Gonna have to push back here for a few reasons: 1. Just because a historian is conservative or even anticommunist, does not mean they are liars and their writings, if skewed toward their own ideological preferences and those of their audience, isn't based in fact. 2. I found A History if the Jews on Libgen, and the source that he cites is Howard Sachar, ‘The Arab-Israel Issue in the Light of the Cold War’, (Washington DC), 1966, 2.
I don't know about Howard Sachar's attitude toward communism, and I couldn't find a copy of the book that was cited, but I did find Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War which contains about 150 pages about Rosa Luxemburg that casts her in a very good light from what I can tell. So not a guy with an axe to grind against communism.
Unfortunately I can't find an independent resource supporting the original claim (although I swear I've seen one somewhere) but your argument is, at best, disingenuous and based on vibes
The following is not a direct reply to you but a more general guideline that I suggest historiography nerds try to follow.
The key issue is not what is cited, but how its cited.
A book could exclusively cite communists, with 100% accurate citations to all primary sources, yet twist it in bias to present itself from the mild moralistic misinformation meandering to outright malicious fabrications of intent.
A person would have to make an explicit effort to read what was written, read the citations themselves to see their relevance to what was written, then keep looking back through all the citations of citations of citations until you find verifiable primary sources that through its own chain of primary evidence around it can either reinforce or undermine the original statement you read. And if you can't find primary source material that should spark your interest to dig deeper to find the truth. (Example: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper article written by Thomas Walker / Robert Green on his travels through the Ukraine during the famine of 32-33 have been cited as primary sources, even though other primary sources that recorded his locations reveal he spent the majority of his time on the trans-siberian railway heading to the Manchurian border, and prior to that he spent around a week in Moscow.)
But that's a lot of work as is, so barely anyone does it and just goes off of vibes of how many layers they can be bothered to peel back until they either satisfy whatever internal bias they have or they get bored.
I understand where you are coming from, but the fact of the issue at hand was discussed at Yalta conference with multiple English language representatives present and writing on it, and in 1945 he did not know what the correct answer was.
What this source is claiming is that Stalin was already planning an Israeli state in Palestine to sneak around his allies. It is claiming that Stalin is instigating proxy war. It is an attempt to blame the USSR for the Cold War and there is no evidence it is true.
I honestly think this post should be removed for being so incorrect
Literally the source is a right wing writer for the Spectator. Such a joke, if you read Wikipedia check the footnotes and sourcing
The footnotes and sources are of more value than the articles on Natopedia
What source, it's a picture. Can you please post it, and the wiki article?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin_and_antisemitism
[27] Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987) p. 527
Paul Johnson is a fervent anti communist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)
This takes 2 seconds for anyone ever reading wiki. Look at the source
Gonna have to push back here for a few reasons: 1. Just because a historian is conservative or even anticommunist, does not mean they are liars and their writings, if skewed toward their own ideological preferences and those of their audience, isn't based in fact. 2. I found A History if the Jews on Libgen, and the source that he cites is Howard Sachar, ‘The Arab-Israel Issue in the Light of the Cold War’, (Washington DC), 1966, 2.
I don't know about Howard Sachar's attitude toward communism, and I couldn't find a copy of the book that was cited, but I did find Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War which contains about 150 pages about Rosa Luxemburg that casts her in a very good light from what I can tell. So not a guy with an axe to grind against communism.
Unfortunately I can't find an independent resource supporting the original claim (although I swear I've seen one somewhere) but your argument is, at best, disingenuous and based on vibes
The following is not a direct reply to you but a more general guideline that I suggest historiography nerds try to follow.
The key issue is not what is cited, but how its cited.
A book could exclusively cite communists, with 100% accurate citations to all primary sources, yet twist it in bias to present itself from the mild moralistic misinformation meandering to outright malicious fabrications of intent.
A person would have to make an explicit effort to read what was written, read the citations themselves to see their relevance to what was written, then keep looking back through all the citations of citations of citations until you find verifiable primary sources that through its own chain of primary evidence around it can either reinforce or undermine the original statement you read. And if you can't find primary source material that should spark your interest to dig deeper to find the truth. (Example: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper article written by Thomas Walker / Robert Green on his travels through the Ukraine during the famine of 32-33 have been cited as primary sources, even though other primary sources that recorded his locations reveal he spent the majority of his time on the trans-siberian railway heading to the Manchurian border, and prior to that he spent around a week in Moscow.)
But that's a lot of work as is, so barely anyone does it and just goes off of vibes of how many layers they can be bothered to peel back until they either satisfy whatever internal bias they have or they get bored.
I understand where you are coming from, but the fact of the issue at hand was discussed at Yalta conference with multiple English language representatives present and writing on it, and in 1945 he did not know what the correct answer was.
What this source is claiming is that Stalin was already planning an Israeli state in Palestine to sneak around his allies. It is claiming that Stalin is instigating proxy war. It is an attempt to blame the USSR for the Cold War and there is no evidence it is true.