eded by the
open-minded. In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic party was split
into two factions, and the word "Bolshevism" came into use as the
designation of the policy of one of these factions. In 1905 the first
Russian revolution took place. In the period between the split in the
Social Democratic party in 1903 and the outbreak of the revolution in
1905 the leaders of the Bolsheviki had been active in formulating and
propagating their theoretical and political views. During the
revolution a sharp conflict occurred between the Bolsheviki and other
factions of the Russian Socialist movement, and the Socialist press
gave much space to the controversy.

It will be seen from this brief historical sketch that when Nilus
published a second edition of his book, late in 1905, he could find in
the Russian Socialist press all the materials for such a general
description of Bolshevism as that contained in the protocols. Of
course, if we believe that the documents are genuine, that they are
authentic translations of documents actually stolen in 1896, delivered
to Nilus in 1901, and by him first made public in 1905, we have simply
a coincidence of dates. I submit, however, that there is not a shred
of credible evidence that the documents were so obtained by Nilus, or
that they existed in 1896, 1901, 1903, or at any date earlier than
1905, the year of their first publication. I submit, furthermore, that
it is highly probable that the passages in the alleged protocols which
are now hailed as conclusive evidence that the Bolshevist policy had
been formulated as early as 1896, were in reality written after 1903
and in the light of already published accounts of Bolshevist theories
and tactics. There is not a thing that we know about these documents
and their history which does not point directly to the conclusion that
they are forgeries.

When I was in London in October, 1920, an English journalist of
distinction, well known and influential on both sides of the Atlantic,
with great earnestness and evident conviction sought to impress me
with the serious importance of these alleged _Protocols of the Elders
of Zion_. He was quite convinced that the documents were genuine, and
that they proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a world-wide
Jewish conspiracy. With great solemnity and manifest sincerity he
sought to enlist my co-operation in defense of what he called
"Anglo-Saxon civilization," which he seemed to regard as synonym