Talk:Yevsektsiya

Language

To say that Yiddish was merely tolerated in the Soviet Union is certainly misleading. In fact, during the 1920s and 1930s, Yiddish flourished like never before. More books and theater appeared in Yiddish than in any other time in history, and Yiddish was granted the status of an official language in the Byelorussian SSR, as well as in Birobidzhan. That is hardly just "tolerated." Danny 08:47, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

National languages were not really flourishing. They could have been used as a bait or a pacifier for national minorities, but the preference was always given to Russian, a unified language of the Empire. I leave it up to you. Humus sapiens 09:07, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between flourishing and encouraged. Under the Soviets, many national languages received alphabets for the first time, and regional authors were encouraged (I am reading a copy of Rustaveli from the 1930s, and the introduction--a pice of Soviet propaganda if I ever saw one--certainly promotes national languages. The Yiddish theater, which flourished, was under state patronage (see, for instance, Veidlinger on the Moscow State Yiddish Theater). Despite what happened later, despite any supposed reasons why the authorities did this, and despite what Salo Baron derided as a "lachrymous view of Jewish history," the 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet Union were a Golden Age of Yiddish culture. Danny 13:09, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In NYT there were recentyl an article about the Yiddish writer, that emigrated from Poland to Soviets, because he couldn't earn enough money to live only from writing for 3.5 milions of Polish Jews. In Soviets, he got everything he wanted, providing he works for the state. He was back in Poland with Red Army, but he were aware that he works for the beast, he was attracted by money.

Anyway, before 1937, Soviet Union was the multi-cultural country, that gradually slided into Russian communist chauvinism. Yet, Jews that served for Stalin, were always welcomed especially during WW2, untill 1953, when Stalin decided, that he should eliminate them in exactly the same way, as he eliminated all others his comrades. Cautious 16:01, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

anti-Semitic Jews

It is nonsense to describe Jews as "non-Jewish" or anti-Semitic - Jewish Communists strongly opposed anti-Semitism. what you mean is that they were atheists and anti-Zionists Adam Carr

Thanks for nice copyediting, Adam!

A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson, 1st ed. p.450: "they hated their Jewishness... such non-Jewish Jews were prominent in every revolutionary party... Rosa Luxemburg... Bela Kun... Kurt Eisner... Trotsky" I don't see him mentioning Kaganovich. Unfortunately, the history is full of non-Jewish and anti-Jewish Jews who comply with every definintion of A-S. The fact that their origin is Jewish, doesn't absolve them. Just as an American can be an anti-american, nobody can prevent a Jew to be an A-S. It doesn't make much sense to me either, but let's not deny their existence. Humus sapiens 11:47, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Paul Johnson, and also with the people he describes as "non-Jewish Jews." What he means is that they were atheists, anti-Zionists and anti traditional Jewish culture. That doesn't make them not Jews, either in their own estimation or according to Jewish law. The Jewish Bolsheviks (along with Bolsheviks in general) opposed anti-Semitism and indeed banned it. You can accuse them of a lot of things but it is silly and unjust to call them anti-Semites. It is like calling Lenin anti-Russian because he was opposed to Czarism and Russian Orthodoxy. The term "non-Jewish Jew" is a contradiction in terms and only serves to confuse people. You have to remember that Johnson is writing a conservative polemic and is trying to posit a "genuine" (ie traditional) Jewishness against a "false" (secular/radical) Jewishness as part of his general political agenda. (And I dispute that an American can be anti-American, as opposed to anti-American-government or anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist.) Adam 12:00, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You cannot say something doesn't exist just because it was officially banned (and Lenin circulated that grammophone record). I guess you know how questionable was the Bolsheviks' ethics... Is it so impossible to imagine, say, a Native American who is anti-American? BTW, I've added Marx's quote to History of anti-Semitism#1801 to 1900. Humus sapiens 09:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Did I say anti-semitism didn't exist? Do you think I am completely stupid? Native Americans can of course be anti-American, provided they define themselves as not being American, which they are entitled to do. Adam 11:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. You are denying that a Jew can be an anti-Semite (or an american be anti-American), and I am saying that (unfortunately) no one can prevent them. Humus sapiens 11:23, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the following piece I moved previously here from other place in wikipedia.

... according to Stalin's declaration that due to proper Soviet national policy there is no more anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union

This is hardly relevant, since the goal of Yevsektsiya was not struggle with anti-Semitism, but struggle with Jewish "borgeois nationalism" and Judaism Mikkalai 21:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget yet another aim of the Yevsektsiya. It was to mobilize the world Jewish opinion if favour of Soviets policies. Many Jews shared the believe, that there are 2 promise lands for them: USA and Soviet Union. To undereline this believe, the sentence of Stalin makes a lot of sense. Cautious 08:48, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are right, but the sentence was put in context of shutting down the yevsektsiya, which is suspiciuos in view of what you've just wrote. Mikkalai 17:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Spies and enemies

I am not sure that the sentence about "spies and enemies" should be there "as is". It doesn't pertain specifically to Jews. That was the whole idea of "proletary internationalism": there is no such thing as "home nation" for proletariat. By spying against their own country a proletary brings the world revolution closer. So I'd suggest you to add something along this line, otherwise singling out Jews in this respect can be perceived as anti-Semitic. Mikkalai 17:40, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It was easier to appeal to Jews, since they were minorities and therefore were easily influenced by empty promise of equality. Yevsektsia was speciafically for Jews. Polish section of Komintern had a task of overthrow Polish governement, for example. Cautious 09:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what Mikkalai wrote and move this to talk: Many Jews shared the believe, that there are 2 promise lands for them: USA and Soviet Union. This manipulation further alienated them from the people of their origins, by encouraging them to become spies and enemies of their homelands.

Any proof of this "theory", as well as international efforts of Yevsektsia? (I left that phrase in the article for now). There is only one promised land for Jewish people. Humus sapiens 22:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Content of article

90% of the material in the article doesn't discuss Yeksektsiya, but a general discussion on Soviet-Zionist relations and on the situation of Jews in the Soviet Union (which has separate articles). The text needs to be streamlined, and focus should be on the organization in question, not the Soviet Jewish community in general. Also there a distinct POV-pushing, in interpreting the intentions of the organization. --Soman 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Navbox

Is there a particular reason there is an uncollapsed navbox at the very top of the page? Is it there for a particular reason? If not, it should be moved to the appropriate place at the bottom of the page.
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because the template used to be a sidebar. I moved it down now. --Soman (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The stated mission" sentence is very different from what it says in the source

Hi all. I've come from the article Antisemitism in the Soviet Union. That article also uses Levin as a source. The original text from The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917 is very different from what is stated in this article. Here's what Levin wrote:

3.1 First Conference of the Evsektsiya, Moscow, October 1918. YIVO.

The Sections were intended to be part of the Communist Party, but generally party members did not recognize their special legitimacy or that of Evkom. They were simply a cog in the party apparatus. Some Sections were even attacked for their "nationalistic deviations" 35 at a time when the party was liquidating the autonomous nationality Sections in the areas liberated from German rule (Belorussia, Lithuania, and Latvia) and transforming them into territorial Communist parties. Since Soviet Jews lacked a territorial base and since there was no territory with a Jewish majority, no Jewish territorial party was formed. To many ardent party members, the existence of Jewish Sections seemed anomalous a needless problem and a nuisance.

While the Jewish Sections were struggling to define themselves, recruit new personnel, and bring the Communist message to "the Jewish street," the Bund and socialist Zionists were undergoing severe internal crises and external pressures which eventually destroyed their unity and independence.36 Their breakdown gave the Evsektsiya control over Jewish communities and cleared the way for the destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture.

This current text is so bad that I'm going to be bold and just remove it.Stix1776 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was not stated mission. Bolsheviks frequently did not state explicitly what they wanted to accomplish. It was the actual mission according to the book by Pipes. No, the conclusions by Pipes are not based only on the Levin; this is just one of many cited sources. As about the summary of views by Levin - this is open to interpretations. "They were simply a cog in the party apparatus." "Some Sections were even attacked for their "nationalistic deviations", etc. This is a political suppression, very clearly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we just please try to state what the source states. If you want to add something to the article, just make sure that it's well sourced. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joemb1977 Would you like to read the source text that I posted above? You did a rollback of 3 edits without referring to the source text. ThanksStix1776 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@181.13.67.151​ Since you're reverting as well, would you like to read the source and comment? Stix1776 (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)