Jump to content

Talk:Zinoviev letter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The Zinoviev letter was a gimmick. I do not believe that it can be described as 'instrumental in the election victory of 1924'. By the time it was published, the government was already falling apart, having exhausted its policy proposals, the Liberals (upon whom Labour was electorally dependent) was moving away from the government, and it was naturally a short-lived experiment, essentially a reaction to the protectionism of the Conservatives. Where 'Red' influence was important, the government's decision to withdraw its prosecution against J.R. Campbell was much more important in this respect. The reason that the Zinoviev letter was seen as instrumental in the 1924 election result is that it has entered Labour mythology as a convenient explanation, pointing to Tory 'dirty tricks' to justify the outcome.

Hopefully you will find the rewrite more amenable to your views. Labour was going to lose in 1924. The so-called Zinoviev letter helped make the loss a landslide, for sure. The Campbell case is indeed a pivotal event, it is what MacDonald lost his confidence vote on that caused the election in the first place... Carrite (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really black and white?

[edit]

From what I understand from our history classes, the Zinoviev letter has been confirmed as genuine by the opening of russian archives. If not that then I'm pretty sure there isn't a clear division in those who support in either side... Can someone add a neutrality issue tag? Moshe Gordon 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It looks like Orlov done it <g>. Collect (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the title of a history textbppk which claims that? I've never seen it asserted anywhere and more likely you're confusing it with something else. But if you have a real source, then let's hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.239.208 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Don't believe everything you hear in History class... Everyone from 1924 onwards, Right, Left, and Center, has acknowledged the Zinoviev letter to be a forgery. If there's archival evidence to the contrary, supply the information — but this is one of those things that's really not a matter of debate. The only question is WHO did the work... Carrite (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. 98.20.26.113 (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Deep Throat[reply]

Does anyone else find it remarkably annoying that the author spends most of a paragraph describing how the Gill Bennett investigation came about, but never mentions any of it's conclusions? Why mention it if it's conclusions aren't worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.100.81.192 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that we can conclude that it was a forgery. There is no evidence that any British political party was involved directly or indirectly - which the article does not currently make clear. It is possible that it was produced by White Russians, as suggested. But it could also have been genuine. The fact that Zinoviev was on holiday on the date of the letter does not mean he could not have signed it then, or later.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it's genuine?? Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The letter was confirmed as genuine after the Cold War ended. (86.133.84.220 (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
No, it wasn't. For instance Gill Bennett, who had access to the Soviet archives, concluded the letter was a forgery. --Ismail (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel West concludes it's a forgery since unlike real leaks there was no Russian investigation. I'd rather listen to him than some rando on the internet holding forth with zero evidence. 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:1CC7:B60F:C0C3:3354 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Andrew

[edit]

I have removed the following

drew has confirmed that the z. letter was a forgery and that MI5 knew it all along but delibertely deceived parliament and government for around 80 years.

because it is incomplete. It probably refers to the historian Christopher Andrew, mentioned frequently for example in this article. It might be turned into something better and referenced, and returned to the article.--Rumping (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zinoviev letter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zinoviev letter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

[edit]

The article says : "If true, it [= the Zinoviev letter] was a deeply offensive interference in British politics to the detriment of the Labour Party." This seems unclear to me. If the letter was true, its disclosure was detrimental for the Labour Party, but the interference in itself was not. Marvoir (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the Post

[edit]

There is a famous cartoon (Low I think) of the 1929 election, which the Conservatives lost. Baldwin, Churchill and a few other leading Tories are shown sitting looking glum as the election results come in, saying to one another "It looks like Mr Zinoviev has missed the post this time." Might be worth posting if somebody can find a usable copy. Paulturtle (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zinoviev_letter&oldid=1220257157"