Talk:Joseph Stalin and antisemitism

message: There is an image titled “Joseph Stalin with Lazar Kaganovich.” Which of the two men in the picture is Lazar Kaganovich? Kaganovich looks very much like Stalin, at least in the picture.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaganovich 

message: Lenin is outraged that God sent him such comrades as the Mensheviks. What kind of people are they, really? Martov, Dan, Axelrod — circumcised Jews... Do Georgian workers really not know that the Jewish people are cowardly and no good for fighting?
This quote isnt from the same report as WP writes:
The quote further continues:[3]
I think that this is a false edit(it is a lie) from Wikipedia Editors.
I have search all the sources, and i think that is from what another x-communist said about Stalin in his "memoirs".
For that reasons i will put .
Sorry about my bad English.--Istoria1944 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: False source?

message: 1)No source is available with the full text.
The first text has source from Cambridge University (and is true)
The second text has source from .... " In Defence of Leon Trotsky"(??) that present the second text as part from the first (and is false).
2)The first text "Not less interesting is the composition of the congress from the standpoint of nationalities (...)so it would not be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to arrange a small pogrom in the party.[2]" are comments of Stalin from 1907, that are in some report that are published in a newspaper. 
On the other hand there is this quote as one text that says: "Lenin is outraged that God sent him such comrades as the Mensheviks. What kind of people are they, really? Martov, Dan, Axelrod — circumcised Jews... Do Georgian workers really not know that the Jewish people are cowardly and no good for fighting?"
No socialist newspaper couldn't have this antisemite text in 1907 when the protocols of the elders of Zion were publish as an anticommunist propaganda. It is a FORGERY from someone that present the two diffent texts as one. It is a HOAX.
I want to see the full text from the newspaper from a good source--Istoria1944 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofs about the Forgery

message: The source
Nowhere the source doesnt said that the text is one and from the newspaper
--Istoria1944 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The source says different things

message: Would it not be better to have this article under the title of Jews in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, as a specialist branch of the History of the Jews in the Soviet Union? I think that is probably the best way to deal with the subject in a neutral and broader matter, as the way it is currently framed the article may not even be notable enough to exist. For instance, we don't have an article about Stalin's relationship to and criticims of Christianity, which is arguably more notable since he was once training to be a priest and the Soviet Union mostly contained people who were Christian. If we just make this about Stalin and "antisemitism", rather than the general experiences of Soviet Jewry during the era, then we risk producing an obscurantist article, as well as excluding arguments to the contrary; ie - positive relations with Soviet Jews. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most articles, this one should be improved. But the wide range of sources at the very end should give you a hint. Stalin's antisemitism is widely discussed, and that makes this topic notable and worthy of an article. Abovesky (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed title change 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin and antisemitism →  – Wikipedia uses full names. The page on Joe Biden's politics is not called "Biden's Politics." Full names are necessary. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Support Makes article consistent with other Stalin articles such as Early life of Joseph Stalin, Rise of Joseph Stalin, Joseph Stalin's cult of personality, etc.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Support, per nom and WP:PRECISE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Support — Per nom. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Support per nominator. JIP | Talk 00:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 April 2022 

message: This article is quite biased towards the conclusion that Stalin was anti-semitic, rather than being a balanced recounting of the topic itself. Please indulge me, as I've noticed quite a lot of examples of this:
=== Introduction ===
"he privately displayed a contemptuous attitude toward Jews on various occasions that were witnessed by his contemporaries, and are documented by historical sources."
The source for this claim, which seems to confirm without a doubt that Stalin was anti-semitic, is Nikolai Tolstoy, a Russian noble who might have reason to oppose the Soviet Union and its head, Stalin. Notwithstanding that bias, the book in question equates Stalin with Hitler (p. 27, cited specifically in this article) and bases its allegations of anti-semitism on works by Petrov (White Russian emigrè), Kopolev (member of the Trotskyist-Bukharinist Opposition) and Parvilahti (Finnish POW, captured in the war of aggression by Finland against the USSR). Obviously, all of these sources also hold their bias. None of the aforementioned were in any position to bear witness to Stalin's "private display of contempt" against Jews.
Tolstoy also takes pains to underscore the fact that Stalin's daughter fell in love with a Jewish (Tolstoy's emphasis) film director (p. 24) and that Stalin was cross with her. However, he provides no proof for Stalin's angry reaction being because of the boyfriend being Jewish, rather, it seems like Stalin just didn't want his daughter dating anyone.
It is through these kinds of subtle tricks, as well as the book being 40 years old, published before the opening of the Soviet archives, that the work loses relevance as a source. In my opinion, the entire sentence should be substantiated with more relevant sources, if not deleted totally.
(I couldn't get a hold of the edition from the source, so the page numbers given are taken from the 1982 edition, published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
"In 1939, he reversed Communist policy and began a cooperation with Nazi Germany that included the removal of high profile Jews from the Kremlin." [my emphasis]
First of all, and this is a common thread running through the entire article, note the conflation of Soviet policy with Joseph Stalin. Stalin was not the sole proprietor of Soviet policy, and decisionmaking was collective through the CC of the CPSU. One cannot, and must not, make this conflation when writing about Soviet history. Note also the use of the word cooperation to describe a non-aggression pact. Why would this word be used here, when it would never be used for the French and Polish equivalents?
There is no source provided for the "cooperation" involving the removal of high profile Jews from the Kremlin. That is unacceptable when making such a heinous accusation. The only one that comes to mind is the replacement of Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, with Vyacheslav Molotov a couple of months before the pact's signing. However, this seems to have been less influenced by Litvinov being Jewish, and more of a policy shift, from collective security (embodied by Litvinov) - which became irrelevant with the falling out of Franco-British-Soviet negotiations in early 1939 - to individual security (embodied by Molotov). Litvinov was by no means purged from the Soviet state apparatus - he continued to attend CC and Supreme Soviet meetings.
Once again, this sentence should be substantiated in some way, or struck from the article.
"According to his successor Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin was fomenting the doctors' plot as a pretext for further anti-Jewish repressions."
Khrushchev's "secret" speech has been proven to have been little more than political manouvering (see, for example, Losurdo 2020, ch. 1), and all allegations given in it are either exaggerated or factually untrue. Khrushchev had a lot to gain from slandering Stalin (and his living loyalists) in 1956, not least to consolidate his own power and break with the current state of things. Nothing he says can be taken as objective fact, given this monumental bias. Are we to believe that Khrushchev, after actively participating in Stalin's administration for years, after contributing heavily to building up the cult of personality he would denounce, suddenly had a change of heart?
There is no source provided, so once again, provide a source (not Khrushchev) or delete the sentence.
=== Early years ===
"He began meeting Jews more frequently with the Stockholm Congress, including zealous revolutionaries whose competition he might have resented."
This is clearly psychoanalysis (the source even retroactively diagnoses Stalin with an inferiority complex and chronic jealousy), which only works if one already sees Stalin as a "ruthless" person who put his personal ambitions above all else. It is not an objective retelling of facts.
This sentence also misrepresents the source, a book by Benjamin Pinkus, which says (on p. 143):
"Thus, it was only from 1906 on, when he first went to the Stockholm congress, that meetings with Jews became more frequent. For the ambitious Stalin, suffering from an inferiority complex and consumed with jealousy, Bolsheviks like Kamenev. Zinovyev and Litvinov could have aroused feelings of hatred, but these would not necessarily take the form of anti-Semitism."
The sentence in the article amalgamates the quote from the source to imply that Stalin might have resented his rivals (such as Kamenev and Zinoviev, who would later try to overthrow him) because they were Jewish. The source contradicts them.
The sentence seems irrelevant to the question. All it says is that Stalin disliked his political enemies, which is kind of self-evident. It should be struck from the article.
"Stalin's earliest antisemitic rhetoric appears in relation to the rivalry between the Bolshevik and Menshevik political factions. Jews were active in both groups, but more prominent among the Mensheviks. Stalin took note of the ethnic proportions represented on each side, as seen from a 1907 report on the Congress published in the Bakinsky rabochy (Baku Workman), which quoted a coarse joke about "a small pogrom" (погромчик) Stalin attributed to then-Bolshevik Grigory Aleksinsky:Not less interesting is the composition of the congress from the standpoint of nationalities. Statistics showed that the majority of the Menshevik faction consists of Jewsand this of course without counting the Bundistsafter which came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik faction consists of Russians, after which come Jewsnot counting of course the Poles and Lettsand then Georgians, etc. For this reason one of the Bolsheviks observed in jest (it seems Comrade Aleksinsky) that the Mensheviks are a Jewish faction and the Bolsheviks a genuine Russian faction, so it would not be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to arrange a small pogrom in the party."This is taken from the same source (p. 144). The source, as well as the sentences above, seemingly side-step the fact that Stalin was quoting another Bolshevik's crude joke, without praising or condemning it. It is, after all, taken from a report from the conference, which is meant to be an accurate retelling of the proceedings with some analysis for those who were not there. Immediately after the quote used in the article, Stalin elaborates on the demographics of the parties:
"It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts." [source]
It is clear that this paragraph only serves to imply anti-semitism where there is none. Stalin taking notes about the demographics of the parties (including not only Jews), going on to explain the difference, is not anti-semitic. Neither is recounting an insensitive joke by another person. Obviously, no "small pogrom" followed in the party.
This quote might warrant a mention, but in the whole it's irrelevant to the question of Stalin's supposed anti-semitism. The paragraph should be heavily reworded or condensed.
=== 1917 to 1930 ===
"In 1922, Stalin was elected the first-ever General Secretary of the party—a post not yet regarded as the highest in the Soviet government. Lenin began to criticize Stalin shortly thereafter."
There is no source for the second sentence, which renders it nonsensical. Of course Lenin criticised Stalin, as he did other fellow revolutionaries. What was the criticism about? By writing out the fact that the post of General Secretary was created specifically for Stalin by Lenin, because of the former's talents in organisatory affairs, these sentences seem to try to imply Lenin being against Stalin, perhaps even detesting his supposed anti-semitism.
The sentence is irrelevant to the subject, and only serves to make unsubstantiated implications. It should be removed or fleshed out with the necessary context.
"In his December 1922 letters, the ailing Lenin (whose health left him incapacitated in 1923–1924) criticized Stalin and Dzerzhinsky for their chauvinistic attitude toward the Georgian nation during the Georgian Affair. Eventually made public as part of Lenin's Testament—which recommended that the party remove Stalin from his post as General Secretary—the 1922 letters and the recommendation were both withheld from public circulation by Stalin and his supporters in the party:"
Firstly, chauvinism against Georgians is hardly relevant for the article's subject matter. Secondly, Lenin's supposed testament is heavily contested, as it might not be written by Lenin at all (here elaborated upon by Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin). Nevertheless, even if it is legitimate, it is totally irrelevant to the subject matter, once again.
The inclusion of this, and the following paragraph (dealing with the factional struggles against Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky) are totally unwarranted, have nothing to do with the subject, and serve only to paint a picture of Stalin as power-hungry. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it has no relation to his supposed anti-semitism.
=== 1930s to 1940s ===
"During his meeting with Nazi Germany's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, Stalin promised him to get rid of the "Jewish domination", especially among the intelligentsia. After dismissing Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in 1939, Stalin immediately directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews", to appease Hitler and to signal Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks."
The assertion that Stalin promised Ribbentrop Jewish removal is sourced from liberal-democratic (contrary to the name a far-right, Russian nationalist party) politician Alexander Yakovlev's book Twilight, which provides no sources for any of its claims, other than Yakovlev's own insistence that it happened. It fails the source test instantly, and should be removed if no other source is provided.
We have already covered the dismissal of Litvinov. The alleged purge of Jews from the ministry is substantiated with three sources. The first of these (Kocho-Williams) makes no such claim, even though the entire article is cited. The second (Resis, p. 35) quotes Molotov (Chuev 1993, p. 192), who makes the claim. However, Molotov also names Latvians as being dominant in the ministry at that time. It doesn't seem to have been directed towards Jews because of their ethnic background, but rather because of some sort of ingroup-outgroup dynamic. Keeping that in mind though, this source is justified and should be included in the article as support for the claim. The third (Moss, p. 283) also makes no such claims.
The deliberate purge of Jews from the Foreign Ministry should be regarded with caution, as it rests on one reminiscence by Molotov, forty years after the fact. It should be included, but sources 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the claim, and seem to have been added to lend the idea more credence.
"Antisemitic trends in Stalin's policies were fueled by his struggle against Leon Trotsky and his global base of support."
This claim is substantiated with two sources. The first (Etinger, p. 103) makes the claim that the struggle of Trotsky fuelled Stalin's antisemitism, based on a quote from Trotsky himself. Clearly, not an unpartial source. The second (Rappaport, p. 297) makes no reference to Trotsky being a Jew, simply being a recounting of Stalin's rivalry with him.
In order to make such a categorical statement, one needs to provide ample evidence for it. Neither of the sources does that, and the sentence should therefore be removed. Once again, Stalin disliked his political enemies, but not because they were Jewish.
=== After World War II ===
"Nonetheless, Stalin began a new purge by repressing his wartime allies, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. In January 1948, Solomon Mikhoels was assassinated on Stalin's personal orders in Minsk. His murder was disguised as a hit-and-run car accident. Mikhoels was taken to an MGB dacha and killed, along with his non-Jewish colleague Golubov-Potapov, under supervision of Stalin's Deputy Minister of State Security Sergei Ogoltsov. Their bodies were then dumped by the side of a road in Minsk."
This entire paragraph is substantiated by an article written by the right-wing, Radio Free Europe-linked journalist Mark Deitch, who provides no sources for any of his claims, as well as a book by famous "cold warrior" and anti-Soviet writer Robert Conquest, who only provides a select bibliography. There is no proof for Stalin's personal ordering of Mikhoels' killing in the sources. Therefore, the sentence should be substantiated with a different source, or deleted altogether.
=== Associates and family ===
"However, when Stalin's young daughter Svetlana fell in love with prominent Soviet filmmaker Alexei Kapler, a Jewish man twenty-three years her elder, Stalin was strongly irritated by the relationship. According to Svetlana, Stalin "was irritated more than anything else by the fact that Kapler was Jewish." Kapler was convicted to ten years of hard labor in Gulag on the charges of being an "English spy." Stalin's daughter later fell in love with Grigori Morozov, another Jew, and married him. Stalin agreed to their marriage after much pleading on Svetlana's part, but refused to attend the wedding. Stalin's son Yakov also married a Jewish woman, Yulia Meltzer, and though Stalin disapproved at first, he began to grow fond of her. Stalin's biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore wrote that Lavrenty Beria's son noted that his father could list Stalin's affairs with Jewish women."
We have already discussed the Svetlana-Alexei affair in passing, under the heading "Introduction". The assertion that Stalin disliked Kapler for being Jewish, rather than his being remarkably older than his daughter, is once again substantiated by Tolstoy's book, as well as a quote from Svetlana, which seems superfluous, since her quote is already written in the paragraph. The next sentence contradicts the assertion that Stalin was anti-semitic, since he didn't object to her relationship with another Jew, Morozov (only five years her elder).
The assertion by Sebag Montefiore, another anti-communist writer, is built on the widely-discredited biography by Sergo Beria, and should be struck from the article, as well as the following reminiscences by Khrushchev, whom I have already addressed under the heading "Introduction".
=== In Summary ===
I believe I have demonstrated the many shortcomings of the current article. My intention with writing such a long explanation is to put it up to the community to read and evaluate my assertions, and to seek consensus for editing the article to reflect my suggestions. Please feel free to write your observations as an answer, and if you think the article should be changed.
Ponanzaa (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims and general bias 

message: I believe I have demonstrated the many shortcomings of the current article. My intention with writing such a long explanation is to put it up to the community to read and evaluate my assertions, and to seek consensus for editing the article to reflect my suggestions. Please feel free to write your observations as an answer, and if you think the article should be changed.
Ponanzaa (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Summary