv itself was exchanged hands 14 times in 17 months about the time my father was born in the vicinity. Or perhaps it was 17 times in 14 months . I’d have to check to be sure. Just sayin….
The remainder was caused by the Whites, with forces led by general Symon Petliura taking the lion’s share.
Symon Petliura was not a general. And he was not White. He was Ukrainian Nationalist. And he was Social-democrat, moderate Left. And Anti-Bolshevik and anti-White alike.
Yuri Lytviak and Grey Wolf,
Thank you for correcting me. The error was mine, not Solzhenitsyn’s. Here is the relevant passage from 200 Years Together:
“Compiling data from different Jewish sources, a modern historian comes up with 900 mass pogroms, of which: 40% by Petliura’s Ukrainian Directorate troops ; 25% by the squads of the various Ukrainian “atamans”; 17% by Denikin’s White Army troops; and 8.5% by the First Cavalry Army of Budyonny and other Red Army troops.”
Also, yes, Petliura was not a general. Here is how Solzhenitsyn introduces him: “a Ukrainian publicist, writer, journalist who was head of state during the Ukrainian independence of 1918-1920.” Yet in several places, Solzhenitsyn mentions “Petliura’s troops.” This made me infer that he was a general as well.
“Petliura’s troops.” This made me infer that he was a general as well.
Well, Petliura was Holovny Otaman, de facto head of state, something between a president and a prime-minister. So the soldiers were “his troops”. We can say about the US Forces in Vietnam “Johnson´s troops” or “Nixon´s troops”. And we can say “Gen. Westmoreland´s troops” and “Gen. Abrams´s troops”. Both is correct, but on different levels.
A propos, Petliura himself was not an Anti-Semite. He has Jews in his government, and those Jews were loyal to him and to Ukrainian state. But he could not control all “his” troops during the war. And, yes, he was killed in Paris by the Jew Schwarzbart, but I think Comrade Schwarzbart used the “progroms” only as a cover to justify the murder, but in reality he was simply a Soviet agent, so he killed not so much as a Jew, but more as a Bolshevik (and it was covered-up in the media and in the history).
Brutal business in Russia. Worse than I had previously heard about. Thanks Mr. Quinn for digesting this book for our review.
I despair when I appraise the distance between our present situation and a Western Recovery. The magnitude and brutality of what we must do to achieve that objective, is daunting.
In securing a Western Recovery, will we find it necessary to resort to actions similar to those of the Bolsheviks?
Likely yes. We already know that the enemies of the West, most of them, are not going to “go quietly” in the wake of a Western Recovery. They will be shooting and sabotaging us just as the partisans of 1941 did against the Wehrmacht. And the counter-measures will likely need to be the same, given the tenacious roaches that Leftists are.
And there will be millions of them, all among us, in academia, media, even our own brothers and children, not to mention the urban biomass. A prolonged civil war of unprecedented brutality will be needed to quell them all. How could it be avoided?
“How could it be avoided?” it can’t be avoided.
It’s like that goebbels quote with fuehrer’s plan.
Any attempts at delaying the rightful wrath will only dispossess the already fucked.
There’s a rising awareness of pre-christian mental nodes, it’s common in ‘gaming’ , wheore i come from. more greek and roman than the cross.
Pay attention, there’s moe of us than you think.
This is what I hear: if we are just nice enough and moral enough and rational enough, and avoid saying mean things about our enemies, then millions will come flocking thisaway and there will be no need for no need for wars or major violence of any kind and things will click into place for us. Right…
The Spanish Civil was won militarily, but lost in the propaganda sphere. The main reason for the propaganda disadvantage is that progressivism is the dominant force of world history since 200 years or so.
Simon Petlura WASN’T a White general. He was a Ukrainian separatist. So they main pogroms were caused by Ukrainian separatists (nationalists), NOT by Russian White Army.
Hi Ernst
Two readers above spotted this same error. I have asked CC to correct it. Thank you.
I remember once retorting in a heated conversation about ‘The Jewish Problem’ “Well, if Jews are ‘God’s Chosen People’, what does that make the rest of us — dog meat?”
Just a silly, spur-of-the-moment comment, but in retrospect, I actually think it is the very crux of the problem. The ‘Chosen People’ epithet will keep them in eternal enmity with all other peoples. And so be it.
Because that God is a Jewish God, not a German God; not an English God, not a Qazaq God, not an Ukrainian God, etc.
Thank you Spencer so much for these series of essays on “Two Hundred Years Together.” This subject is the ‘heart’ of most of our problems in this country it seems. And that might be an over statement but every time I think about what’s happening to us right now, the cause of it seems to definitely be (((them))).
I’m currently reading “The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings 1947-2005,” and am thoroughly enjoying it.
This is a quote attributed to AIS, “We can not state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But: Without Jews there never would have been Bolshevism. For a Jew nothing is more insulting than the truth. The Blood Maddened Jewish terrorists had murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.”
Do yo Spencer, or would anyone know if he AIS actually said this?
Hi Bobby,
Thank you.
I’m skeptical of that quote. I hunted around and always found it without a source. It doesn’t sound like something Solzhenitsyn would say and it is certainly not in 200yrs. Further the number is too high. AS *never* wrote that 66m were murdered in that time frame in anything I have read of his, and he never attributed all the Soviet atrocities to Jews as in the quote.
The closest I could find was this quote from the Jewish writer I.M. Beckerman (same person as Biekerman, whom I mention in part 1 of this series). AS quotes him at length, but this quote comes from Slezkine’s Jewish Century page 183, so we know it’s legit:
“it goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews, but what is equally obvious is that disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”
Thanks Spencer!
My favorite White Russian is Vladimir M. Purishkevich, who had been a founding member of the Black Hundred movement and an associate of the first publisher and probable author of the Protocols, Pavel Krushevan. Neither Purishkevich nor Krushevan were actually ethnic Russians; they were Russia-assimilated ethnic Romanians from Russia-ruled Bessarabia. They definitely were not diplomatic on the Jewish question, although Purishkevich rejected violence as a solution. Not diplomatic, but overall not wrong either. Like his ethnic kinsman Codreanu a generation later, Purishkevich’s anti-Semitism was not of the skull-measuring type, but was rather a legitimate critique of the Jewish aspect of the ties between big capitalism and communism. Purishkevich’s last act before he died was helping General Ludendorff plan the Kapp Putsch of 1920. For more on him, see my book “The Sword of Michael,” available on Amazon.
There are many good points here, and it shows that little real detail of the Russian Civil War is widely known in the Western public. But Solzhenitsyn was at pains to be scrupulously fair and not make unsupported statements. Spencer Quinn, though, here stated that Jews made up a significant proportion of the British elite at the time. The Jewish population of the UK was 0.6% in 1918 (now down to 0.47%), at least half being poor arrivals in the East End of London from Germany and Russia. It is likely that Jewish figures were overrepresented in the elite, but you are talking as a percentage the low single digits. Lord Rothschild was maybe the most influential, but he was unable to persuade The Times to stop its anti-German propaganda that led to the First World War (Rothschild tried to stop the drift to war). The editor of The Times in 1919-22, Henry Wickham Steed, was anti-Jewish, and wrote the editorial of 31 July 1914 condemning Jewish attempts to stop the drift to war with Germany. Later as editor of The Times, he endorsed the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and published editorials blaming the Jews for the First World War and for the Bolshevik revolution. I state this (and all this is easily researchable information), as your comment that the media in the West was under Jewish control during the Russian Civil War is not true. Or at least not true in England. The real dynamic was that the large working-class movement in Britain was Bolshevik-inspired, and nearly seized power in 1919 (see Red Clydeside – where the communists controlled parts of Scotland), and Britain also faced a war in Ireland at the time. The government was panicking over the risk of a Communist revolution. This is also why the king refused to allow the Romanovs safe passage to England. Of course, I do know that Jews in the US in particular push the globalist agendas, and are very overrepresented in the US media — but to claim this was the case in 1919, you would need to do some research. It wasn’t the case in England – and is still not the case in England today, where no national newspaper has a Jewish editor-in-chief, and no newspapers are currently owned by Jews. [The Economist is controlled the Rothschild family – I class that as a magazine – and that is the sole instance of Jewish control of the UK media at present.] I think we should adopt Solzhenitsyn’s approach of not making unsupported statements. We need to show people interested in nationalism that we are not motivated just by prejudice.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment