6 Responses

1. Hadding

   December 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm

   This book here says that Apfelbaum was the maiden-name of Sinoviev’s mother. http://books.google.com/books?id=FksWAQAAIAAJ&q=Radomyslsky+Apfelbaum&dq=Radomyslsky+Apfelbaum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c4bDUKLvIoOS9gTUtIHYDg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ

   His own real surname was Radomyslsky.

   I have seen the suggestion that he used Apfelbaum as an additional pseudonym, one among several.
2. Carolyn

   December 8, 2012 at 3:13 pm

   Wikipedia (one of your favorite sources) says this:
   Grigory Yevseevich Zinoviev[1] (Russian: Григо́рий Евсе́евич Зино́вьев, IPA: [ɡrʲɪˈɡorʲɪj zʲɪˈnovʲjɪf]; September 23 [O.S. September 11] 1883 – August 25, 1936), born Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky Apfelbaum

   On the Apfelbaum page, it says:
   Apfelbaum (German: apple tree) is the Jewish surname of:
   Grigory Zinoviev (1883-1936), also known as Hirsch Apfelbaum, born Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky, Soviet politician

   Many writers have said his “real” name was Apfelbaum. I don’t recall ever reading that Apfelbaum was a pseudonym, but somebody thinks he went by Hirsch Apfelbaum (German-sounding) for awhile. I never said that Apfelbaum was his pseudonym, if that’s what you’re getting at, I always thought it was his birth name. I did more recently come across the Radomyslsky too. So they are both right, I would say.
3. Carolyn

   December 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm

   Another bit of information about the Panama Scandal that we wanted to check out:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_scandals

   In 1892/1893, a large number of ministers (including Clemenceau) were accused by French nationalists of taking bribes from Ferdinand de Lesseps in 1888, for the permit of the lottery issue, leading to a corruption process against Lesseps and his son Charles. Meanwhile, 510 members of parliament – including six ministers – were accused of receiving bribery from the Panama Canal Company to withhold from the public information about the company’s financial status. Lesseps, his son Charles, members of the management as well as the engineer Gustave Eiffel, were at first given long jail sentences, although they were later annulled.

   In the bribery trial, the former city development minister, Bethaut, received five years imprisonment, three of which he had to serve. Baron Reinach [a French Jew of German origin] – the financial adviser of the Canal Company and exerciser of the various bribes – committed suicide. [His partner in the bribery was another Jew, Cornelius Herz.] Other defendants fled to England. On 7 December 1894, Lesseps died.

   Politicians accused of involvement included Léon Bourgeois and Alfred Joseph Naquet.[2] One hundred and four legislators were found to have been involved in the corruption, and Jean Jaurès was commissioned by the French parliament to conduct an enquiry into the matter, completed in 1893.[3] The investigations into the Panama affair were resumed in 1897, but the defendants were acquitted.

   So the date here is early enough to allow an 1894 authorship, or final editing, of the Protocols document, which fits with the Mlle Glinka-Sukhotin-Nilus story.
4. Hadding

   December 13, 2012 at 10:15 am

   I already knew what Wikipedia said, but I didn’t trust it, because I knew that there was disagreement on the question and Wikipedia’s articles are only as good as the last editor.

   The book that I cited and linked, Political Archives of the Soviet Union, Vol. 1, seems authoritative.
5. Hadding

   December 13, 2012 at 10:24 am

   So the date here is early enough to allow an 1894 authorship, or final editing, of the Protocols document, which fits with the Mlle Glinka-Sukhotin-Nilus story.

   No, it doesn’t fit at all, because Justine Glinka was supposed to have obtained the pamphlet in 1884, eight years before the Panama scandals became public.
6. Carolyn

   December 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm

   No, it doesn’t fit at all, because Justine Glinka was supposed to have obtained the pamphlet in 1884, eight years before the Panama scandals became public.

   It is not written that “she obtained the pamphlet” in 1884, but only that she was in Paris at that time gathering what information she could. I thank you for pointing this out, though, because it is true I was mistakenly not noticing the “80” and “90” discrepancy. This is a weakness of this story that there is no date for when Glinka received the document from Schorst — it says “One day” he offered to obtain it for her (like in a fairy tale). She then sent the French original and a Russian translation to St. Petersberg, where it got filed away by General Cherevin, not reaching the Tsar. A footnote about Cherevin says: “On his death in 1896 he willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II.”

   Again, no date for when Glinka returned to Russia, only that she gave a copy of the Protocols to Sukhotin, who in turn passed it to Stepanov and Nilus, and Stepanov wrote a deposition in 1927 (!) that “in 1895” his neighbor Sukhotin gave the manuscript to him. This is how the 1884 and 1895 can get overlooked, by mentally seeing all this taking place within one year. This strikes me as how Elie Wiesel writes, by putting in a date once in awhile, but leaving most events undated, so there is no clear timeline. He does this so he is not held accountable for the accuracy of what he is writing. We do know that Nilus did publish it in 1903.

   “Karl Radl” documents (sort of) four different early versions of the Protocols and gives reasonable explanations as to why. But therefore a pure, unadulterated version of the Protocols (if there is one), we can’t be sure of. The “proof” of Asher Ginsberg being the author is also non-existent … where are documents in his name? Where are the witnesses saying they received this material from him? Why are both versions contained in Water Flowing Eastward? without any explanation for it? Why doesn’t anyone have an answer to these questions?