L | A (Translated with ChatGPT)
By oleg v israel
Save Russia
"I'm not an antisemite, but..."
"I have nothing against Jews, I even have a couple of friends among them, but..."
"I've always supported Israel, but to be fair..."
These and many similar 'approaches to the topic' are unmistakable indicators of antisemitism. An individual who refrains from openly expressing hatred for Jews, instead opting for softened language, avoiding direct insults, and appearing to downplay the issue, does not alter the underlying reality. Such rhetoric is merely a façade, a polished appearance masking a flawed intent.
This approach, it must be said, is far from innovative, embodying the same conventional clichés as the numerous antisemitic myths about Jews.
The writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his controversial book '200 Years Together,' avoids harsh language, skillfully constructing rather nuanced and cautious formulations, while gradually conveying quite unequivocal antisemitic sentiments.
The question of whether Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite by conviction has been debated for a long time. I will share my opinion on this at the end of the article. But first, I invite you to join me in reflecting on what the author writes in his notorious book and to draw your own conclusions.
Is it possible that a man who took pride in his truthfulness throughout his life, who perhaps wrote the most honest book about the nature of Russian life, could, years later, descend into something blatantly deceitful?
Actually, yes, this happens sometimes. People change over the years; their views and positions transform. Liberals can become staunch conservatives.
Take, for example, Nikita Mikhalkov, once an outstanding actor and talented director, who in his later years betrayed everything we respected and loved him for in the past, and began chasing imaginary demons, like an alcoholic in the throes of delirium tremens.
Or consider Roger Waters, the leader of the legendary band Pink Floyd, once renowned for its anti-war ethos, celebrating compassion, humanity, and freedom. Today, the aging Waters is a deranged antisemite, a conspiracy theorist supporting terrorists, their bloody massacres of unarmed people, and the taking of infants as hostages.
Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn followed a similar path, although he seemingly did not lose his sanity. The writer Andrei Sinyavsky once remarked about him: 'Solzhenitsyn is evolving, and not necessarily in the direction of the heavens.'
There's no smoke without fire
After the groundbreaking 'The Gulag Archipelago,' which became a symbol of the entire Russian reality—with its pervasive lack of freedom, the division into 'privileged' barracks and those where the 'downtrodden' reside, the infamous 'sharashkas' where coerced intellectuals make scientific and technical advancements for the Camp, the sadistic guards who are unbound by any law, and the corrupt, cynical 'administration' that holds no regard for human life except its own—following this truly monumental work, Solzhenitsyn began to see himself as a great prophet.
He sought to instruct people on how to shape Russia (a rather curious verb, incidentally), which principles to uphold, and whom to blame for their misfortunes.
'200 Years Together' is precisely the work that justifies the author's conviction about who is responsible for all of Russia's misfortunes. I would even say, his prejudice.
Because conclusions are typically drawn based on research findings, but Solzhenitsyn does the opposite: he carefully constructs his entire work so that the collected evidence unequivocally supports a conclusion the author had already formed before beginning work on the book. Everything that does not fit into this worldview is simply ignored by the writer.
This, by the way, can be explained by the methodology used in the creation of the book.
Solzhenitsyn himself preferred to freely reflect on the role of Jews, without burdening himself with evidence. His wife and editor, Natalia Dmitrievna, would then sift through a large amount of literature, gathering the necessary quotes and historical references to support the already formulated assertions of her distinguished husband.
With such an approach to work, where conclusions are not drawn from facts but rather facts are selected to fit conclusions, any notion of objectivity is out of the question.
The book is preceded by an extensive introduction in which Alexander Isayevich repeatedly states that it is high time to examine the 'Jewish question' objectively and impartially.
However, from the very first chapter, he completely forgets about this intention and begins constructing a one-sided portrayal of reality, albeit with disclaimers that there are, of course, other viewpoints on the matter. Yet, these disclaimers are phrased in such a way that it becomes clear how unconvincing these other perspectives are to the author.
Taking the infamous Khazar Khaganate as his starting point, Solzhenitsyn quickly blurs the line between the few immigrant Jews and the Khazars who adopted Judaism. If you have read my article on the Khaganate or simply have an interest in the subject, you probably remember that not all Khazars were Jews—indeed, not even the majority. Only those close to the khagan and some aristocrats.
So equating Jews with Khazars is, at the very least, ignorant. Or, if we assume that the writer knows the truth, then it is dishonest and unethical—especially for someone who advocated the principle of 'living not by lies.'
If necessary, lies are acceptable
On the other hand, any serious study must first and foremost clarify its terminology. Solzhenitsyn skips this formality (he will address the meaning of the term 'Jew' only in the preface to the second part of the book, but not initially), giving himself complete freedom in deciding who exactly qualifies as a Jew and by what criteria.
After the ethnic and religious muddle he creates with the Khazars, the writer hastily moves through the cities of Rus', where Jews were present at various times. But he only recounts incidents.
In Kiev, for example, he mentions a popular revolt against the high interest rates of Jewish moneylenders, without mentioning craftsmen, doctors, merchants, or tailors of Jewish descent—it's as though they didn't exist. All that existed were greedy moneylenders. The reader notices this.
In Yaroslavl, Solzhenitsyn focuses on a supposed conspiracy allegedly involving several Jews. There is no evidence provided. No mentions are made of other aspects of Jewish life. The conclusion he suggests readers draw is clear: Jews are conspirators, enemies.
They 'take away the livelihoods' of local residents (how, if all Jews are moneylenders?), 'tempt others into their law,' meaning they urge people to adopt Judaism (for what purpose?), and, of course, they charge exorbitant interest rates on loans.
However, money was also lent by Greeks, Turks, French, and Italians. Neither religion nor laws hindered this practice. Later, even Orthodox monasteries would not hesitate to lend money at high interest rates. The term 'usury' would emerge in the Russian language, and later, in the 15th century, the spiritual movement of the 'non-acquisitive' (Nestyazhitel) monks, outraged by the unseemly business practices of the Orthodox Church.
But, of course, it is easier to blame Jews for one's own sins than to blame oneself.
Then the writer presents the fabricated version of the story of Prince Vladimir’s choice of a new faith for Rus', describing it as if it were an established historical fact.
It is not, by any means, a fact.
There is no evidence to support the absurd competition between three envoys of different religions before the Russian prince. The entire scene is nothing more than a literary device used to portray the ruler as a wise man making a thoughtful decision.
In reality, the choice of Orthodox Christianity was made simply because Vladimir intended to marry the sister of Byzantine Emperor Basil II, and the emperor required that he adopt his faith as a condition. This is not mentioned in the book.
While mentioning the so-called 'heresy of the Judaizers,' Solzhenitsyn makes an unwilling disclaimer, acknowledging that it probably had nothing to do with Jews and was spread by entirely Russian people, Christian reformers. Nevertheless, he continues to insist that it was, in fact, the Jews who used this heresy to harm Orthodox Christianity.
So I lied. Who hasn't?
At this point, it is worth asking: why?
This is a crucial question: why would Jews want to harm anyone? What is the purpose?
And which Jews, exactly? The individual scoundrels or the entire people? Can we assume that all Jews around the world are united, like a single gang? If so, what exactly unites them (or rather, us)?
The writer does not provide answers to these questions, clearly lacking a rational explanation. However, he is aided by the famous Jew-hater Gavrila Derzhavin, whom Solzhenitsyn generously, abundantly, and enthusiastically quotes.
Derzhavin, for instance, stated that Jews are people 'of a rebellious and depraved nature.' In other words, they are simply bad by default, without reason or justification.
Or here is another quite characteristic thought from Derzhavin:
'If the Highest Providence, for the fulfillment of some unknown purposes, leaves this dangerous people according to its customs on the surface of the earth and does not destroy them, then governments under whose scepter they have come must endure them.'
Well, since such an authoritative thinker has called us all, collectively, a people dangerous by nature, Solzhenitsyn sees no reason to argue with him and accepts this characterization as a given, without even attempting to understand the essence of the Jewish religion or the mindset of its adherents.
Solzhenitsyn calls Talmudic Judaism a distortion of biblical truth, and the Hasidism that arose from it a harmful sectarianism that hinders all progress. Not like Christian sects, right? That’s where the champions of progress and freedom of thought are. But the log in his own eye doesn't stop the author from vigilantly searching for the specks in others’ eyes.
In short, when it comes to anti-Semitic myths, no justification is needed. You've already been convinced that Jews are terrible people, Derzhavin himself confirmed this, so let’s not get sidetracked and instead consider the broad scope of their villainy.
The poisoning of the Russian people? We believe it.
Let’s not get overly meticulous by pointing out that all rural wine trade was owned by landowners, who, in turn, sold the rights to it at a significant profit to anyone willing to pay. Jewish wine merchants made up a considerable portion only in the western provinces, where the Jewish population was simply larger.
The blood libel? We readily believe it.
And let’s not recall that in Russia, this slander spread precisely after Derzhavin’s report, when he was inspecting the 'Pale of Settlement' areas. It was he who wrote to the Tsar about the appalling case involving a soldier’s widow, Maria Terentyeva, whose three-year-old child was allegedly tortured to death by Jews.
Solzhenitsyn dutifully recounts this, forgetting to mention that Maria, according to the investigation, was neither a soldier’s widow nor anyone’s wife, but a cheap street prostitute, ready to slander anyone for an extra penny. And she had no children whatsoever.
What role did Jews play in the excesses of Rasputin?
In the overthrow of the monarchy?
In the bloody revolution?
Everything is fair game. The author conveniently finds supporting evidence for everything. It goes without saying how one-sided and deceitful this judgment is. I’ve discussed it in detail here, so feel free to check it out if you haven’t read it yet.
Interestingly, with regard to the pogroms, the author believes part of the blame should fall on the Jews. He writes: 'The Jewish youth of that time significantly share in that responsibility,' referring to the Jewish self-defense units.
In other words, the ability to fight back serves as a justification for aggression? It’s no surprise then that today’s followers of these ideas consider Israel to be eternally guilty. After all, it stubbornly refuses to allow itself to be destroyed.
As Solzhenitsyn progresses toward the 20th century in his narrative, one might expect him to become more precise in his interpretation of events, given that historical sources available for this period are far more abundant than those from the time of Kievan Rus.
However, the myth-making and imagination of the author have gained such momentum that they drag the reader deeper into the labyrinth of the fictional history he has created.
According to Solzhenitsyn, the reformer Stolypin was practically a benefactor, someone Russian Jews should have revered. Yet, paradoxically, his assassination (by the Jew Bagrov – which is significant to the author) led to the weakening of the Tsarist regime, Russia’s defeat in World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution, masterminded by whom? Well, you can guess.
So, the Jews supported Stolypin, yet they were the ones who killed him. They seemed quite comfortable under the Tsars, who tirelessly worked solely for the prosperity of this people, but they were also the ones who destroyed the autocracy. Isn't that inconsistent?
If the mythical 'world Jewry' is indeed a powerful force, guided by devilishly clever puppeteers, then what exactly do these Jews want by acting in such a contradictory manner? It is absolutely unclear from Solzhenitsyn's book.
We loved them, but they did not love us
There is a concept called confirmation bias. It’s the habit of seeking out information that supports your own point of view. The more emotionally invested you are in the topic being studied, the more determined you are to find justifications for your beliefs.
This is normal and generally quite natural if you’re an individual defending your personal opinion in a debate. But if you’re conducting historical research, the method of biased confirmation only discredits you as an author.
Regarding the book '200 Years Together,' this is not just my opinion.
Richard (((Pipes))), a history professor at Harvard University, called the book 'a pile of errors' and 'a creation of hatred.'
Norman (((Naimark))), a professor of history at Stanford University, wrote that the book is 'a classic example of historical revisionism' and that it distorts and downplays the role of Jews as victims of the Soviet regime. He also criticized Solzhenitsyn for his anti-Semitic stereotypes and his failure to provide proper documentation for his claims.
Historian Yohanan Petrovsky-(((Shtern))) wrote that the book 'solidifies all the most false, harmful, baseless, prejudiced, and, alas, ultra-conservative views of Jews that have developed in the tradition of Russian thought.'
Simon Sebag (((Montefiore))), a British historian, called the book 'a dangerous and misleading work' that fosters anti-Semitism in today's Russia. He argued that Solzhenitsyn's conspiracy theory about the involvement of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution 'is not only false but also deeply offensive.'
I promised to share my opinion at the end of this article on whether Solzhenitsyn was an anti-Semite.
First, I would like to clarify that there are both conscious and subconscious anti-Semites. The former are simpler, more primitive, and more obvious. The latter are more complex; they seem to reason, analyze, and consider themselves rational people, yet they cannot rid themselves of deeply ingrained anti-Semitic prejudices that have been part of their worldview since childhood.
Solzhenitsyn is exactly like that. He is one of those who says, "I’m not an anti-Semite, but..."
"But we can't ignore the facts..."
"But significant people wouldn’t lie..."
"But there’s no smoke without fire..."
"But pogroms don’t arise in a vacuum..."
Yes, this is anti-Semitism. Deceptive, evasive, pseudo-scientific, and yet ignorant and vile.
I have only discussed the first part of Solzhenitsyn’s book. I will prepare a separate publication about the second half, which deals with the events of the 20th century.
Believe me, it will be worth it.
To be continued
Article author's comments:
*Comments are welcome, but if you can't be respectful, it's better not to comment at all. I will delete and block.
**If you found this article important and interesting, share the link on social media, recommend it to your friends—truth needs to be spread.
By oleg v israel
Save Russia
"I'm not an antisemite, but..."
"I have nothing against Jews, I even have a couple of friends among them, but..."
"I've always supported Israel, but to be fair..."
These and many similar 'approaches to the topic' are unmistakable indicators of antisemitism. An individual who refrains from openly expressing hatred for Jews, instead opting for softened language, avoiding direct insults, and appearing to downplay the issue, does not alter the underlying reality. Such rhetoric is merely a façade, a polished appearance masking a flawed intent.
This approach, it must be said, is far from innovative, embodying the same conventional clichés as the numerous antisemitic myths about Jews.
The writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his controversial book '200 Years Together,' avoids harsh language, skillfully constructing rather nuanced and cautious formulations, while gradually conveying quite unequivocal antisemitic sentiments.
The question of whether Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite by conviction has been debated for a long time. I will share my opinion on this at the end of the article. But first, I invite you to join me in reflecting on what the author writes in his notorious book and to draw your own conclusions.
Is it possible that a man who took pride in his truthfulness throughout his life, who perhaps wrote the most honest book about the nature of Russian life, could, years later, descend into something blatantly deceitful?
Actually, yes, this happens sometimes. People change over the years; their views and positions transform. Liberals can become staunch conservatives.
Take, for example, Nikita Mikhalkov, once an outstanding actor and talented director, who in his later years betrayed everything we respected and loved him for in the past, and began chasing imaginary demons, like an alcoholic in the throes of delirium tremens.
Or consider Roger Waters, the leader of the legendary band Pink Floyd, once renowned for its anti-war ethos, celebrating compassion, humanity, and freedom. Today, the aging Waters is a deranged antisemite, a conspiracy theorist supporting terrorists, their bloody massacres of unarmed people, and the taking of infants as hostages.
Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn followed a similar path, although he seemingly did not lose his sanity. The writer Andrei Sinyavsky once remarked about him: 'Solzhenitsyn is evolving, and not necessarily in the direction of the heavens.'
There's no smoke without fire
After the groundbreaking 'The Gulag Archipelago,' which became a symbol of the entire Russian reality—with its pervasive lack of freedom, the division into 'privileged' barracks and those where the 'downtrodden' reside, the infamous 'sharashkas' where coerced intellectuals make scientific and technical advancements for the Camp, the sadistic guards who are unbound by any law, and the corrupt, cynical 'administration' that holds no regard for human life except its own—following this truly monumental work, Solzhenitsyn began to see himself as a great prophet.
He sought to instruct people on how to shape Russia (a rather curious verb, incidentally), which principles to uphold, and whom to blame for their misfortunes.
'200 Years Together' is precisely the work that justifies the author's conviction about who is responsible for all of Russia's misfortunes. I would even say, his prejudice.
Because conclusions are typically drawn based on research findings, but Solzhenitsyn does the opposite: he carefully constructs his entire work so that the collected evidence unequivocally supports a conclusion the author had already formed before beginning work on the book. Everything that does not fit into this worldview is simply ignored by the writer.
This, by the way, can be explained by the methodology used in the creation of the book.
Solzhenitsyn himself preferred to freely reflect on the role of Jews, without burdening himself with evidence. His wife and editor, Natalia Dmitrievna, would then sift through a large amount of literature, gathering the necessary quotes and historical references to support the already formulated assertions of her distinguished husband.
With such an approach to work, where conclusions are not drawn from facts but rather facts are selected to fit conclusions, any notion of objectivity is out of the question.
The book is preceded by an extensive introduction in which Alexander Isayevich repeatedly states that it is high time to examine the 'Jewish question' objectively and impartially.
However, from the very first chapter, he completely forgets about this intention and begins constructing a one-sided portrayal of reality, albeit with disclaimers that there are, of course, other viewpoints on the matter. Yet, these disclaimers are phrased in such a way that it becomes clear how unconvincing these other perspectives are to the author.
Taking the infamous Khazar Khaganate as his starting point, Solzhenitsyn quickly blurs the line between the few immigrant Jews and the Khazars who adopted Judaism. If you have read my article on the Khaganate or simply have an interest in the subject, you probably remember that not all Khazars were Jews—indeed, not even the majority. Only those close to the khagan and some aristocrats.
So equating Jews with Khazars is, at the very least, ignorant. Or, if we assume that the writer knows the truth, then it is dishonest and unethical—especially for someone who advocated the principle of 'living not by lies.'
If necessary, lies are acceptable
On the other hand, any serious study must first and foremost clarify its terminology. Solzhenitsyn skips this formality (he will address the meaning of the term 'Jew' only in the preface to the second part of the book, but not initially), giving himself complete freedom in deciding who exactly qualifies as a Jew and by what criteria.
After the ethnic and religious muddle he creates with the Khazars, the writer hastily moves through the cities of Rus', where Jews were present at various times. But he only recounts incidents.
In Kiev, for example, he mentions a popular revolt against the high interest rates of Jewish moneylenders, without mentioning craftsmen, doctors, merchants, or tailors of Jewish descent—it's as though they didn't exist. All that existed were greedy moneylenders. The reader notices this.
In Yaroslavl, Solzhenitsyn focuses on a supposed conspiracy allegedly involving several Jews. There is no evidence provided. No mentions are made of other aspects of Jewish life. The conclusion he suggests readers draw is clear: Jews are conspirators, enemies.
They 'take away the livelihoods' of local residents (how, if all Jews are moneylenders?), 'tempt others into their law,' meaning they urge people to adopt Judaism (for what purpose?), and, of course, they charge exorbitant interest rates on loans.
However, money was also lent by Greeks, Turks, French, and Italians. Neither religion nor laws hindered this practice. Later, even Orthodox monasteries would not hesitate to lend money at high interest rates. The term 'usury' would emerge in the Russian language, and later, in the 15th century, the spiritual movement of the 'non-acquisitive' (Nestyazhitel) monks, outraged by the unseemly business practices of the Orthodox Church.
But, of course, it is easier to blame Jews for one's own sins than to blame oneself.
Then the writer presents the fabricated version of the story of Prince Vladimir’s choice of a new faith for Rus', describing it as if it were an established historical fact.
It is not, by any means, a fact.
There is no evidence to support the absurd competition between three envoys of different religions before the Russian prince. The entire scene is nothing more than a literary device used to portray the ruler as a wise man making a thoughtful decision.
In reality, the choice of Orthodox Christianity was made simply because Vladimir intended to marry the sister of Byzantine Emperor Basil II, and the emperor required that he adopt his faith as a condition. This is not mentioned in the book.
While mentioning the so-called 'heresy of the Judaizers,' Solzhenitsyn makes an unwilling disclaimer, acknowledging that it probably had nothing to do with Jews and was spread by entirely Russian people, Christian reformers. Nevertheless, he continues to insist that it was, in fact, the Jews who used this heresy to harm Orthodox Christianity.
So I lied. Who hasn't?
At this point, it is worth asking: why?
This is a crucial question: why would Jews want to harm anyone? What is the purpose?
And which Jews, exactly? The individual scoundrels or the entire people? Can we assume that all Jews around the world are united, like a single gang? If so, what exactly unites them (or rather, us)?
The writer does not provide answers to these questions, clearly lacking a rational explanation. However, he is aided by the famous Jew-hater Gavrila Derzhavin, whom Solzhenitsyn generously, abundantly, and enthusiastically quotes.
Derzhavin, for instance, stated that Jews are people 'of a rebellious and depraved nature.' In other words, they are simply bad by default, without reason or justification.
Or here is another quite characteristic thought from Derzhavin:
'If the Highest Providence, for the fulfillment of some unknown purposes, leaves this dangerous people according to its customs on the surface of the earth and does not destroy them, then governments under whose scepter they have come must endure them.'
Well, since such an authoritative thinker has called us all, collectively, a people dangerous by nature, Solzhenitsyn sees no reason to argue with him and accepts this characterization as a given, without even attempting to understand the essence of the Jewish religion or the mindset of its adherents.
Solzhenitsyn calls Talmudic Judaism a distortion of biblical truth, and the Hasidism that arose from it a harmful sectarianism that hinders all progress. Not like Christian sects, right? That’s where the champions of progress and freedom of thought are. But the log in his own eye doesn't stop the author from vigilantly searching for the specks in others’ eyes.
In short, when it comes to anti-Semitic myths, no justification is needed. You've already been convinced that Jews are terrible people, Derzhavin himself confirmed this, so let’s not get sidetracked and instead consider the broad scope of their villainy.
The poisoning of the Russian people? We believe it.
Let’s not get overly meticulous by pointing out that all rural wine trade was owned by landowners, who, in turn, sold the rights to it at a significant profit to anyone willing to pay. Jewish wine merchants made up a considerable portion only in the western provinces, where the Jewish population was simply larger.
The blood libel? We readily believe it.
And let’s not recall that in Russia, this slander spread precisely after Derzhavin’s report, when he was inspecting the 'Pale of Settlement' areas. It was he who wrote to the Tsar about the appalling case involving a soldier’s widow, Maria Terentyeva, whose three-year-old child was allegedly tortured to death by Jews.
Solzhenitsyn dutifully recounts this, forgetting to mention that Maria, according to the investigation, was neither a soldier’s widow nor anyone’s wife, but a cheap street prostitute, ready to slander anyone for an extra penny. And she had no children whatsoever.
What role did Jews play in the excesses of Rasputin?
In the overthrow of the monarchy?
In the bloody revolution?
Everything is fair game. The author conveniently finds supporting evidence for everything. It goes without saying how one-sided and deceitful this judgment is. I’ve discussed it in detail here, so feel free to check it out if you haven’t read it yet.
Interestingly, with regard to the pogroms, the author believes part of the blame should fall on the Jews. He writes: 'The Jewish youth of that time significantly share in that responsibility,' referring to the Jewish self-defense units.
In other words, the ability to fight back serves as a justification for aggression? It’s no surprise then that today’s followers of these ideas consider Israel to be eternally guilty. After all, it stubbornly refuses to allow itself to be destroyed.
As Solzhenitsyn progresses toward the 20th century in his narrative, one might expect him to become more precise in his interpretation of events, given that historical sources available for this period are far more abundant than those from the time of Kievan Rus.
However, the myth-making and imagination of the author have gained such momentum that they drag the reader deeper into the labyrinth of the fictional history he has created.
According to Solzhenitsyn, the reformer Stolypin was practically a benefactor, someone Russian Jews should have revered. Yet, paradoxically, his assassination (by the Jew Bagrov – which is significant to the author) led to the weakening of the Tsarist regime, Russia’s defeat in World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution, masterminded by whom? Well, you can guess.
So, the Jews supported Stolypin, yet they were the ones who killed him. They seemed quite comfortable under the Tsars, who tirelessly worked solely for the prosperity of this people, but they were also the ones who destroyed the autocracy. Isn't that inconsistent?
If the mythical 'world Jewry' is indeed a powerful force, guided by devilishly clever puppeteers, then what exactly do these Jews want by acting in such a contradictory manner? It is absolutely unclear from Solzhenitsyn's book.
We loved them, but they did not love us
There is a concept called confirmation bias. It’s the habit of seeking out information that supports your own point of view. The more emotionally invested you are in the topic being studied, the more determined you are to find justifications for your beliefs.
This is normal and generally quite natural if you’re an individual defending your personal opinion in a debate. But if you’re conducting historical research, the method of biased confirmation only discredits you as an author.
Regarding the book '200 Years Together,' this is not just my opinion.
Richard (((Pipes))), a history professor at Harvard University, called the book 'a pile of errors' and 'a creation of hatred.'
Norman (((Naimark))), a professor of history at Stanford University, wrote that the book is 'a classic example of historical revisionism' and that it distorts and downplays the role of Jews as victims of the Soviet regime. He also criticized Solzhenitsyn for his anti-Semitic stereotypes and his failure to provide proper documentation for his claims.
Historian Yohanan Petrovsky-(((Shtern))) wrote that the book 'solidifies all the most false, harmful, baseless, prejudiced, and, alas, ultra-conservative views of Jews that have developed in the tradition of Russian thought.'
Simon Sebag (((Montefiore))), a British historian, called the book 'a dangerous and misleading work' that fosters anti-Semitism in today's Russia. He argued that Solzhenitsyn's conspiracy theory about the involvement of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution 'is not only false but also deeply offensive.'
I promised to share my opinion at the end of this article on whether Solzhenitsyn was an anti-Semite.
First, I would like to clarify that there are both conscious and subconscious anti-Semites. The former are simpler, more primitive, and more obvious. The latter are more complex; they seem to reason, analyze, and consider themselves rational people, yet they cannot rid themselves of deeply ingrained anti-Semitic prejudices that have been part of their worldview since childhood.
Solzhenitsyn is exactly like that. He is one of those who says, "I’m not an anti-Semite, but..."
"But we can't ignore the facts..."
"But significant people wouldn’t lie..."
"But there’s no smoke without fire..."
"But pogroms don’t arise in a vacuum..."
Yes, this is anti-Semitism. Deceptive, evasive, pseudo-scientific, and yet ignorant and vile.
I have only discussed the first part of Solzhenitsyn’s book. I will prepare a separate publication about the second half, which deals with the events of the 20th century.
Believe me, it will be worth it.
To be continued
Article author's comments:
*Comments are welcome, but if you can't be respectful, it's better not to comment at all. I will delete and block.
**If you found this article important and interesting, share the link on social media, recommend it to your friends—truth needs to be spread.
