Concerning la affaire Hohmann. For people (like me) who are friends of Jews and implacable supporters of Israel, entering into this subject-area can be like walking through a minefield. Maybe Ms. Phillips or someone visiting this site can help me out.

I’ve spent a good many of my idle hours over the last half-year reading about the former Soviet Union. Specifically, I’ve read Applebaum’s "Gulag", Taubman’s "Khrushchev", and Sebag Montefiore’s "Stalin". None of these three, of course, is a history of the Bolshevik Revolution, much less a monograph on Jewish involvement in that very radical historical event.

But all three of these books, in different ways and to different degrees, provide historical information about certain of the Old Bolsheviks who were Jews. (Many other Jews were prominent in other Russian revolutionary parties.) It is obviously true that Russian Jews in their capacity as Jews (whatever that could mean) were not responsible for the Russian Revolution. But I’m still left with the conclusion that Jewish people participated as key revolutionary figures in numbers that were far out of proportion to, say, their representation in the general population.

Is what I just said a "Hohmann gaffe", so to speak? If so, why? Help!

Don't worry, George. We forgive you. THIS TIME!

(Just kidding).

A few points here:
1. There were Jews who were key Bolsheviks. Many Jews were attracted to Marxism because it offered the promise of a future in which they would be totally accepted. There may have a slightly high percentage of Jews in the Communist parties in eastern Europe relative to their proportion of the population. Whatever, the percentages of Jews in the Communist party of Russia and the percentage of Communists among Jews were low. Given the discrimination Jews suffered, It's a surprise the numbers weren't higher.

2. Be careful of confusing Jews with "The Jews." You see that error a lot. The Jews who became Communists did not represent their fellow Jews, did not care about their fellow Jews, did not identify themselves as Jews. You cannot attribute to a people the actions of their apostates. That there were Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution is a demographic and cultural curiosity, but it's no reflection on the policies of the Jewish communities themselves. Why there were quite a few Jews among the top Bosheviks is something that I don't understand, unless we're making a mistake by counting only Jews. How many Russians were there, Armenians, Ukrainians, etc.? In any case, as I said above, underprivileged people who are educated and radicalized will always appear in numbers in anti-establishment or revollutionary parties. It's only natural.

3. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jews were coming out of their ghetto shells and facing a world where their welcome was never sure. They had to make choices regarding their sense of identity and the challenges they faced in the world around them. Jews reacted in many ways, as could be expected. Some became total assimilationists, insisting that Judaism was only a religion and being embarrassed by Jews who were too Jewish (the latter especially from Eastern Europe). That was the reaction mainly of Western European and German/Austrian Jews. Then there were those who became Bundists (Jewish nationalists who focused on the East-European-based Yiddish culture); there were the Zionists, and there were political liberals, there were those who stuck to the old, familiar religion and those who developed new branches of Judaism (Reform Judaism started in Germany). Their reactions spanned the political and religious spectrums. So, you found Jews among the captialists and Communists and all points in between.

I hope this was helpful.

Thanks Joanne. I thought about some follow-on questions for you, but it's perhaps better just to leave things as they are.

George, here in Australia there was a predominance of Irish-descent lapsed Catholics in the Left of the Labor Party and the various socialist, communist groupings. Many were no doubt attracted to the Left for the same reason that Jews were in Europe: a system promising equality and fairness. That it provided neither probably says something about the blind faith required by the aforementioned religions.

"But I’m still left with the conclusion that Jewish people participated as key revolutionary figures in numbers that were far out of proportion to, say, their representation in the general population. "

George,

Take a look at Spinoza's Ethics (Baruch D'Spinoza). Spinoza ACTUALLY when through the entire Jewish excommunication ritual, before he left to live in perpetual exile from both Christian and Jew alike and work on his masterpiece. And as Spinoza was certainly one of the most honored and respected intellectuals of the Enlightenment, should "Jews" be given credit or blame for that Intellectual movement? Naaaa. Or Louis Brandeis, the first "Jewish" US Supreme Court justice (and "American zionist"), who not only wasn't raised as a Jew, attended public (state) primary schools in Louisville Kentucky, and didn't even become involved with "Jewishness" or 'zionism' until he was in his fifties when he was tarred a "Jew radical" for resisting JP Morgans takeover of the New England rail network! Brandeis, along with Oliver W. Holms, was a key defender of the individuals right to free association and due process. Should "The Jews" be given the credit for the movement to check the excess of conspiratorial robber baron crooks disguised as capitalists?

Do you see my point?

According to the BBC online, Hohmann "went to considerable lengths" to research his claim, "even" reading a book by Henry Ford. It doesn't mention that Ford was perhaps one of the most notoriously rabid anti-Semites of the 20th century, and one who once remarked: History is bunk". He should know ...

Even reading a book by Henry Ford? I thought everyone knew about Henry Ford. That was really disingenuous of the BBC. They should have known better.

"That it provided neither probably says something about the blind faith required by the aforementioned religions."

This doesn't compute. I can't speak for Catholicism, but Judaism doesn't require blind faith. And how is this relevant to someone's attraction to a particular political philosophy? (The other responses laid out the socio-political context very well.)

Hohmann, Guenzel, anyone - even me - should be allowed to hold and voice any view. It is then incumbent upon those who disagree to argue against it. Its as simple and irrefutable as that.

Hate speech law is an invitation to abuse. There is nothing particular to any racial, cultural or religious group that justifies it.

Who said anything about "hate speech law"?

The point must be made that Jeremiah Duggan was recruited very skilfully by an older LaRouchite who began teaching him about political ideas and the hidden agenda which is highly anti-semitic was only revealed much later at the conference. Cults operate in particular ways using powerful pychological methods all of which is well documented. Jeremiah had no idea what he was getting into. He told me (his mother) that he wanted to learn more and he felt strongly about protesting about the war. The first thing cults do when recruiting is to take the new recruit away from their known milieu and work on them in order to enlist them. He did not know any of the people in the organization. He only knew his recruiter and was completely deceived and trusting of him. That is how recruiters to cults work - they impress and perssuade. To understand how Jeremiah went with these people it is important to know that he had no idea of the nature of this organization. It is more than likely that he did not like what he found out and tried to leave. He told his girlfriend he wanted to return to Paris. Cults once they have worked on someone do not take kindly to criticsm or people leaving.

There have been overrepresentative numbers of "ex-Jews" in the communist parties of some countries, and this did create tension (Ukraine etc.). Many of those who assisted Nazi killers were driven by antisemitism and the ideas of blood feud.

Hohmann did not just use historic facts in his speech.

It is complicated. The logic of the speech is outright weird in places, but not strictly anti-semitic.

However, we can deduct an intention. The rest of Hohmann and the way he reacted do not shed a good light on him, so I am not sorry he got himself into a fix.

Still, there is a problem in Germany, that stems from an anti-nazi witch-hunting instinct. Not the logic of arguments and common sense in public is used, but the media misquote and give a wrong impression.

The party committees might be in a better position to judge, they can get info behind closed doors. They chuck out dodgy politicians. That is their right.

What concerns me, is that the methods used are not democratic and that the reporting in newspapers gives a wrong impression.

It is unfortunate that instead of rebutting Mr. Hohmann's remarks with historical fact, most media reports have preferred to concentrate on the political comings and goings that his speech has caused.

Anti-semitism is wrong and it shouldn't be difficult to calmly go about proving why. Why can't the journos just chat to a historian? The BBC report is a disgrace.

Attacking Hohmann without explaining why he was wrong (especially given the confusion because parts of what he said weren't wrong) risks making a martyr out of him.

I was able to come at it without vioxx my defenses up, without being as critical ambien or judgemental. It didnt have to be druglesy sublime - it was fun. It didn't have celebrex to be profound - it was social.
I propecia bring this up because over the last soma several months, I've written something paxil like seven songs straight now where cialis the music is complete and finished tramadol as like I want it, and I don't have zyrtec the words. And, I've written a few

George, the issue is "Taetervolk" nothing more. That was Guenzel's point. His mistake was to meddle in politics, and soldiers should not: Struck fired him just as Truman fired McCarthur.

'Taetervolk' is what has been used to bludgeon Germans in modern times and subject them to emotional blackmail; and no new generation likes to inherit guilt from the past for things done before they were born. It is Rassenschande as the Nazis would have put it, and is the mirror image of their own perverted racial theories.

Hohmann is on the nutty right and linked to Junge Freiheit; he has a record of loopy outbursts.....but the fact remains he used the issue of Jews in the vanguard of the Marxist-Lenininst Dictatorship to highlight the fact that noone spoke of Jews as "Taetervolk".

In this he walked into the issue of "Jewish Bolshevism" as spouted by the Nazis as a widespread and sweeping association of Jews with Bolshevism. He was in error.

As for Anne Applebaum - there is a better guide by The Times correspondent - Robert Wilton -Robert Wilton, Russia's Agony (1918) and The Last Days of the Romanovs (1920).

The real odd thing for Martin Hohmann is however to reflect that Lenin and his brigands were brought to Russia by Germany, in fact by Erich Ludendorff who was virtual dictator of WWI Germany; and who later helped Hitler on the road to power to defend against the Bolsheviks......but I suppose then he was thinking of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, although by the time she was murdered she was at loggerheads with Lenin

"I hope this was helpful."

Joanne, it was, very !

The issue is "Taetervolk"

Can a whole race be held guilty for the crimes of some of their number ? That was the point of Hohmann's clumsy speech.