Jerusalem on the Amur: Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist Movement, 1924-1951 9780773575011

Citation preview

jerusalem on the amur

mcgill-queen’s studies in ethnic history series one: donald harman akenson, editor 1 Irish Migrants in the Canadas A New Approach Bruce S. Elliott (Second edition, 2004)

9 The People of Glengarry Highlanders in Transition, 1745–1820 Marianne McLean

2 Critical Years in Immigration Canada and Australia Compared Freda Hawkins (Second edition, 1991)

10 Vancouver’s Chinatown Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875–1980 Kay J. Anderson

3 Italians in Toronto Development of a National Identity, 1875–1935 John E. Zucchi

11 Best Left as Indians Native-White Relations in the Yukon Territory, 1840–1973 Ken Coates

4 Linguistics and Poetics of Latvian Folk Songs Essays in Honour of the Sesquicentennial of the Birth of Kr. Barons Vaira Vikis-Freibergs 5 Johan Schroder’s Travels in Canada, 1863 Orm Overland 6 Class, Ethnicity, and Social Inequality Christopher McAll 7 The Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict The Maori, the British, and the New Zealand Wars James Belich 8 White Canada Forever Popular Attitudes and Public Policy toward Orientals in British Columbia W. Peter Ward (Third edition, 2002)

12 Such Hardworking People Italian Immigrants in Postwar Toronto Franca Iacovetta 13 The Little Slaves of the Harp Italian Child Street Musicians in Nineteenth-Century Paris, London, and New York John E. Zucchi 14 The Light of Nature and the Law of God Antislavery in Ontario, 1833–1877 Allen P. Stouffer 15 Drum Songs Glimpses of Dene History Kerry Abel 16 Louis Rosenberg Canada’s Jews (Reprint of 1939 original) Edited by Morton Weinfeld

17 A New Lease on Life Landlords, Tenants, and Immigrants in Ireland and Canada Catharine Anne Wilson

22 Cultural Power, Resistance, and Pluralism Colonial Guyana, 1838–1900 Brian L. Moore

18 In Search of Paradise The Odyssey of an Italian Family Susan Gabori

23 Search Out the Land The Jews and the Growth of Equality in British Colonial America, 1740–1867 Sheldon J. Godfrey and Judith C. Godfrey

19 Ethnicity in the Mainstream Three Studies of English Canadian Culture in Ontario Pauline Greenhill 20 Patriots and Proletarians The Politicization of Hungarian Immigrants in Canada, 1923–1939 Carmela Patrias 21 The Four Quarters of the Night The Life-Journey of an Emigrant Sikh Tara Singh Bains and Hugh Johnston

24 The Development of Elites in Acadian New Brunswick, 1861–1881 Sheila M. Andrew 25 Journey to Vaja Reconstructing the World of a Hungarian-Jewish Family Elaine Kalman Naves

mcgill-queen’s studies in ethnic history series two: john zucchi, editor 1 Inside Ethnic Families Three Generations of Portuguese-Canadians Edite Noivo 2 A House of Words Jewish Writing, Identity, and Memory Norman Ravvin 3 Oatmeal and the Catechism Scottish Gaelic Settlers in Quebec Margaret Bennett 4 With Scarcely a Ripple Anglo-Canadian Migration into the United States and Western Canada, 1880–1920 Randy William Widdis

5 Creating Societies Immigrant Lives in Canada Dirk Hoerder 6 Social Discredit Anti-Semitism, Social Credit, and the Jewish Response Janine Stingel 7 Coalescence of Styles The Ethnic Heritage of St John River Valley Regional Furniture, 1763–1851 Jane L. Cook 8 Brigh an Orain / A Story in Every Song The Songs and Tales of Lauchie MacLellan Translated and edited by John Shaw

9 Demography, State, and Society Irish Migration to Britain, 1921–1971 Enda Delaney

18 Exiles and Islanders The Irish Settlers of Prince Edward Island Brendan O’Grady

10 The West Indians of Costa Rica Race, Class, and the Integration of an Ethnic Minority Ronald N. Harpelle

19 Ethnic Relations in Canada Institutional Dynamics Raymond Breton Edited by Jeffrey G. Reitz

11 Canada and the Ukrainian Question, 1939–1945 Bohdan S. Kordan

20 A Kingdom of the Mind The Scots’ Impact on the Development of Canada Edited by Peter Rider and Heather McNabb

12 Tortillas and Tomatoes Transmigrant Mexican Harvesters in Canada Tanya Basok 13 Old and New World Highland Bagpiping John G. Gibson 14 Nationalism from the Margins The Negotiation of Nationalism and Ethnic Identities among Italian Immigrants in Alberta and British Columbia Patricia Wood 15 Colonization and Community The Vancouver Island Coalfield and the Making of the British Columbia Working Class John Douglas Belshaw 16 Enemy Aliens, Prisoners of War Internment in Canada during the Great War Bohdan S. Kordan 17 Like Our Mountains A History of Armenians in Canada Isabel Kaprielian-Churchill

21 Vikings to U-Boats The German Experience in Newfoundland and Labrador Gerhard P. Bassler 22 Being Arab Ethnic and Religious Identity Building among Second Generation Youth in Montreal Paul Eid 23 From Peasants to Labourers Ukrainian and Belarusan Immigration from the Russian Empire to Canada Vadim Kukushkin 24 Emigrant Worlds and Translantic Communities Migration to Upper Canada in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Elizabeth Jane Errington 25 Jerusalem on the Amur Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist Movement, 1924–1951 Henry F. Srebrnik

Jerusalem on the Amur Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist Movement, 1924–1951 henry felix srebrnik

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston London Ithaca G

G

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2008 isbn 978-0-7735-3428-5 Legal deposit third quarter 2008 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Aid to Scholarly Publications Programme, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (bpidp) for our publishing activities. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Srebrnik, Henry Jerusalem on the Amur : Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish communist movement, 1924–1951 / Henry Felix Srebrnik. (McGill-Queen’s studies in ethnic history. Series 2 ; 25) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-7735-3428-5 1. Jewish communists – Canada – History. 2. Working class Jews – Canada – History. 3. Jews – Canada – Politics and government – 20th century. 4. Communism – Canada – History – 20th century. 5. Birobidzhan (Russia) – History. I. Title. II. Series. hx104.s64 2008

335.43089’924071

c2008-901965-2

Typeset by Jay Tee Graphics Ltd. in 10/13 New Baskerville

Contents

Illustrations ix Abbreviations and Acronyms Preface xiii

xi

1 Introduction: Jewish Radicalism, the World Communist Movement, and Birobidzhan 3 2 icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29 3 The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

20

46

4 Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade 5 An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39 6 Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

71

102 132

7 The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

151

8 The Postwar Period and the Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee 183 9 Conclusion: The Cold War and the End of a Dream Appendix 229 Notes 243 Bibliography 303 Index 323

215

This page intentionally left blank

Illustrations

1.1 Map of Birobidzhan in the 1930s 18 2.1 Melech Epstein, New York icor activist, and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1926 23 4.1 Sam Lapedes, manager, Der Kamf; Sam Carr, national organizer, Communist Party; Norman Freed, cp functionary; Bill Sidney, trade union organizer; and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1928 77 4.2 Max Dolgoy and Annie Dolgoy, Communist activists; Joshua Gershman; and Labl Basman, Winnipeg, 1929 78 4.3 Edenbridge, Saskatchewan, farm colony, 1933 87 4.4 Sam Carr and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1930 89 6.1 Reuben Brainin on a visit to Montreal in the 1930s 139 7.1 Liberty Temple School staff, Winnipeg, 1930 162 7.2 Zishe Weinper, New York ykuf, and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1940s 165 7.3 Reception for Dr Khaim Zhitlovsky at the home of Dr Benjamin Victor, Winnipeg, 24 April 1943 167 7.4 Itzik Fefer and Shloime Mikhoels in Montreal, September 1943 175 7.5 Dinner held for Itzik Fefer and Shloime Mikhoels in Montreal, September 1943 176 7.6 At Toronto City Hall, 8 September 1943 177 7.7 Election poster, in English and Yiddish, for Fred Rose, Montreal, July, 1943 180 8.1 ujpo’s Camp Naivelt, Brampton, Ontario, 1946 184 8.2 Rabbi Abraham Bick addressing Canadian Birobidjan Committee conference, Montreal, 26 May 1946 192 8.3 Joshua Gershman addressing Canadian Birobidjan Committee conference, Montreal, 26 May 1946 193

x

Illustrations

8.4 Luncheon of Birobidzhan activists in Toronto, 2 June 1947 198 9.1 J.B Salsberg at a candidates’ meeting, Ontario provincial election, November 1951 220

ms

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Ambijan

American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidjan Artef (Yiddish) Workers Theater Group (Arbayter Teater Farband) ccf Co-operative Commonwealth Federation cjc Canadian Jewish Congress Comintern Communist (Third) International cp Communist Party cpc Communist Party of Canada cpsu Communist Party of the Soviet Union cpusa Communist Party of the United States Evsektsiya (Russian) Jewish Section of the Soviet Communist Party (Yevreyskaya Sektsiya) fsu Friends of the Soviet Union gezerd (Yiddish) Association for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (Alfarbandishe Gezelshaft farn Aynordenen Oyf Erd Arbetndike Yidn) icor (Yiddish) Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union (Gezelshaft far Yidishe Kolonizatsye in Sovyetn-Farband) ito (Yiddish) Jewish Territorialist Organization (Yidishe Teritorialistishe Organizatsye) iwo International Workers Order jafc Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee jar Jewish Autonomous Region jca Jewish Colonization Association Joint American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee

xii

komerd (Yiddish)

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (Komiteyt farn Aynordenen Oyf Erd Arbetndike Yidn) komzet (Russian) Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (Komitet po Zemel’nomu Ustroistvu Trudyaschikhsya Evreev) lpp Labor-Progressive (Communist) Party ort Organization for Rehabilitation through Training ozet (Russian) Association for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (Obschestvennyi Komitet po Zemel’nomy Ustroistvu Evreiskikh Trudyaschikhsya) Proletpen (Yiddish) Proletarian Writers Union (Proletarisher Shrayber Farayn) ujpo United Jewish People’s Order (Farayniktn Yidishn Folks-Ordn) ussr Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wc Workmen’s Circle (Arbayter Ring) ykuf World Jewish Cultural Union (Alveltlekher Yidisher Kultur Farband)

Preface

In the early 1970s, I was a graduate student in the Contemporary Jewish Studies Program at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. Like many people caught up in the New Left politics of the time, I became increasingly interested in the Old Left, and especially in its Jewish component. Brandeis, which had been founded as a Jewish institution in 1948, counted among its faculty many liberals and also some academics whose careers had been damaged by McCarthyism. The university library contained an excellent collection of left-wing Jewish materials, and while enrolled in a course on American Jewish history I came across an incomplete run of Nailebn-New Life, a bilingual English-Yiddish periodical published by an American pro-Soviet Jewish group known as the Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union (Gezelshaft far Yidishe Kolonizatsye in Sovyetn-Farband), or icor, which also operated in Canada. The icor had supported and publicized the creation and growth of a Jewish autonomous region in Birobidzhan in the Soviet Union. I wrote a lengthy paper on the group for a course in American Jewish history taught by the late Leon Jick and published a piece on Birobidzhan for the Boston Jewish Advocate in 1972. After graduation in 1973, I went on to research Jewish Communists in England for a PhD, but I retained my interest in the pro-Birobidzhan movement. Eventually, I decided to revisit the subject and examine the scholarship of the succeeding thirty years. It turned out that almost nothing had been written. So, although much had changed since the early 1970s – the Soviet Union had vanished, the American and Canadian Old and New lefts had both now expired – this topic still awaited its chronicler. I began to research icor and a sister movement, known in the United States as the American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidjan (Ambijan)

xiv

Preface

and in Canada as the Canadian Birobidjan committee.1 I soon realized that the material would fill more than one volume, and I decided to write about the Canadian movements first. I hope this work fills a gap in the historical record of the Canadian Jewish left in the twentieth century. The much larger American project still awaits completion. The Canadian Jewish Communist movement played an important role within the Canadian Jewish community for some three decades. As noted, it included two left-of-centre movements whose main aim was to provide support for the Soviet project to establish a Jewish socialist republic in the Birobidzhan region in the far east of the Soviet Union (ussr). The first of these groups, icor, was founded in the United States in 1924 and was active within the immigrant working-class milieu; its members were to a large extent first- and second-generation Yiddish-speaking Jews of eastern European origin. Its Canadian branches became a separate Canadian organization in 1935. The second American group, Ambijan, was founded in 1934 as a popular front group catering to native-born, English-speaking, middle-class Jews, in line with the decisions then being made by the international Communist movement to seek broader alliances in the face of the increasing menace of Nazism and fascism. Its Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Birobidjan Committee, did not operate in Canada to any extent until after the Second World War. The two movements would be among the brighter stars in this Jewish Communist galaxy. As my bibliography indicates, a number of books and articles have been written about the American Jewish Communists and their support organizations by scholars such as Paul Buhle, Roger Keeran, Harvey Klehr, Arthur Liebman, Paul Mishler, David Shuldiner, Arthur Sabin, Zosa Szajkowski, and Thomas Walker; and by former activists such as Melech Epstein, Kalmen Marmor, Gina Medem, and Paul Novick, among many others. But no academic treatments of either Ambijan or icor currently exist, despite the significant role they played in the American Jewish left subculture for a quarter century. Even less has been published about their Canadian partners. Gerald Tulchinsky, in his Branching Out: The Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community, devotes a little more than two pages to icor, while Erna Paris, who allots three chapters to the Canadian Jewish Communist movement in her book Jews: An Account of Their Experience in Canada, has one passing reference to it.2 Other histories of the Communist movement or the Canadian Jewish community ignore it altogether. My research aims to rectify this major gap in our knowledge of the Jewish left; this is the first comprehensive history of these movements.

Preface

xv

In his book The Interpretation of Cultures, Clifford Geertz states that the role of an ethnographer is to observe, record, and analyze a culture and that the interpretation be based on “thick description.”3 A community’s rites and reasons can be understood only through layered, detailed observation. Ethnography, then, involves the study of a small group of subjects in their own environment; it is both descriptive, because detail is so crucial, and interpretive, because the ethnographer must determine the significance of what has been observed without gathering broad statistical information. “The aim is to draw large conclusions from oftentimes extremely small but densely textured facts,” Geertz maintains.4 But, unlike the classical anthropologist of old, I have not been able to live with or among the people about whom I write. Those who were involved in the Jewish Communist movement are by now almost all deceased or, if living, well into their nineties, their political activities long behind them. So I have had to depend on their written accounts rather than, except in a few cases, oral interviews or participant observation. Out of necessity, then, my methodology has involved a form of “historical immersion.” I have read their newspapers cover to cover, including not only the news stories, editorials, belles lettres, poems, and organizational notices but also the (fascinating) advertisements, the brief notices, and other ephemera in order to “inhabit” their world and to locate meaning within the context of their own political culture. To quote Geertz, I have sought “to converse with them.” My descriptions have been cast “in terms of the constructions ... they use[d] to define what happened to them” because, as he has suggested, “a good interpretation of anything ... takes us into the heart of that of which it is the interpretation.”5 I have examined the written material bequeathed to us (most of it in Yiddish) by these two Canadian organizations in their own and in sister American publications, including journals, yearbooks, magazines, and pamphlet literature. Especially important were the magazines Ambijan Bulletin, Icor, Jewish Life, Kanader “Icor,” and Nailebn-New Life. The periodicals were a source for understanding the movement’s political analysis and ideology. The movement’s Toronto-based newspaper, founded in 1924, first named Der Kamf, and then, in 1940, replaced by Der Vochenblat, or the Canadian Jewish Weekly, also served as an organ for Der Farayniktn yidishn folks-ordn, or the United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo), the Communist-dominated fraternal organization formed in 1944, as well as for the pro-Birobidzhan movements. Given its fairly unbroken publication record, relative journalistic integrity, and reliable reportage, it provided a fairly accurate week-

xvi

Preface

by-week account of the activities of Jewish Communists in Canada; their work and ideas, their projects and their quarrels, were all faithfully recorded in its pages. As Communists and Jews, their mental horizons stretched far beyond Canada to include the Soviet Union and the Jewish diaspora, especially that of eastern Europe and the United States. But their physical boundaries were relatively circumscribed; they lived, worked, and formed dense associational networks mainly in those downtown areas of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and smaller centres, termed “areas of first settlement” by sociologists, those neighbourhoods where Jewish immigrants congregated after arriving in Canada. Their world was that of St Lawrence Boulevard (“the Main”), Esplanade Avenue, Villeneuve Street and Mount Royal Avenue in Montreal; College Avenue, Brunswick Avenue, Spadina Avenue, and Markham Street in Toronto; Main Street, Salter Street, Pritchard Avenue, and Selkirk Avenue in Winnipeg. Pierre Bourdieu uses the term “field,” or “habitus,” to describe “a separate social universe having its own laws of functioning,” characterized by the shared economic, cultural, social, and political dispositions of its inhabitants.6 This certainly applied to the Jewish Communists. “This left-Jewish community, particularly in the early years, formed a gemeinshaft; an intimate, familiar, and sympathetic human association,” notes Ester Reiter. “Thus they were neighbours, friends, co-workers, as well as fellow Jews and comrades with a strong sense of solidarity ... bound by common language, culture, and political ideals.”7 These “social and cultural interactions, these extensive and intensive acquaintanceships and friendships, these social networks of aid, comfort, and warmth,” were the core strength of the movement. They even acted, observed Paul Lyons, as a “job referral agency.”8 As Erna Paris indicated, “All of life could be, and often was, encompassed by the movement’s warm embrace, and Jewish radical leftists felt no need to venture outside its womb of comfort and predictability.”9 It served as a cultural and educational home and a support system, both political and personal, sheltering newly arrived immigrants from an alien and unfamiliar new country where people spoke languages they had not yet mastered. Immigrants could even choose their doctors and dentists from among the many professionals who belonged to the movement. Most of the people involved remain obscure. Yet, while their world was small, the issues they grappled with, and the ideas and theories they espoused, had immense consequences. They generated ideas, programs, and visions that later became the commonplaces of social policy in Canada.

Preface

xvii

I do at least know the milieu in which they functioned. I lived as a child in the Montreal neighbourhoods where some of this story took place, and I crossed paths with some of these very people. To illustrate: in the course of my research, I came across this notice (in English) in Der Vochenblat of 26 February 1948, on page 6. It appeared, as a boxed ad, enclosing the following text:

Tel. Talon 2012

Res. Crescent 2676–8 Dominion Children’s Wear manufacturers of Infants, Children’s, Misses and Juniors’ coats also 3 Piece Sets and s p o r t s w e a r Stock Always on Hand 6 Fairmount St. West, cor. St. Lawrence Blvd. Montreal, Que.

As I read the ad, I remembered that when my parents arrived in Canada, with me in tow, in July of 1948, my father got his first job, as a bookkeeper, at Dominion Children’s Wear, which was owned by a Mr Aaron Gold. Gold, who had arrived from Poland before the war, had become a prosperous manufacturer: his residential telephone exchange, Crescent, indicates that his home was probably in then upper-middle-class Outremont. Yet I remember my father telling me that his boss was on an American blacklist of alleged Communists and could not enter the United States. I was never able to ascertain just how “red” Mr Gold actually was, but he was probably at the very least a Vochenblat subscriber and a member of the ujpo. No doubt some informer had noticed this very ad. The McCarthyism that prevailed in the United States, and also in Canada, during this period resulted in many injustices, some much worse than this example. Yet it was very minor compared to what transpired on the other side of the Iron Curtain, in the Soviet Union and the Communist states of eastern Europe. This book will, I hope, serve as a cautionary tale, for it illustrates how otherwise intelligent, critical people can be misled by an unscrupulous, indeed murderous, regime and place their hopes for a better world in the hands of people who turn out to be political criminals, even sociopaths. It is the story of people who accepted as truth the lies and fantasies spun by cynical propagandists and who put their trust in those who were building not socialism but gulags. Of course, mine is a privileged

xviii

Preface

position: while I have tried to sympathize with these people and have sought to comprehend the reasons for their activities, I know in advance that they made the tragic error of taking at face value the lies and deceptions of Soviet Communism. As E.H. Carr long ago observed, “To learn about the present in the light of the past means also to learn about the past in the light of the present. The function of history is to promote a profounder understanding of both past and present through the interrelation of the two.”10 Even so, admittedly with the advantage of hindsight, and even taking into account that the Jewish Communists lived thousands of miles removed from the utopia in which they had invested all their political hopes, in an era without television or the internet to disseminate information, I still fail to comprehend how so many well-educated people, who were so well aware of the shortcomings of their own society, could so completely suspend all disbelief when it came to judging the Soviet Union. Were I less sympathetic, I might describe it as a form of “wilful blindness,” a term used by lawyers to describe a situation in which people intentionally allow themselves to be deceived or deluded. Certainly the ideologues of the Jewish Communist movement, as the written record makes clear, invested their considerable intelligence and creativity into explaining and justifying the inexplicable and the unjustifiable. For them, it was a case of “if the theory is correct, then the facts simply must fit.” But perhaps such dogmatism is present in all “counter-hegemonic” movements. The twentieth century, after all, saw many manifestations of the “sacralisation of politics,” with “secular religions” such as Marxism-Leninism displacing more traditional faiths. This was especially true for the adherents of Soviet-inspired Communism.11 So Jewish Communism was, in that sense, part of a larger social and political phenomenon that spanned the political spectrum from Communism on the left to various forms of fascism on the right. All this, then, by way of introduction to what will be a very concrete account of their world. The first two chapters provide an overview of the Jewish Communist movement and of the Jewish colonization projects in the Soviet Union. Since icor operated as a unified North American organization until 1935, chapters 3 and 4 provide a history of the overall movement in its first decade. The subsequent chapters deal specifically with the proBirobidzhan movement in Canada until its demise in the early 1950s. They trace the story of icor and, later, the Canadian Birobidjan Committee through the period leading up to the Second World War, the temporary success achieved during the war and immediately thereafter, and the final defeat they suffered as the Cold War brought pro-Soviet politics into

Preface

xix

disrepute in Canada. Readers may find some of my detailed accounts of the views and opinions of icor and its supporters, as presented in the movement’s literature, somewhat repetitious, but I have tried to provide, as far as possible, a sense of the quotidian “lived experience” of its adherents and participants. Jerusalem on the Amur is based on research in various public archives and collections. The National Archives and Reference Centre of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Jewish Public Library, both in Montreal, are perhaps the most important repositories of materials produced by the Canadian Jewish pro-Communist left movements. The National Archives and Reference Centre includes papers, letters, reports, pamphlets, and press clippings of, among others, Sam Carr, the national organizer for the Canadian Communist Party before the Second World War and the national secretary of the ujpo afterwards; the journalist Raymond Arthur Davies; and Fred Rose, elected to Parliament in 1943 and 1945 for the Labor-Progressive (Communist) Party. All supported the various pro-Birobidzhan movements, and their papers contain much material relating to these groups. The Jewish Public Library Archives in Montreal include a large collection of materials concerning the noted Hebraist Reuben Brainin, later active in icor as well as in many other pro-Soviet organizations. The Labl Basman, Abraham Nisnevitz, and Joshua Gershman papers, all deposited at the Archives of Ontario in Toronto, include documents relating to the work of these three men, who, like Brainin, were active in icor and other pro-Soviet organizations. The Ontario Archives also include the Goldie Vine Papers, relating to the Hamilton icor, and a collection of materials concerning the Communist Party of Canada. The library of the Morris Winchevsky Centre, Toronto, holds materials relating to the ujpo, as does the Robert S. Kenny Collection at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library of the University of Toronto. Materials relating to local Canadian Birobidjan Committee and icor branch activities in the Canadian west are included in papers deposited at the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, located in Winnipeg, and the Jewish Historical Society of Southern Alberta, in Calgary. In the United States, the yivo Institute for Jewish Research in New York is the most important repository of Yiddish-language materials produced by the Jewish pro-Communist left. yivo houses the papers, including several thousand letters, diaries, reports, manuscripts, and press clippings, of Kalmen Marmor, the prominent Jewish Communist; included in this collection is his personal correspondence with Reuben Brainin and the noted Yiddishist Khaim Zhitlovsky, among others. The Vilhjalmur Stefansson

xx

Preface

Collection, at the Baker Memorial Library, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, has a wealth of materials on the Canadian-born Arctic explorer, who was involved with many pro-Communist organizations, including icor and Ambijan. All translations from the Yiddish, unless otherwise indicated, are my own. A note regarding orthography: For the transliteration of article and book titles and names into the Roman alphabet, I use a modified version of the standard yivo-based system, except in the case of figures whose names, rendered into Roman characters, often appear in English-language publications; there I keep to the familiar spelling, for example, “Salsberg” rather than “Zaltsberg.” Even where I find Roman character spellings of littleknown figures – say, I. Trachimovsky, an activist in Montreal – I spell the name as it appears on letterheads or other literature in English rather than the phonetic “Trakhimofsky.” In the endnotes, I spell names phonetically if the original is in Yiddish – for example, “labor lig” rather than “Labour League,” “vinipeg” rather than “Winnipeg.” But, wherever possible, I leave the more common spelling of the proper names of people, even in the endnotes. Finally, if a journal or newspaper is bilingual and has a proper name in both English and Yiddish, I use the English spelling; but if it is a Yiddishonly publication, I transliterate it as a Yiddish title. So, for example, “Icor” buletin rather than “Icor” Bulletin (but of course “Icor” Bulletin for an English-language periodical of the same name). Finally, in the interests of consistency, I use the acronym icor or Icor throughout the book, this being the organization’s own Roman alphabet transliteration, even when I am quoting from Yiddish sources, though in those instances it should rightly read ikor or Ikor. This project has benefited from a three-year grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I also spent a wonderful year glued to a microfilm reader as a visiting research fellow at the Calgary Institute for the Humanities, University of Calgary, in 2000–01. The Institute provided a great luxury: a crucial piece of time for research, thought, and contemplation. I wish to thank, among many others, archivists Donna Bernardo-Ceriz at the Ontario Jewish Archives, Wayne Crockett at the Archives of Ontario, Shannon Hodge at the Jewish Public Library Archives, and Janice Rosen at the Canadian Jewish Congress National Archives. I would also like to thank Vanesa Harari and Irma Penn at the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada for their efforts. Most of the photographs and posters included in Jerusalem on the Amur have been reproduced courtesy of these three archives. As well, the staff of the Interlibrary Loan divisions of the

Preface

xxi

MacKimmie Library, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta; and the Roberston Library, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, provided prompt and courteous service in obtaining journal articles and books for me as needed. I also wish to acknowledge the help and encouragement of colleagues and friends, past and present, including Irving Abella, Paul Boudreau, Robert Brym, Irene Gammel, Irving Hexham, Joshua Rubenstein, Shloime Perel, Gerald Tulchinsky, and David Weinberg. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Patricia Thomas Srebrnik, whose unstinting support and painstaking editorial work has enabled me to complete this book. Any errors in fact or interpretation are, of course, my own. Jerusalem on the Amur is dedicated to the memory of Shiloh (1992–2005) and Zaidman (1988–2005), two of the most wonderful creatures ever to walk this earth.

This page intentionally left blank

jerusalem on the amur

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction: Jewish Radicalism, the World Communist Movement, and Birobidzhan

Perhaps the diasporic people par excellence are the Jews, who, between the years 70 and 1948, existed without a state. In consequence, various movements arose that claimed they had found the “solution” to the political dilemmas facing the Jewish people. Some were religious, some were frankly assimilationist, some were socialistic and universalistic, and some, of course, were nationalistic and Zionist. My research focuses on a hybrid political movement that combined elements of Marxist universalism and Jewish territorial nationalism. This grouping of like-minded organizations, active mainly between 1917 and 1956, I have termed the Jewish Communist movement. These groups, which had active members throughout the Jewish diaspora, in particular in the various countries of Europe, North America, South Africa, and Australia, were later interconnected on a global level through international movements such as the World Jewish Cultural Union, or Alveltlekher Yidisher Kultur Farband (ykuf), founded in Paris in September 1937. While some Jewish revolutionaries actively distanced themselves from their Jewish backgrounds, others viewed involvement in Jewish left-wing and labour groups “as the preferred means of resolving both the class and ethnic oppression of Jews.”1 Their struggle to achieve a better world “overlapped with the liberation of the Jews – whether as individuals or as a people – from the thraldom of generations.”2 There were many Jews, mainly first-generation immigrants, who wished to retain their Yiddish-based culture, and that too proved an acceptable option – as long as they managed to blend, within strict ideological limits, their ethnic identity with their “internationalist” and class-based politics.3 Theirs was a secular definition of being Jewish, rooted in social class, language, and political activism, and it served as an alternative identity to one based on traditional religion

4

Jerusalem on the Amur

or simple ethnicity. They established non-religious institutions such as the Workmen’s Circle (wc), or Arbayter Ring, the mutual benefit society founded in the United States in 1892, which had formed Canadian chapters by 1907; many were also prominent in the landsmanshaften, the hundreds of social clubs and mutual aid societies organized by immigrants who came from a specific town or region in eastern Europe, which functioned largely in Yiddish. While the world of Jewish socialism was a secular one and its discourse radical, its roots lay deep within the Jewish tradition that Zvi Gitelman has called “the quest for utopia,” a search to improve the world. Jewish Communists sought “to create both a Jewish socialist state and a socialist world.”4 Though there was much in Jewish life they opposed, from Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, these people did not turn to the Communist Party because they were alienated from the Jewish world but, rather, because “of their urge to act for the sake of an improved society and to better the condition of the Jewish workers.”5 Typical were activists such as the writer Kalmen Marmor, a delegate to several of the early Zionist congresses in Europe, a founder of Poale Zion, and the first editor of Yiddisher Kemfer. He came to the United States in 1906 at age twenty-seven, at first joined the Socialist Party but threw in his lot with the Communist movement in 1920. “It was neither Marx nor Engels that made me a socialist. I was drawn towards socialism by the [Jewish biblical] prophets,” he would remark many years later. “We were not simply socialists, but Jewish socialists.”6 He became a journalist and literary critic with the Communist Yiddish daily Morgn Frayhayt and a pedagogue with the schools of the International Workers Order (iwo).7 Another was the Canadian Communist Joshua (Joe) Gershman, who was born in Sokolov, Ukraine, in 1903 and came to Winnipeg in 1921. Two years later he joined the Communist Party of Canada (cpc) and in 1926 moved to Toronto, where he became a professional Communist organizer: “I never had a conflict about being a Jew and being a Communist. I became a Communist because I am a Jew.”8 In contrast to those Jews who as individuals were attracted to the mainstream, non-Jewish cp, participants in the Jewish Communist movement were not assimilationists, certainly not in their own minds, although the party remained, after the ussr, their basic political reference point. They saw no contradiction in participating in pro-Soviet Jewish organizations that, by working for an international transformation of society, would also promote Jewish interests. The North American Jewish community, which by 1917 consisted primarily of proletarianized newcomers from eastern Europe, provided “a

Introduction

5

framework of experience upon which a radical minority could construct a role of great importance”; as Paul Buhle has recounted, “a Messianic radicalism among the immigrant Jewish workers ... allowed Communism to appeal to some of the deepest traditions of the community.”9 When the Soviet state emerged out of the ruins of the tsarist empire, socialists throughout the world hailed it as the beginning of a new age. For many Jewish radicals, it also heralded the approaching end of some two millennia of persecution and marginalization. The formation of a multiethnic federation of socialist republics was, they maintained, the first step in the legal, social, and economic elimination of anti-Semitism. Jews in the Soviet Union were now liberated from a discriminatory economic and social system; they could cease occupying “middleman” economic positions in favour of agricultural and industrial pursuits. The transformation of “unproductive” Jews concentrated in trade, commerce, and financial “speculation” into artisans and farmers would deflect anti-Semitism. The luftmensh, the Jew without a trade or skill, eking out a living by his wits in the constricted world of the shtetl, the little hamlet, would soon be a historical memory. Jews would become economically, socially, and politically integrated, partners with the other Soviet nations in socialist construction. Even the pre-revolutionary maskilim, the enlightened Jewish intelligentsia, had called for the formation of a Jewish farming class in a back-to-the-land movement. Early Soviet propaganda shared many themes in common with Zionism; both, for example, envisioned muscular Jewish pioneers engaged in working the land, casting off their ghetto past to create healthy new lives on collective farms. The need for Jews to reject their role as “middlemen” and adjust their economic pursuits in order to become “productive” was a concern expressed by almost all Jewish social movements, from Zionism to Communism. There was initial sympathy for the Russian revolutionaries who had overthrown the oppressive and anti-Semitic tsarist autocracy. As one Jewish Communist exclaimed, “There was a tremendous joy and a tremendous friendship between the Gentiles and the Jews. We thought that this was like the Messiah came.”10 Said another, “In 1917 the Russian Revolution was greeted with joy by the Jewish community here.”11 This was, after all, a time when Communists believed that the transformation of humanity and history was imminent and justice would reign on earth. The Soviets were perceived “as the one government in the world which actively fought antiSemitism and fostered Yiddish culture.”12 Visitors to the ussr came back full of enthusiasm, and Jewish intellectuals were especially uncritical.13 Daniel Soyer has observed that many Jewish travellers who had left the

6

Jerusalem on the Amur

tsarist lands for the United States before the First World War saw in the new ussr “not only their old home but their new spiritual homeland as well,” an ideological fatherland as well as the “old country,” a place “nostalgically associated with their families and their own youthful years.”14 For such people, “two different sorts of transnationalism” – those links and institutions that they retained between their country of origin and country of settlement – reinforced each other: “the political transnationalism of the Communist movement, with its center in Moscow, and the ethnic transnationalism inherent in American Jewry’s ongoing emotional involvement with its main country of origin.” For the eastern European immigrant generation, “Russia had very concrete personal as well as abstract symbolic meaning.” After 1917, they could identify with the state as well as with their hometowns and Jewish communities. Thus was born a Jewish Communism with Russia at its centre.15 This held just as true for Canadian Jewry. To become a Communist meant, for many a Jew, “to shed the limitations of one’s social reality, and to join in a fraternity that transcended the divisions of the world,” without feeling the guilt that might otherwise accompany assimilationism.16 Maurice Isserman has commented on this paradox: joining a cp was a way to transcend ethnic neighbourhoods and relationships.17 Adds Paul Lyons, “Communists who grew up in homes speaking Yiddish ... found great attraction in a Party that proclaimed, ‘This Land is Your Land.’”18 The academic anti-Semitism then prevalent in universities prevented all but a few sons and daughters of working-class Jews from becoming college professors, but Jewish intellectuals could express themselves through radical politics.19 Such Jews might convince themselves that only Communism could bring about that “revolution in ethnic relations” that would finally eliminate anti-Semitism.20 For some Jews growing up in this period, notes Ezra Mendelsohn, “Jewishness was synonymous with political radicalism,” an integral part of their culture. “The 1930s were the heyday of the formation of the radical Jewish cosmopolitan (or universalist) intelligentsia,” a group not very interested in specifically Jewish politics and culture. They wanted to create a society “where Jew and gentile could meet as absolute equals, sharing the same ideals of brotherhood and universalism.”21 Communists found front groups an effective means of attracting supporters for their causes; some who joined would eventually become fullfledged members. Less centralized and hierarchical than the Communist parties, they enabled the party to gain access to a broader community in order to further its goals.22 So, although “nominally independent,” they were “organized around single-issue or special-interest concerns, in which the Communists exercised effective organizational control.”23 Formed

Introduction

7

around a nucleus of party members, their programs were often framed with help from cp leaders. “Party membership was not openly discussed, and influence was exerted through the established Communist procedure of a clandestine faction, which met secretly to plan strategy.”24 Typically, the president was a well-regarded public figure not openly identified as a Communist; indeed, sympathetic liberal “fellow travellers” were preferred to doctrinaire socialists or social democrats, who were more likely to voice ideological concerns regarding events in Soviet Russia. However, the secretary, paid functionaries, and most members of the executive committee, who ran the group’s day-to-day activities, were cp members. And the party members “always had the power to set limits in the fronts.”25 Other criteria by which front organizations could be identified included the following: its meetings were addressed by, and its publications open to contributions from, Communists; it cooperated with the cp in its campaigns and activities; its publications advertised cp activities or those of other front groups; funds were collected on behalf of the cp; it received favourable publicity in the communist press; and it was uncompromisingly loyal to the Soviet Union and cp line. The pro-Birobidzhan movements fit all of these criteria. Jewish Communism was a combination of socialism and secular Jewish nationalism, though the latter was often only a subterranean form of discourse. They complemented one another: proletarian Jewish culture (especially in Yiddish) for Jewish Communists constituted the most authentic expression of Jewish being, of a secular Yidishkayt. The Yiddish language and its literature were perceived as the primary vehicle of Jewish continuity, hence the importance given to a secular and radical Yiddish school system and to cultural production. Indeed, poets and novelists and essayists, I.L. Peretz being an obvious example, were often accorded pride of place over political figures. Rejecting religious and traditional Judaism, the Jewish Communists believed they could advance their cultural self-identity within a Marxist-Leninist framework, albeit a more humanistic than “materialist” one. Even while being part of a larger Communist “family,” the extensive network of groups fashioned by the Jewish Communists enabled them to create a focus for Jewish socialist integration that was independent of the Communist Party. Indeed, one could be part of this movement without formal adherence to the party.26 The Jewish Communists emerged from the same historic and economic conditions as did the other Jewish socialist movements of the time. They all were products of the Jewish enlightenment, or haskala, the growth of Yiddish as a language of culture and literature, the proletarianization and impoverishment of the Jews in the Russian Pale of Settlement before 1917,

8

Jerusalem on the Amur

and the organization of Jews into trade unions and other resistance organizations as a response to pogroms and persecution. Like other Jewish left groups, Jewish Communism was a movement of an oppressed nationality, in a sense it was a movement for a people in exile who had yet to create a socialist Jewish state or even yet to become part of a diaspora state in which Jews would have internal freedom as a people. All these movements sought in one manner or another to liberate Jews from the oppressive aspects of diasporic exile, which was felt as a dialectical antithesis to “homeland” and redemption via socialism. Even insofar as there was a Jewish working class ripe for socialist proselytization, it had important characteristics that differentiated it from the non-Jewish working class, concentrated as it was in a few sectors of the economy and usually employed by Jewish capitalists in the “Jewish economy.” Hence the Jewish movements were independent of, or at least autonomous from, non-socialist ones. And all of them initially supported the 1917 Russian revolutions that overthrew tsarist autocracy, which had legitimized and even legalized anti-Semitism, pogroms, and numerous economic, political, and residential restrictions on Jewish life. This worldview was part of the ideological baggage that crossed the Atlantic along with the massive immigration of eastern European Jews and was thus transferred to the New World. Jewish Communism only emerged, of course, following the Russian Revolution and the founding of a Soviet state guided by the ideals of Marxism-Leninism. So genealogically it was the child and an outgrowth of the larger socialist and left-Zionist Jewish milieu, already well organized and in full flower by the turn of the twentieth century. Many writers on the Jewish left, from Moses Hess through Vladimir Medem to Ber Borochov, had already been theorizing and debating the key national and class issues that the Communists would inherit when they broke with the rest of the Jewish socialist world. Jewish Communists sought not to supplant Jewishness with socialism and support for the ussr but, rather, to augment their Jewish identity via Communism. Even when its members and organizations allied themselves with Communist parties, theirs was nevertheless a specifically Jewish movement, which, despite major disagreements, could be viewed as one of a family of socialist movements that included, among others, the Jewish Labour Bund, with its diaspora-oriented nationalist socialism and theories of national-cultural autonomy, and the Poale Zion and other socialist Zionist movements, which hoped to build a socialist Jewish yishuv, or community, in Palestine.27 It should be noted that, for the Jewish Communists and the Bund, and to a lesser extent even for the Zionists, the Jewish nation was basically the Ashkenazi, Yiddish-speaking Jewish world that some have termed

Introduction

9

“Yiddishland.” This world was geographically situated mainly in eastern Europe (today’s Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic states, and, to a lesser extent, the Czech Republic and Hungary), with fragments that had spun off to form subsidiary immigrant communities in the New World (Argentina, Canada, Uruguay, and, of course, the United States), western Europe (Britain and France), Australia, South Africa, and even the Palestine Jewish yishuv. Rarely did Sephardi, Oriental, or central Asian Jews become prominent in the Jewish Communist movement – not even those living in what became the Soviet Union, and certainly not those in Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, North Africa, and the Middle East. Even the Zionist movements were largely Ashkenazi eastern Europeans in their orientation and membership. For the Jewish Communists, the “homeland” was the new ussr, and later Birobidzhan in particular, because of the successful Bolshevik Revolution, which had made anti-Semitism a crime and had liberated Russian Jewry. (One could not imagine North American Jewish Communists taking the same interest in a successful workers’ revolution in a region without Jews or a historic Jewish community – for the sake of argument, India or Japan.) It was logical to be pro-Soviet; after all, the revolution had been beneficial to the Jews of the tsarist empire. And this conceptual framework was extended elsewhere: if socialism could liberate Jewry in Russia, the same social and political forces confronting capitalist states elsewhere should also be “good for the Jews.” Jewish Communism was a particular variant of socialism, one for which the Bolshevik Revolution was seen as a world-historical event of immense magnitude, one that would usher in the realization of socialism throughout the world and thus lead to the transformation of Jewish life and society and the ultimate liberation of Jews everywhere. Later, during the 1930s and the Second World War, the benefit of being allied to a Soviet Union in the forefront of the battle against Hitlerism seemed to vindicate and make self-evident the Jewish Communist attachment to the Soviet Union (though they were forced to rationalize and rather uneasily defend the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 and the two-year period during which Russia stood aside as the Nazis conquered most of Europe). The Jewish Communist movement, more so than the other Jewish socialist movements, followed through on its defence of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet state right to the bitter end, which began with the revelations about Stalin’s crimes contained in Nikita Khrushchev’s famous “secret speech” in February 1956 to the 20th Soviet Communist Party congress. While Jewish emancipation throughout the diaspora was the long-term goal, the short-term Communist frame of reference was remarkably similar

10

Jerusalem on the Amur

to that of Zionism: emancipation and rejuvenation, the creation of a “new” Jew, would in the meantime occur elsewhere, in the case of the Jewish Communists in the ussr, particularly in Birobidzhan in the Soviet far east rather than in Palestine. Both the left Zionists and Communists were remarkably critical of contemporary Jewish life in the diaspora, their deprecatory language sometimes veering towards the anti-Semitic. (The Bund, being more anti-Zionist than Jewish Communism and more anti-Soviet than left Zionism, was more at loggerheads with the other two strands of socialism than they were with each other.) The perspective of the Jewish Communists was closer to the historic Jewish narrative of exile and redemption than it was to so-called “scientific socialism” and class struggle, and, even while ostensibly concentrating on organizing on “the Jewish street” in Canada alone, it was just as much concerned with the worldwide situation of Jews, especially after the rise of fascism, the Holocaust, and the eventual formation of the State of Israel. Their historical heroes and “role-models,” and even their ideological mentors, were more likely to be Jewish radicals and literary figures in Europe or the United States than non-Jewish Canadians of the left. The Jewish Communists saw themselves as part of a larger movement, active in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Britain, France, and even Palestine itself, that was working for socialism in the interests of the Jews as a people – a very different perspective from that of the nonJewish cps. Indeed, in 1920, one Jewish Communist in the United States had even been brazen enough to broach the idea of “an alliance of Jewish Communist bodies the world over,” a Jewish section of the Communist International (Comintern) – an offer rebuffed by the Soviets as smacking of nationalism if not, indeed, Zionism.28 Because Jewish Communists were more internationally minded than most others on the left, and more interested in the “new socialist state” emerging in what was for many their place of birth, they especially sought contact with Soviet Jewish bodies such as the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish Section of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (cpsu), in the 1920s and the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (jafc) in the 1940s. Given their orientation, the idea of a separate geo-political space that would serve as a shield from oppression and make possible the creation of a socialist Jewish society – be it in Birobidzhan or elsewhere – was a goal that was more inspiring to the membership, I would submit, than the emancipation of Canadian Jews as a consequence of a Communist revolution in Canada, desirable as that may have been. The creation of a new Jewish homeland was for them an emotional vision, even if most did not realistically think they would ever personally help build it. (This was also true of

Introduction

11

diaspora Zionists.) Their socialism was in reality amorphous and even utopian; they had no concrete strategies other than providing support for the building of socialism in the Jewish communities of the ussr and, later, combating fascism. The internal Jewish culture of the movement was in a sense more reflective of the deep psychological needs and motivations of its members than was its stated formal beliefs, which had to hew more closely to official Communist dogma. Hence the efforts to establish and develop Birobidzhan appealed to the subterranean but very powerful secular nationalist sentiments of Jewish Communists, sentiments that emerged out of two millennia of Jewish exile and oppression. The Jewish socialist movements, whatever their theoretical or programmatic differences, were all obsessed – that is not too strong a word for it – with trying to solve the “national [read: Jewish] question” and “normalize” the situation of the Jews as a people. Unlike assimilationist Jews who internalized the post-Christian critique of the Jews as a fossilized, provincial caste group destined to integrate into the larger society once emancipated from their parochial religion and given the rights of citizenship (a view espoused by, say, Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg), Jewish Communists did see a collective and distinctive future for the Jews – or at least for the Jewish working class. They did not hold derogatory or “selfhating” views of the Jewish people, nor were they secular apostates. First, though, a brief summary of the Birobidzhan project itself, which is probably best understood in the context of that form of Jewish nationalism known as territorialism, a proto-Zionist doctrine that preached the formation of a sovereign Jewish collective in a suitable territory anywhere in the world, and not necessarily in the Land of Israel. From the time of the great upheavals in Russia’s Pale of Settlement, these proposals addressed the problems of Jewish emancipation, lack of civil rights, and cultural exclusion. The solutions included emigration to and the settlement of Jews in rural, agricultural areas in Argentina, Palestine, and the United States, and the creation of a Jewish polity in Uganda. The Jewish settlement in Birobidzhan would arouse widespread interest among those who sought in Jewish territorialism and colonization a solution to statelessness, including many who were otherwise not enamoured of the Soviet state or Communist ideology. They sought safe havens for the economic “rehabilitation” of the Jewish people, who, in their view, needed to “normalize” through the pursuit of agricultural and industrial labour rather than remain “non-productive” middlemen and traders. The territorialist outlook had coalesced in the debate over the so-called Uganda Plan. At a meeting held on 23 April 1903 between the founder of

12

Jerusalem on the Amur

modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and the British colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, the latter stated that, in his opinion, Uganda in East Africa seemed an ideal location for the resettlement of the Jews. At first, Herzl ignored the suggestion, fearing that it would endanger his negotiations for the establishment of a Jewish protectorate in Cyprus or the Sinai. But at the Sixth Zionist Congress, held in Basle in August 1903, Herzl presented a summary of his negotiations and recommended that the Zionist movement should seriously investigate it, if only as a temporary measure to alleviate the distress caused by growing persecution of Jews in the Russian Empire. After intense debate, Herzl’s proposal was rejected. Resurrected a year later at the Seventh Zionist Congress in Basle, the Uganda scheme was supported by the territorialists and the left-wing Poale Zion but went down to defeat when the Zionist majority reaffirmed their support for a homeland in the land of Erets Yisrael. Indeed, the nasty battle over the Uganda Plan contributed to Herzl’s early death that year.29 Herzl had visited London in 1896, where he met with the Anglo-Jewish writer Israel Zangwill. Zangwill, who attended the First Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897 and additional congresses thereafter, supported Herzl’s Uganda Plan. When it was rejected, he led the territorialists out of the Zionist organization in 1905. He established the Jewish Territorialist Organization (ito), whose object was to rescue Russian Jews by searching for any suitable territory that could be acquired as a Jewish homeland. Some of the socialist Zionists, headed by Nachman Syrkin, joined the ito. Zangwill and the territorialists believed that the demography and geography of Palestine were unfavourable to Jewish settlement. They attempted to locate territory suitable for Jewish settlement in various parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America, including areas of Angola, the Dominican Republic, Libya, Ethiopia, Mesopotamia, and Mexico, but met with little success. (Already at the end of the nineteenth century Baron Maurice de Hirsh’s London-based Jewish Colonization Association had planted Jewish agricultural settlements in the New World, including Canada, but especially in Argentina, where some 35,000 Jews were settled on seventeen large agrarian colonies.) Following the Balfour declaration in 1917, the ito fell into decline and was officially dissolved in 1925. Zangwill died a year later. However, in July 1935, in response to the Nazi accession to power in Germany, the increase in anti-Semitic activity throughout Europe, and the British restrictions on Jews seeking to enter Palestine, Isaac Nachman Steinberg, also a former Zionist, established the Freeland League for Jewish Territorial Colonization in the United States. This protoZionist organization attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure a large piece of

Introduction

13

territory in a sparsely populated area for settlement by those Jews who could not or would not go to Palestine but wished to live within a selfgoverning Jewish political structure. Between 1935 and 1948, the Freeland League negotiated with governments for the establishment of compact Jewish settlements in Angola, Ecuador, the Kimberley District of Western Australia, and Surinam, and it sent out commissions to investigate the suitability of each location. The German Jewish Emigration Council in England also sought to find havens for European Jewry in the 1930s, especially in the British protectorate of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Indeed, there were a vast number of plans to settle Jewish refugees in various parts of Africa.30 But all these proposals came to naught. So the territorialist dream of a self-governing Jewish entity other than in Palestine would appear to have come closer to reality in Birobidzhan than anywhere else. Here the Communists could build a “Jerusalem on the Amur.” Soviet Marxist-Leninist theory on the national question as it affected the territorially dispersed yet clearly distinct Jewish population of the tsarist empire tended to oscillate. At times Jews were deemed to fulfill Marxist criteria of nationhood and were thus deemed worthy of some form of territorial concentration and political status. At other times, excluded from the narrow “materialist” definition of nationhood, they were thought to be destined for eventual assimilation. (This would become Joseph Stalin’s preferred option, especially after 1948.) Following the revolution, Vladimir Lenin had regarded nationalism as a temporary historical necessity, and he had acknowledged Jews as a legitimate nationality, so in the years following the Bolshevik Revolution, the regime decided to set aside specific territory for those Jews who wished to build a collective Jewish socialist life. The People’s Commissariat of Nationalities had been established to deal with such issues, as well as the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish Section of the cpsu.31 Jewish Communists found it necessary to steer a narrow path in dealing with Jewish issues, lest they be accused of nationalist tendencies or “Zionism.”32 Specifically Jewish projects would thus be portrayed and ideologically justified as being in the interests of the building of socialism and Soviet power and as part of the larger solution to the national question and the resultant fraternity of the Soviet peoples. Even the eradication of anti-Semitism demonstrated the superiority of Soviet economics and class struggle, which eliminated those class antagonisms that were inevitable under capitalist exploitation, resulting in hatred between peoples. In the wake of the dislocations caused by the revolution and subsequent civil war, including the white terror and pogroms, millions of Jews found

14

Jerusalem on the Amur

themselves bereft of jobs, businesses, or even homes, and they clamoured for some improvement in their position. But the Yevsektsiya spent more time attacking shopkeepers, rabbis, luftmenshen, and other supposed class enemies than coming up with constructive proposals. Other agencies were created to step into the breach, including two that would settle Jews on the land. The Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (komzet in Russian, komerd in Yiddish), a government body formed on 20 August 1924, was attached to the Presidium of the Soviet of Nationalities and was chaired by Peter G. Smidovitch. The ostensibly non-governmental Association for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (ozet in Russian, gezerd in Yiddish), created on 27 January 1925, was chaired initially by the economist Yuri Larin and then by Shimen Dimanshtein, a Jewish Bolshevik who was a member of the Yevsektsiya. The Soviet Commissars for Foreign Trade and for Foreign Affairs, Leonid Krassin and Georgi Chicherin, were also involved, as was Maxim Litvinov, Chicherin’s successor as foreign minister after 1930. Their participation was a clear indication that the Soviet government attached great importance to an organization that was appealing to world Jewry to aid in the “renewal” of Jewish life. Stalin was dubious as early as 1925 concerning the future of the Jews, noting that “in the process of the formation of a universal proletarian culture, undoubtedly certain nationalities may, and even certainly will, undergo a process of assimilation.”33 But Mikhail Kalinin, chair of the central executive committee of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, remained convinced that Jews should enjoy a measure of territorial concentration somewhere in the Soviet Union in order to develop as a full-fledged nationality. Kalinin told the first gezerd congress in November 1926 that the Jews, like all small peoples “deprived of the opportunities for national evolution,” were threatened by assimilation and national erosion. “The Jewish people now faces the great task of preserving its nationality. For this purpose a large segment of the Jewish population must transform itself into a compact farming population, numbering at least several hundred thousand souls.”34 The focus at first was on settlements in Belarus, Ukraine, and, especially, the Crimea.35 gezerd appealed for funds to Jewish organizations and received help from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (the Joint). The Bolsheviks did their utmost to facilitate the social rehabilitation of the Jewish petty bourgeoisie by promoting the formation of artisanal cooperatives and by encouraging the constitution of Jewish agricultural collectives in areas of heavy Jewish population destined to become autonomous regions. With the

Introduction

15

establishment of the Jewish autonomous national districts – Kalinindorf, Stalindorf, and Nayslatopol in Ukraine, and Fraydorf and, later, Larindorf in the Crimea – Jews were settled in agricultural colonies. According to the 1932 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, there were ninety-four rural Jewish Soviets in the Ukraine in 1930. In Belarus there were no fewer than twenty-seven Jewish national Soviets in 1931, while the agricultural settlements in Kherson (Gherson), Dniepopetrovsk, and the Crimea formed autonomous Jewish regions. In 1934 there were eighty-three Jewish collective farms in the Crimea alone (including one named Icor). Larin, in particular, was a proponent of the Crimean cause. The proportion of Jews in agriculture had increased from 2 percent before the revolution to 12 percent. Isaac Deutscher, visiting one of these autonomous districts, observed the extraordinary efforts being made to transform Jews into farmers: “Considerable investments and tremendous exertions went into this task of changing the mentality of the Luftmench,” who was expected “to discard the art and the tricks of petty commerce and be slowly taught the art of ploughing and hoeing the soil.”36 In the event, the experiment was a failure. Land was in great demand in these European areas of the ussr, and often Jews faced hostility from native Tatars and Ukrainians.37 The Yevsektsiya and gezerd began to look for larger, more remote areas in which to settle Jews. They first examined areas in the Caucasus and in Kazakhstan, but nothing came of these efforts. So they looked further east. The plan was to move as many Jews as possible to a parcel of rich, entirely undeveloped land on the easternmost borders of Siberia, where, freed from the bourgeois trades of the shtetl, they would form collective farms and transform themselves into a strapping class of Soviet peasantry. Their presence in the east would help safeguard against a Chinese or Japanese invasion; their absence from the west would also help ease rampant antiSemitism. Immigration wasn’t mandatory, but thousands of Soviet Jews would see an opportunity to escape poverty and anti-Semitic violence and become part a long-standing dream: a Jewish homeland. On 28 March 1928, the Soviet government approved the choice of Birobidzhan, a sparsely populated area of 13,895 square miles (36,490 square kilometres) in the Amur-Ussuri District of the Far Eastern Territory of the ussr, as a Jewish national district, administratively and territorially, for “contiguous Jewish settlements.”38 Kalinin enthusiastically predicted that 500,000 Jews would settle there within a decade.39 The announcement was well received by many sympathetic Jews outside the ussr.40 Jews in Birobidzhan were to possess their own administrative, educational, and judicial institutions and would function in their own language, Yiddish; but

16

Jerusalem on the Amur

ideological care would be taken to distinguish the enterprise, warned Aleksander Chemerisky of the Yevsektsiya, from “Zionist and religious ideology.”41 Dimanshtein’s own pronouncements reflected this ideological tightrope: He sometimes spoke of Birobidzhan as creating the conditions whereby “The Jews too will be thought of as a nation, as good as all the other nations in the union of Soviets,” and later he even seemed to contemplate making it a refuge for Jews living in impoverished conditions in countries such as Poland – in other words, to use Zionist terminology, an ingathering of exiles. “The question of organizing a Jewish republic in the Soviet Union has become an immediate one and has great political importance. Especially now, when in the fascist-capitalist countries the condition of the Jewish masses continues to worsen. In Poland, where there live 3,000,000 Jews, the situation is catastrophic.” But at other times he was careful to repeat the orthodox Soviet line that “our task now is to carry on a correct agitation against every manifestation of Jewish nationalism,” which, he warned, “is trying to utilize the Jewish Autonomous Region for its own aims.”42 Nevertheless, some considered the project a shrewd means by which to neutralize Zionist sentiments among the Jewish masses in the old Pale of Settlement. The development of a national area for Jews might also help reduce anti-Semitism in the cities, where Jews competed with other nationalities for scarce resources. The Bolsheviks were impelled by other motives, too. Such a project might, after all, yield foreign political dividends. As Abramsky has noted, “The manner in which the propaganda was carried on, and the way by which money was raised outside the Soviet Union, appealing to Jews in America and the West, is instructive, even amusing, in itself. Soviet leaders literally took over some Zionist arguments in their attempt to create a Jewish autonomous region.”43 Kalinin also hoped it would induce American Jewish organizations to raise money on behalf of Soviet Jewry. He told the newspaper Izvestia in 1926 that large amounts were necessary to settle people on land: “But such amounts may be raised abroad, and the Jews do raise them.”44 Dimanshtein suggested that the Jews, “an international and influential people, could become a key ally of Moscow.”45 Furthermore, settlement of the region by Jews loyal and devoted to the Soviet regime would safeguard the area from land-hungry Chinese peasants and from the designs of Japanese imperialists. “Aside from a solution to the ‘Jewish Question,’” noted the Soviet writer Viktor Fink, who visited the area in 1929 with an American icor fact-finding mission, settling Jews in the territory would also solve “another, no less important problem, that of populating ... the vast spaces of the Far East, the continuing emptiness of which whets the

Introduction

17

appetite of our imperialist neighbours.” The “Jewish toilers” who were “permeated with loyalty and devotion to the Soviet regime,” declared gezerd in 1932, would help in “strengthening the Soviet Union in the Far East.”46 In fact, Soviet Jews were wary of settling a region in Siberia thousands of miles from traditional centres of Jewish life, nor did most wish to be territorially segregated; this reminded them too much of “the dreaded Pale.”47 Melech Epstein, a leading American Jewish Communist, attended the second gezerd congress, from 10 to 16 December 1930 in Moscow, and admitted many years later that he had witnessed the antagonism of the delegates to the Birobidzhan project. While the always-enthusiastic Kalinin told the delegates that the task of saving the Jewish masses from “dying out” had now been solved, most Jews in attendance thought of Birobidzhan as a barren region, extremely cold in winter and too far from centres of Jewish life. They were overruled by party representatives.48 After all, the new Communist “ideocracy” now in power in the country “obliged its inhabitants to proclaim that their nationalist aspirations were satisfied.”49 Even pro-Soviet fellow travellers like the journalists Louis Fischer, Moscow correspondent for the Nation, and William Zukerman, who worked for the Morgn Zhurnal, wrote in 1932 that Soviet Jews were being so quickly absorbed by the industrial expansion unleashed under the First Five-Year Plan, which began in 1928, that Birobidzhan was no longer, as Fisher put it, an essential escape from “eternal poverty and social ostracism.” Agricultural colonization had ceased to be the only outlet for ex-merchants. And Birobidzhan, “several thousand miles from the centers of Jewish population,” he noted, is “wild, uninhabited, and undeveloped ... On the whole, therefore, I am inclined to discount all hopes and predictions of the imminent practical establishment of a Jewish autonomous republic in the ussr.” Zukerman asked, “Why should the average Russian Jew go to distant Siberia when the brightly lighted factories in the big cities nearer home are clamouring for workers, and are offering much greater opportunities than can be found on the land?” These provided a simpler solution to the problem of Jewish poverty than any colonization scheme, he suggested.50 The writer Elias Tobenkin had visited the Soviet Union in 1933 and had been especially impressed with the Jewish settlements in the Crimea. “The dream of a Jewish republic on the shores of the Black Sea won the sympathy of Jews the world over. American Jews responded with utmost generosity,” he wrote. With the help of the Agro-Joint, the farms were a great success. However, as the country underwent industrialization after 1928, Jews were ever more attracted to city jobs. Tobenkin also stated that, from what he had been able to observe, discrimination was not a hindrance to Jews

18

Jerusalem on the Amur

Map of Birobidzhan in the 1930s (yivo Institute of Jewish Research)

obtaining good jobs. He provided brief biographies of some of the Jews who occupied top positions in the Soviet hierarchy.51As for Birobidzhan, a New York Times article in 1932 suggested: “It is premature, to say the least, to expect that an independent Jewish republic will be established on Soviet soil in the near future.”52 Still, some Jewish settlers began moving to Birobidzhan in late 1928, and various communes, including Waldheim, Icor, and Birofeld, were established. There was also the beginning of industrial growth, with the creation of furniture, chalk, and brick factories. By 1932, 25,000 Jews lived in the region. On 7 May 1934, in an effort to make the project more attractive to Soviet Jews, Moscow declared Birobidzhan a Jewish Autonomous Region (Oblast) of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (rsfsr), with the promise that when Jews would number at least 100,000, or form a majority of the total population, it would become a full-fledged Soviet republic. On 18 December, a Jewish Soviet was convened and a government was elected. Kalinin went further: “In ten years time Biro-Bidzhan will become the most important guardian of the Jewish-national culture and those who cherish a national Jewish culture must link up with Biro-Bidzhan ... We already consider Biro-Bidzhan a Jewish national state.”53 On 29 August 1936, the presidium of the central executive committee of the ussr

Introduction

19

adopted a decree that named Birobidzhan the cultural centre for all Soviet Jews.54 Birobidzhan was now a “Jewish National state,” a historic confirmation of Stalinist nationality policy and proof that Jews could master agricultural work. The “burning desire for the creation of a homeland,” stated the decree, “has found fulfilment.” Birobidzhan was becoming a centre of national Jewish culture “for the entire Jewish toiling population,” including Jews abroad.55

anization, 1924–29

2 icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

Allan Kagedan has observed of the Birobidzhan settlement that “the movement of a small number of Jews to this desolate area generated intense attention in the ussr and the West.”1 Support for this enterprise was sought, and received, from a wide array of Jewish groups, especially those without strong links to Zionism and the Jewish enterprise in Palestine. Bourgeois liberals, secular Yiddishists, non-Zionists, and advocates of Jewish territorialism, along with Communists, responded to Soviet requests for aid and “raised money, held meetings, and issued publications.”2 The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (the Joint) and the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ort), already active in helping poor Jews in eastern Europe, provided funds for many projects within the new ussr. But most of the people committed to the rebuilding of Jewish life within a Soviet framework were on the left of the political spectrum and were tied in various ways to the Communist movement. Having learned of Soviet plans to settle Jews on the land, American Jewish Communists were anxious to provide help, but they had in 1921 been enjoined by the Soviets to cooperate with Jewish groups such as the People’s Relief Committee and the Joint, who were providing much needed emergency aid to Jews in Russia. The Communists had been none too pleased with this arrangement and chafed at having to work alongside those whom they considered anti-Soviet. When Moscow formed komerd in August 1924 and gave American Jewish Communists the option to provide it with help, they jumped at the chance to organize such aid. Following lengthy discussions with various people and groups, the Jewish section of the Communist Party usa (cpusa) decided to form a non-partisan mass organization. On 21 December 1924, a conference was held in New York City, “with the participation of 480 delegates representing 242 American

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

21

Jewish organizations,” including 24 branches of trade unions, 122 branches of the Workmen’s Circle, 94 landsmanshaften, 4 Jewish National Workers Alliance (Labor Zionist Yidish Natsionaler Arbayter Farband) branches, 60 Communist Party branches, and 10 cultural organizations. These meetings resulted in the formation of the Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union (Gezelshaft far Yidishe Kolonizatsye in Sovyetn-Farband), or icor (their own transliterated acronym for Yidishe Kolonizatsye Organizatsye in Rusland, or Organization for Jewish Colonization in Russia, which is what it at first called itself in English). The educator and communal activist A.S. Sachs had suggested the name of the new organization.3 Its Yiddish acronym, which could be pronounced “iker,” might also have been a reference to the Yiddish word for plough, and its letterhead in those years incorporated an illustration of a Jewish farmer behind a plough pulled by two horses rather than more standard Communist iconography.4 Its first offices were at 46 Canal St in Manhattan, and then 112 East 19th St. In 1928, icor moved to 799 Broadway, where it would remain until 1941, when it relocated to 1 Union Square West. The newly established icor was one of many Communist-sponsored groups throughout the Jewish world concerned with Jewish colonization, defence of the Soviet Union, and socialism. There were similar organizations in Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, South Africa, and even Palestine, all working under the guidance of gezerd in the Soviet Union.5 Four main themes provided the basis for icor’s politics and objectives until its demise: First and foremost, through the dissemination of information and the collection of money, icor assisted the pioneers in the Jewish national districts in Belarus, the Crimea, Ukraine, and, after 1928, in Birobidzhan. After 1933, icor also promoted the idea of the region as a haven and refuge for European Jews under threat from fascism. Second, it mobilized Jews to sympathize with and defend the Soviet Union, the only country in the world that, in its view, had established a sound economic foundation for its Jewish population and had almost eliminated anti-Semitism. Third, it helped the Jewish masses in various capitalist countries who were being victimized by pogroms, persecution, and fascism. Finally, it sought to persuade Jews that Zionism, too, was a capitalist ideology that worked in league with the real enemies of the Jewish people and that Jewish settlement in Palestine was therefore unjust and destined to end in failure. This last objective was particularly evident during the 1928–33 period, when Communists considered socialists their main opponents, and during

22

Jerusalem on the Amur

1939–41, when the ussr had signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler’s Germany; but it was de-emphasized during the 1935–39 Popular Front period, the 1941–45 German-Soviet War, and the postwar creation of the State of Israel. These four main strands made up the ideological fabric of the organization and were the basis of the various campaigns that it launched. The icor’s first national secretary was Dr Elias (Elye) Wattenberg, a Left Poale Zionist, though he would be replaced, first by Leon Talmy in 1928, then by Shloime (Sol) Almazov in 1932; both Talmy and Almazov were members of the cpusa. Professor Charles Kuntz, a former Russian maskil who had studied at the University of Vienna between 1889 and 1893 before coming to the United States, became the titular head of the organization in 1928. Abraham (Ab.) Epstein, a former president of the wc who had become a Communist, was the national organizer, and Barnet Brodsky was the treasurer. Among the founding members of icor were Jacob Mordecai (J.M.) Budish, Melech Epstein, Shakhno Epstein, Dr Joseph Glassman, Leon Kobrin, Abraham Moses Kuntz, Kalmen Marmor, Moissaye Olgin, Rubin Saltzman, Joseph Schlossberg, a founder of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (acwa), and Abraham (Ab.) Victor. Soon many others, who would remain active in the Jewish Communist movement for decades, including Menachem Boraisha, Reuben Brainin, B.Z. Goldberg, Julius Hammer, Gina Medem, and Joseph Morgenstern of Cleveland, would be listed as prominent members. By April 1925, icor claimed to have fifty-seven branches and had “already assumed a national scope” and “become an integral factor in our life,” according to its first English-language Bulletin. It had created a thirtyfive-person national executive committee that had already succeeded, it declared, in establishing “active connections” with fifty different American cities, and it already had “active and properly-functioning committees” in more than thirty of these. It was distributing literature “in considerable quantities” across the country. At first, icor insisted that it was a non-partisan organization that was not engaged in the “spread of any social or economic ideal or ‘ism.’ Such extremes as Zionists and avowed Communists, quite aside from all the parties and factions that stand midway betwixt these extremes, regularly attend its conferences and are represented on the various committees of the Icor.” The icor “is neither a charity nor a relief organization. Its aim is not to offer ameliorative relief, or to afford temporary palliation to the needy, but to assist, by means of credits, those who seek to build their future on sound economic basis on the soil of Russia.” komerd had determined that it

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

23

Melech Epstein, New York icor activist, and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1926 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

would settle 100,000 Jewish families on land in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Crimea within the next few years. In January 1925, the newly created gezerd noted that this had “called forth a wave of enthusiasm among all classes of the Jewish population, who are whole-heartedly prepared to lend this movement their moral and physical support.” This “great historical enterprise” would once and for all “render a comprehensive and thorough solution to the age-long problem of the Russian Jew, and to heal, once for all, the open sores that have bled continuously for ages.”

24

Jerusalem on the Amur

The land received by the Jewish colonies would be in the form of “compact and fairly-large settlements” and was “at present entirely vacant and untilled” so that no room would be left “for any quarrel or misunderstanding with the colonists’ neighbors.” The Bulletin went on to calculate the exact costs of settling a family of six on the soil at 492 rubles, or about $750, and claimed that these were loans that would be repaid. It also said that only icor, as opposed to other Jewish organizations such as the ort, could properly aid this colonization as the others did not enjoy the same degree of Soviet governmental sanction.6 Few non-Communists accepted icor’s early facade of non-partisanship, save for a sprinkling of pro-Soviet intellectuals and Poale Zionists. At first overshadowed by the work of the Joint, which contributed over $17,000,000 to the welfare of Soviet Jewry during this period, icor was ridiculed by the Yiddish press. But despite stiff opposition from social democrats and Zionists, it began to penetrate Jewish communities and to draw people into pro-Soviet work. The icor national executive decided that the organization should sell shares as a way of starting a national campaign to raise money for tractors needed by the Jewish farm colonies in Russia. An icor holding corporation was set up, with a capital stock of $1 million, and issued stocks valued at ten dollars per share, which could be bought either for cash or on a deferred payment plan. The loans made to the colonists would be transmitted directly through Russian banks. “The entire safety and the legal status of the Icor and its transactions have been assured by the Russian government,” which would also grant permission to landsmanshaften to send representatives to Russia “to supervise the proper settlement on the soil of the Jewish farmers.” The icor assured potential investors that by buying shares they would “prove that [they] have chosen to follow ... the path that leads to the permanent well-being of three millions of [their] fellow men and brothers in Russia.” The shares went on sale 20 February 1925, and within three weeks 2,000 shares, worth $20,000, had been sold.7 In 1927, icor also set up a subsidiary, the Agro-Industrial Co-operative Inc., to “promulgate American methods of industrialization of agricultural products in the Colonization area of Soviet Russia,” particularly the Crimea. Its board of directors included Barnet Brodsky, Joseph Brodsky, Professor Charles Kuntz, Abraham Moses Kuntz, and Elias Wattenberg. This proposal had come from Benjamin Brown, a Salt Lake City marketing specialist and sales director of the Utah Poultry Producers Cooperative Association, who was also on the board. Brown was himself leaving for the Soviet Union on 17 June “in connection with the plans of our organization.” If

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

25

successful, wrote Adolph Maurice, the secretary, this project would “tremendously influence the economic conditions of the Jewish agricultural masses in the Soviet Union.”8 The icor held its second national convention between 19 and 21 February 1926 in New York City. It began with a mass meeting that included 1,000 guests as well as the delegates. Elias Wattenberg told them that they faced important questions regarding how best to contribute to the colonization work in the Soviet Union. In order to work effectively and provide credits to the farmers in the Soviet Jewish agricultural collectives, icor had acquired formal legal status from the Soviet government for its partnership with gezerd and komerd. Wattenberg provided a detailed financial accounting of the sums that had been extended to the farmers in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine since 1925. He assured the delegates that there was careful oversight of the money spent and that the projects were audited. The very positive letters being received by icor from the colonists demonstrated the success of the work, and he hoped icor would be able to send a delegation to Russia to establish even closer ties with gezerd, which would be holding its own convention later in the year. “We have enjoyed from our Russian comrades the greatest understanding and friendship,” he said, adding that the colonists were cognizant of the importance of the work that icor had undertaken on their behalf. Wattenberg noted that the work of icor remained complicated by the very different attitude towards the Soviet Union held by the Joint, which took a dim view of icor’s politics, but he expressed pleasure that some of the important American “Jewish” unions, in which the left wing had gained strength, were now becoming more interested in icor. Various icor leaders had attended union conventions and addressed their members. As well, icor speakers had gone on extensive national tours. The icor had also printed pamphlets in English and Yiddish, although, Wattenberg indicated, there was a demand for even greater information regarding the colonization work in Soviet Russia. Unfortunately, Wattenberg noted, most newspapers refused to publish articles about icor. Wattenberg told the delegates that, by the end of January 1926, 6,558 shares had been sold, many through Arbayter Ring and icor branches as well as through landsmanshaften and aid societies; this had brought in the sum of about $34,000. However, Wattenberg complained that members of the Poale Zion had not been buying enough shares and were not devoting enough time and energy to icor activities. The icor had sent an initial sum of $15,000 to gezerd in August 1925, Wattenberg told the convention, followed by a second sum of $12,500. In

26

Jerusalem on the Amur

January 1926 a further $7,500 went to gezerd. Wattenberg gave an accounting of how the money had been spent. Altogether, though, this sum was $15,000 short of the $50,000 that icor had committed to send to Russia. Wattenberg hoped that by the end of 1926 icor would be able to fulfill its commitment to send to gezerd $75,000 for the Russian colonization work.9 Elias Wattenberg, icor vice-chair Jacob Levin, and Frayhayt writer Moishe Katz all attended the first gezerd congress in Moscow in November 1926, and upon their return they toured a large number of cities to publicize the proceedings. Wattenberg also reported to the national executive on 23 December 1926. He spoke of the new settlements being established in the Crimea, Belarus, Ukraine, and even in the Salsk District of the northern Caucasus. He was particularly impressed by Kalinin’s statement of support for Jewish national rights. Indeed, gezerd stated that it had room in its ranks even for religious Jews and for Zionists, provided they were sincere in aiding the colonization work. Wattenberg told the executive that the three icor delegates had participated in the debates and presented icor’s point of view. They had been treated with the greatest respect and friendship, and icor was described as a foreign organization of immense importance to the work of gezerd. Apart from the congress, in all the cities and colonies visited, “we ‘Icor’ delegates were greeted and treated as relatives, comrades and friends.” The icor was highly regarded in the agricultural colonies and its work was well known, said Wattenberg, especially given the fact that it had already donated a number of tractors to the settlements.10 The icor held its third national convention in Philadelphia from 30 December 1927 to 1 January 1928 and held a follow-up plenum in the same city on 24 June 1928. By now it claimed 10,000 members and had collected $160,000. Through gezerd, it had helped settle 300 families on 8,900 hectares of land in the Yevpatoria region in the Crimea, where one large settlement had been named “Icor,” and had also assisted in organizing a collective in Ukraine. The convention was attended by 101 delegates, including the wellregarded Jewish journalist B.Z. Goldberg of Der Tog and Reuben Brainin. The chair of icor, Dr Joseph Glassman, emphasized that icor was a nonpartisan organization in which Jews from all political orientations and social ranks could find a place for themselves, where they could work for Jewish colonization in the Soviet Union and show concern for “their brethren on the other side of the ocean.” It had always been the hope of thousands of Jewish idealists, Glassman said, “to see Jews gathered together on their own little piece of earth, where they will be able to develop their Jew-

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

27

ish culture, sing an authentic Jewish song, create true Jewish poetry and literature, not among strangers, but in their own corner.” This was the new, healthy, and productive Jewish life that icor was helping to create in the Soviet Union. Glassman explained that, far from objecting to the participation of Communists in the work of icor, he felt that they were not active enough, given their other ideological goals and projects. He suggested that Communists would undoubtedly be pleased if others did more on behalf of the Jewish colonization work so that they would have more time for other matters. Another speaker, the poet Abraham Reisen, described icor’s program as “the ‘Zionism’ of the intelligent.” Neither Zionism nor territorialism could solve all facets of the Jewish question, and that was why Jews had to believe in, and place their trust in, the Jewish colonization in the Soviet Union: “This is not just a matter of giving Jews land, but of giving them a totally new terrain where the Jewish people will be able to exist culturally and produce new forms of life on their own national terms.” Reisen was followed by another Jewish literary figure, Menachem Boraisha, who spoke of the dislocations and loss of income suffered by the Jewish masses in Russia after 1914. Fortunately, thanks to the revolution, “there is a good government, a ‘saintly king,’ that wishes to help the Jews adjust and is ready to provide them with land.” A sixth of the globe had now gone through social revolution, and this had also caused a revolution in Jewish life. In order to progress towards socialism, he continued, Jews would first have to “normalize” themselves and become productive. Only then “will we be able to continue along a healthy path.” Boraisha told the convention that American Jews felt a kinship with their Russian compatriots, and, although they had not taken part physically and directly in the revolution, they wished to help in the reconstruction of the country “so that we will be able to feel part of the achievements of the revolution.” Although not a Communist himself – “my Communist friends can vouch for that” – Boraisha insisted that, when it came to helping the Soviet Union, there should be cooperation among all sectors of the community. Jacob Levin spoke on the last day of the convention. He called the colonization work in the Soviet Union the greatest historical event in Jewish history since the destruction of the Temple because it was addressing the economic, political, and national situation of the Jews. And it was proceeding at a much faster pace than the building of a Jewish settlement in Palestine because the Soviet government was providing aid rather than hindering colonization. Leon Talmy followed, and spoke of the help icor was providing gezerd in the Crimea settlements. Talmy emphasized the

28

Jerusalem on the Amur

differences between the work of icor and that of the Joint, which, as an organization representing the Jewish bourgeoisie, could not have the interests of the masses of Jews at heart in the same way as did icor. The perspectives of the two were poles apart. In his speech, Elias Wattenberg also compared the Joint unfavourably to icor: in contrast to the Joint, which was merely a philanthropic or relief organization, icor had a “soul.” It was the link between the working masses of Jews in the United States and those in Soviet Russia. It concerned itself not just with agricultural settlement but also with the social reconstruction of the Jewish people under socialism. Benjamin Brown delivered a speech about “agro-industrialization” and how it might apply to the new settlements in the Soviet Union. Jews, not being traditional peasants, would be more amenable to new, mechanized methods of farming and raising poultry and livestock. The national executive reported that the organization now had a presence in eighty-two cities. The icor campaign to sell shares had already brought in $81,210, while the drive to collect money for tractors and machinery had gathered another $31,929.59. As well, $15,602.75 had been donated for icor work in the Crimea. Altogether, since the formation of icor, it had raised $179,163.87. Of this amount, $97,623.75 had been sent to gezerd. The convention concluded its business by selecting a new national executive committee of sixty, including thirty-seven members from New York.11 When, on 28 March 1928, the Soviets selected Birobidzhan as a new and much larger site for Jewish colonization, icor immediately voiced its support for the plan. At a meeting on 9 April 1928, the national executive resolved to help with the colonization work by providing the region with the most modern American technology. Leon Talmy, now the general secretary, wrote an article, “To Build a New Jewish Country,” which appeared in the May issue of the newly re-launched icor journal. Talmy said that komerd had acted at the request of the Jewish masses, who feared neither Birobidzhan’s distance from European Russia nor the great efforts that would be required there: “On the contrary, everywhere people spoke and wrote about Biro-bidzhan, they underscored the difficulties that would have to be surmounted to settle the land.” Yet thousands of families, Talmy declared, had already expressed their willingness to move there and to take up the hard life of pioneers. Talmy predicted that, in Birobidzhan, both agriculture and industry would develop and a rich culture would result. Soil would be ploughed, mines dug, factories built. Cities and towns would spring up. All this would

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

29

lead eventually to a Jewish republic. It would be a massive and historic undertaking, but with help from the United States and elsewhere, the difficulties might be mitigated and the process hastened. Talmy suggested that icor should help build Birobidzhan’s agricultural and industrial base by sending machinery along with American technical help.12 Menachem Boraisha and B.Z. Goldberg also contributed articles favourable to the Birobidzhan project. Boraisha was pleased that the Jewish left in America was moving ahead with its own plans to cooperate with the Soviets, while Goldberg poked fun at the idea that icor was nothing more than a Communist-organized front. He had been at icor meetings, where there was a mix of bourgeois Jews, Communists, Poale Zionists, territorialistsocialists, and Jews simply interested in helping other Jews. What did they have in common? They approved of Jews returning to the land and they loved the Yiddish language. As for the Communists, why, asked Goldberg, should they be punished for working on behalf of Jewish colonization in Russia? The work in Russia was immense, much greater than the colonization in Argentina and Palestine: “Herzl almost took Uganda in the wilds of Africa. What would Herzl and Zangwill have said had the tsar offered them Biro-bidzhan, and on such terms!” Goldberg suggested that Jews should not pass up this opportunity.13 Jacob Levin, in a two-part series, referred to Birobidzhan as “the Jewish new-land”: something that had been nothing more than “a hope for such a long time” was now being “realized before our very eyes.” Those who for so many years had advocated settlement on the land as the best, perhaps the only, way for the Jewish masses to become productive workers were overjoyed at the news that the Soviet government would provide such help. But more than just economic rehabilitation was planned: there was also the ideal of a Jewish cultural revitalization, to strengthen and broaden the Jewish cultural treasures and create a new Jewish spirit, once Jews were no longer a widely dispersed minority, worried about what their neighbours might think. Levin noted that, in the existing settlements in the Crimea and Ukraine, a non-Jewish majority would always surround Jews and that, consequently, the threat of assimilation was always present. In the European parts of the country, there was simply not enough unoccupied land for a large new Jewish jurisdiction. But gezerd and komerd had a clear plan: not just to settle Jews on the land but to concentrate them in such a way as to eventually create an autonomous Jewish centre. And so a much larger place, farther away, was needed. After inspecting areas in central Asia and Siberia, they had decided that the land north of the Amur River, drained by the rivers Bira

30

Jerusalem on the Amur

and Bidzhan, with very few inhabitants, would be suitable for large-scale Jewish colonization, both in terms of agriculture and industry. Millions of Jews could settle this new Jewish land without fear of being assimilated into some other culture. Levin touched upon some of the problems that would face Jews settling in such a far-off and “wild” place: insect infestations, for example. But the same unfounded fears were once raised concerning Canadian provinces such as Manitoba, which was said to have too cold a climate and too short a growing season for the production of fruit or the planting of grains. In Birobidzhan, too, once people drained swamps, dammed rivers, and cleared the land for agriculture, such discomforts would begin to fade away, he declared. Levin predicted that once the Jewish masses understood the full extent of the strangely named “Biro-bidzhan” plan, they would assist “with all their heart.”14 When Gina Medem visited Birobidzhan, she was greatly impressed. Born in 1886 in Tomashov, Poland, Gina Birenzweig had joined the Bund and had married its chief theoretician, Vladimir Medem. He died in 1923, a year after they both arrived in New York, and she became a Communist after visiting the Soviet Union in 1926.15 She also became a tireless worker on behalf of icor and was, in the words of Israel Ber Bailin, “an exceptional orator,” an artist and sculptor of words, “an ambassador of the people to the people.”16 When Birobidzhan became a territory set aside for Jewish colonization in 1928, “the army of Menakhem Mendeles had to take off its old, dried-out, yellowed Jewish skin, and for the first time in Jewish history replace it with a new, elastic, energetic skin,” Medem proclaimed. On her first visit Medem spoke to various colonists. “Our own republic,” remarked one person of Birobidzhan. “This is where I want to work.”17 In January 1929, in an article in icor journal, she wrote about the “silent” soil of Birobidzhan, asleep for thousands of years until awakened by the arrival of Jewish settlers. The wild rivers needed to be dammed, the earth ploughed by tractors. Nature must be harnessed to benefit people. This land would become “the Jewish share of the Russian earth! The earth is alive. And with her will live tens of thousands who have ... broken with their old life” and have vowed to start anew. The earth “calls to us,” wrote Medem. “She lives and calls to us for help. We will help you, great Russian earth!”18 Her 1931 article “Der Vayter Mizrakh” described her October 1929 visit to Birobidzhan and her admiration for the Jewish pioneers guarding the frontier against bandits and anti-Soviet elements: “On the

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

31

shoulder a rifle, in the pocket a pistol.” This, she wrote with pride, was the new Soviet life.19 The national executive of icor announced its willingness to help komerd and gezerd in any way possible. A telegram was sent to Moscow, congratulating komerd on its choice of Birobidzhan as a future Jewish centre, signed by Reuben Brainin, B.Z. Goldberg, Glassman, Wattenberg, Talmy, Levin, Ab. Epstein, Adolph Maurice, and Barnet Brodsky. It announced that icor would immediately send six trucks and two automobiles, worth a total of $10,000. They promised to publicize the project and draw as many other organizations into the work as possible. They also placed on the agenda the possibility of sending a fact-finding mission to Birobidzhan to more closely examine the possibilities and potential of the region.20 On 24 June 1928, the national executive held a plenum in New York that opened with a report by Leon Talmy. He spoke of the historic decision to open Birobidzhan to Jewish colonists. In the United States, he said, Birobidzhan and icor had become an inseparable combination. Talmy noted that the executive had formed a special commission, comprising Charles Kuntz, Glassman, Wattenberg, Jacob Levin, Max Levin, Benjamin Brown, Moishe Katz, and Talmy himself, to plan the organization’s next steps. The group had recommended to the national executive that icor send machinery and technical expertise to help the new settlers with the building of nascent industries. icor committees across the country endorsed these plans. The executive therefore ordered six trucks, two cars, six motorcycles, five tractors, two typewriters, a movie camera, and other technical instruments. A technical commission, with the participation of engineers, technicians, and agronomists, was also formed to provide advice. Professor Kuntz had already been sent to Birobidzhan to coordinate icor’s work with that of gezerd. Talmy assured the executive that icor would continue to honour its commitments to the settlements in the Yevpatoria District in the Crimea and to the 300 families that had been settled there in the previous few years. The icor had recently sent $5,000 to the Icor commune in the area. However, most of icor’s money and energies would now be directed towards Birobidzhan, he said. With the establishment of Birobidzhan as a centre for Jewish settlement, so many more people were taking an interest in the colonization work in the Soviet Union that it was necessary to broaden the base of the organization by recruiting “petty bourgeois” and middle-class Jews. Talmy suggested

32

Jerusalem on the Amur

that icor members who were professionals – he specified doctors, dentists, and lawyers – recruit colleagues into the organization. The icor had been founded in order to bind the Jewish masses in the United States with the builders of a new Jewish life in Soviet Russia. It had to grow to achieve this task.21 Professor Kuntz sent in the first of his reports on 26 August 1928. He had left Moscow by train on 26 July and arrived in Tikhonkaia, the main town, a few days later. This little village of 100 houses, which was on the railway line, had been selected as the central point to house gezerd officials and new inhabitants. (Its name would be changed to Birobidzhan City in early 1933.) The heavy rains and infestations of insects at first made it impossible for him to reach the newly established Birofeld settlement, sixty kilometres south of Tikhonkaia. Travelling by horse-drawn wagon, Kuntz finally visited the settlement and stayed for twelve days. He inspected the terrain and thought the ground might be suitable for Chinese beans and rice. Kuntz also visited the new Icor commune. Kuntz’s second letter of 6 September 1928 reported that there had been more intense rain, causing flooding and cutting off communications with Birofeld. Many of the horses on the settlement had died of disease. Fortunately, some of the trucks sent by icor had now arrived. Kuntz was told that there had not been weather as bad as this in decades. Given all these hardships, “let us hope that we at least learn some lessons from this year,” he remarked.22 gezerd sent a letter of thanks to the national executive of icor on 24 September 1928, announcing the arrival of the automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and tractors (as well as two typewriters and a movie camera). Such mechanized vehicles would be of great use at a time when bad weather, disease among the horses, and the often impassable roads made other means of transportation very difficult. They also spoke of their gratitude for the work being done by Professor Kuntz, who was braving the elements and disease in his thorough investigation of Birobidzhan.23 At another plenum of the national executive held on 14 October 1928, Talmy noted that, despite all the difficulties described by Kuntz in his reports, settlers were moving to Birobidzhan. Of the initial 654 who had arrived, 400 had remained, another 400 were on their way, and it was hoped some 2,000 to 3,000 families would settle there in 1929. Talmy noted that, given its size and undeveloped state, Birobidzhan would require much more mechanization to develop its agricultural potential than had been the case in the agricultural colonies in the Crimea or Ukraine.24

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

33

In November the organization put out a call “to the Jewish masses in America” in which Birobidzhan was described as a huge tract of arable land, forests, and rivers, requiring the same pioneering spirit that had developed the American west. The icor called on sympathizers to help build “a healthy, free and bright future for our brothers in the Soviet Union”; those who supported its work would be considered “one of us, a friend, a brother.”25 Leon Talmy introduced the Birobidzhan plan to a wider, English-speaking audience with an article entitled “A Jewish State in the Soviet Union,” which was published in the 11 July 1928 issue of the Nation. This, he wrote, was a project of “historic significance,” one that would mark “a momentous turning-point in the life of the Jewish population of the Soviet Union.” Talmy described its natural resources and its potential for agriculture, forestry, mining and industry, which could enable the region to “absorb a population of 1,000,000 or more.” Although some 80,000 Jews had been settled on land in Belarus, the Crimea, and Ukraine since 1924, those areas were now too small and populated to allow for the resettlement of some 600,000 to 800,000 “déclassé” Jews who were still without a livelihood and who needed speedy relief. What made the new project special was “the possibility of the ultimate formation of a Jewish autonomous republic” as Jews would eventually form a majority there. “The difficulties with which the first settlers will have to contend will be many. But with modern American technical methods and facilities the task can be made much easier,” explained Talmy.26 The December 1928 issue of ICOR announced that, as icor had been given permission by the Soviets to build and aid agricultural and industrial enterprises in Birobidzhan and to organize cultural aid for the settlers, the national executive had decided to mount a special three-month campaign to raise $150,000. Members were reminded that, in contrast to the work in European parts of the Soviet Union, where the Joint was active, icor was the only American organization aiding the work in Birobidzhan.27 The project would be part of that rapid and radical reshaping of Soviet society proclaimed by Stalin when he announced the first Five-Year Plan in 1928. In a pamphlet published in early 1929, icor attempted to answer the question, “Why Biro-bidzhan?” It described the attributes of the region and suggested that it had such “colossal” possibilities that it could eventually evolve into a Jewish republic. It noted that gezerd and komerd, after detailed examinations conducted in 1927, had determined that Birobidzhan was suited to mass colonization. According to the authorities in

34

Jerusalem on the Amur

Moscow, it was important that the area be developed as quickly as possible: “The best guarantee that the district will belong to Jews is – to settle it!” Many more pioneers were needed; icor promised it would provide both moral and material support.28 Jacob Levin observed that, for the Birobidzhan project to succeed, seven criteria would need to be fulfilled: the goodwill of the Soviet government, a climate and geography suitable to large-scale colonization, plenty of good soil, adequate financial resources, suitable human material, a concrete plan for colonization, and responsible leadership. The first condition was no problem as the Soviets were fully behind the plan. The climate and geography were perhaps not ideal, but they were adequate. There was sufficient good soil, not to mention forests and minerals to utilize for industrialization. As for human material, there were many Jews in European Russia who wished to become productive and would want to move to Birobidzhan. The main thing lacking at the moment was financial backing. To settle one family in Birobidzhan would cost, gezerd estimated, about 2,000 rubles. Hence, 80 million rubles, or about $160 million, were needed if 40,000 families were to move there. The Soviet government by itself was in no position to budget such vast sums. If money were not forthcoming from elsewhere, the plans would have to be scaled back and colonists would have to be absorbed more slowly. If more financing were to become available, however, colonists would not only settle Birobidzhan more quickly, they would also be able to acquire more and better machinery and implements, and the various settlements would be able to specialize economically. Some would engage in agriculture, while others produced clothing, shoes, or furniture, for example. Additional financing would be needed for schools, hospitals, and barns. Levin also suggested, as one of the first orders of business, that in each community a big hotel-style building be constructed so that incoming settlers – who might be arriving at first without their families – could live there while homes were constructed.29 At the 20 January 1929 national executive committee’s plenum, Levin argued that icor should not ignore the problems relating to settling Birobidzhan but that it should not overemphasize them either. He pointed out that, although the climate was harsh, areas in Canada that were equally cold had been successfully developed. Levin suggested sending a team of experts to Birobidzhan to prepare a detailed plan on how to go about colonizing the area: “This will be of more use than just the money that we send from here.” He suggested that icor request permission from gezerd and

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

35

komerd to send such a commission to the region that coming summer to familiarize themselves with the work being done.30 Talmy provided a review of the work in Birobidzhan on the first anniversary of its proclamation as a Jewish national district. There were many difficulties – no one was hiding the facts – but in the Soviet Union people were accustomed to difficulties and would find ways to overcome them. He, too, noted that geographic, physical, and climatic conditions similar to those in Birobidzhan had existed in the American west and in Canada. Today those areas were populated by thriving communities, and there was nothing to prevent the same from happening in Birobidzhan. Professor Kuntz, who had been in Birobidzhan for the past year, was involved in organizing a commission of technical experts to study the potential and needs of the territory. Their input was already proving useful: for example, they had determined that a woodworking plant should be built to aid in the production of homes and furniture for new settlers.31 Kuntz had also stated that there was no land between 47 and 50 degrees north latitude that was unsuitable for colonization.32 icor continued to purchase machinery for shipment to Birobidzhan. By May 1929, the organization had bought an excavator for $24,000, woodworking machinery for $6,000, and eight caterpillar tractors worth $7,000. As well, two cars, six trucks, ten other tractors, six motorcycles, two typewriters, and numerous other goods were sent. Altogether these goods cost over $100,000.33 But most American Jews remained wary of the Birobidzhan project, and the campaign to raise $150,000 was not going as well as had been hoped. The Ukrainian-born journalist Abraham Revutsky warned the readers of the Menorah Journal in February 1929 that “current rumors describing BiraBidzhan [sic] as a sort of new Eldorado are greatly exaggerated.” He noted that “winter and summer are both colder than Winnipeg” and that the clay soil was not very good. “It is not desirable for Jewish colonization,” he concluded, remarking that those “who have rushed Jewish settlers into this enterprise without proper investigation and preparation have not acted in a thoroughly impartial and scientific manner.”34 Given this continued skepticism, the national executive made plans to send to Birobidzhan a delegation that would report back prior to the fourth national convention, which was scheduled for the end of 1929. The commission would familiarize itself with the conditions in Birobidzhan and its potential for mass colonization; help draw up plans to make certain the work would proceed along modern technical lines; and, upon its return, publicize the project to the American Jewish community.35

36

Jerusalem on the Amur

The American Commission of Scientists and Experts set off for Birobidzhan in the spring of 1929. It was headed by Franklin S. Harris, president of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Harris, an agronomist, was one of the country’s leading soil scientists. He was also an expert on colonization in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and director of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering. Harris had years of practical experience working on a ranch in Alberta, “where the climate and conditions were similar to Birobidzhan.” In 1926 he had visited Palestine, Egypt, and Manchuria to investigate agricultural problems. Other members of the commission included J. Brownlee Davidson, head of the Department of Agricultural Engineering at Iowa State College, who had worked for the us Department of Agriculture; Kiefer B. Sauls, a purchasing agent at Brigham Young; and Benjamin Brown. Leon Talmy, Elias Wattenberg, and Charles Kuntz represented icor. The New York City Committee of icor held a banquet for two of the departing members, Leon Talmy and Benjamin Brown, in New York on 18 May 1929. The other commissioners attended a banquet at the Lincoln Hotel, along with some 200 guests, the evening before leaving New York for Moscow on the ss Majestic five weeks later.36 The chair of komerd, Peter G. Smidovitch, praised the selection of Professor Harris as head of the commission, noting that Harris was, among his other accomplishments, an expert on rice cultivation. Smidovitch was certain that the commission’s recommendations would incorporate the latest in American scientific and technical advances in agriculture, and he promised his fullest cooperation. Talmy had arrived in Moscow on 12 June 1929 to meet with komerd and gezerd officials regarding the work of the expedition and the campaign to send machinery to Birobidzhan as well as to Jewish artisanal collectives in European Russia. He would be visiting Kharkov, Kiev, Odessa, and the Crimean agricultural colonies that had been receiving aid from icor to speak to members of collectives. The other commissioners had stopped in Berlin on their way to Moscow, where the noted sociologist and socialist Zionist Jacob Leshchinsky tried to dissuade them from visiting Birobidzhan. He said it would be a “waste of time” as the soil there was permanently frozen. Of course, noted icor, the commissioners paid him no heed! Harris was confident that, despite the harsh conditions in Birobidzhan, the latest methods of mechanized agriculture would overcome any problems. He pointed to the successful application of modern machinery to farming in the Canadian west. Davidson, too, was a great proponent of mechanization to make agriculture economically viable

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

37

in harsh climates. Collectivization and mechanization, added Brown, was the only way that mass settlement could succeed in Birobidzhan. Upon arrival in Moscow, the commission members met on 8 July 1929 with various Soviet academics and government representatives who briefed them on conditions in Birobidzhan. They visited already established Jewish agricultural colonies in the Crimea and Ukraine to get a sense of what had already been accomplished. They returned to Moscow on 18 July and spoke with top officials, such as Avrom Merezhin of komerd. icor commissioners assured the Russians that conditions in the agricultural colonies were superior to, and the standard of living higher than, those in the old shtetlekh that many Jews still inhabited. Jews were proving themselves adept at farming; the main problem in the Crimea was simply a shortage of available land. On 19 July 1929 the commission members left Moscow by train. As they travelled through Birobidzhan on their way to Khabarovsk, capital of the Soviet Far East, Talmy noted that a bright warm sun shone down from a sky filled with white clouds. When they stopped at the Biro station, it was so hot “that we immediately sought a shady spot.” On 28 July, komerd and gezerd officials welcomed the group in Khabarovsk and assured them that, given enough funds, Birobidzhan could be turned into a productive, industrialized region. The commissioners were impressed by the treatment they received; 5,000 rubles had been allocated for the commission’s work, and Russian officials put a special rail car at their disposal. They also received assistance from Noah London, an American Communist who was at the time the chief highway engineer in Ukraine and was attached to the commission through gezerd, and from Professor M.L. Wilson, head of the department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Montana and a specialist on raising sheep, who had been serving as a consultant for the Soviet government in the Caucasus. The commissioners went on to Birobidzhan, where they spent the next six weeks in actual field investigations, travelling throughout the region by train, boat, wagon, and on horseback. Arriving in Tikhonkaia, they were impressed by the energy of the inhabitants; buildings were going up at a rapid pace. Talmy noticed that Kuntz was “very popular. He is known, liked and trusted.” Their next stop was the Icor commune, where they braved rain, flies, and mosquitoes. The Waldheim collective, founded by a group of merchants, seemed more prosperous. In Birofeld, they inspected the local hospital, administrative buildings, beehives, machine shops, and experimental station. Then it was on to the hot springs at Kuldur, known for their therapeutic qualities. The commissioners felt this area could support many settlers: “The earth here pleaded to be cultivated.”

38

Jerusalem on the Amur

Using Obluchye as a base, the group, having procured provisions, guides, and pack animals, headed into the Khingan hills, an undeveloped region of 15,000 square kilometres. Entering a valley, Brown noticed the lush grass and tall oak trees. This would make excellent agricultural land, he told Talmy: “It had been created in order to be transformed into bright fields and human settlements.” He also pointed out the wild grapes growing here. “When we report this, we will probably not even be believed,” he said. They re-emerged at Pompeevka, a small settlement on the banks of the Amur River; from there they boarded a ship downriver to Amurzet. Talmy noted that the river was the border between “two countries – two worlds.” Though there was much construction in Amurzet, they heard many complaints about the lack of proper housing. One woman sarcastically asked Talmy, “What was the point of encouraging families to come here when there was no housing for them? What would I have missed had I come later? The mosquitoes?” The commissioners visited Blagoslovennoya, a village settled by Koreans in the nineteenth century; Harris grew excited when he saw their rice fields. He recalled being told by scientists in New York and Berlin that it would be impossible to grow rice in this climate. “Rice is not dependent on the theories of hot Jews,” Kuntz smiled, “but on a dependable amount of summer warmth. Obviously that is available in Biro-bidzhan. The proof – it is growing here.” The group returned to Birofeld. It was now September, and harvest time. At a meeting, the settlers wanted to know what the future held for them. The youth were interested in Kuntz’s plan of mechanized large-scale agriculture. Kuntz said he was certain his plan would work: “The Soviet Union will prove it.” As they left Birobidzhan, Talmy saw a wilderness “beginning to breathe with new life. It is the future being born here. The Soviet future, the socialist life, of which the first shoots were beginning to sprout in this raw earth.” The commissioners returned to New York on 22 October 1929 and were met with a grand reception three days later. They also reported to an icor plenum that met from 25 to 27 October.37 The Experts Commission issued its detailed report, published in both English and Yiddish, in 1930. The document summarized the economic and historic background of Jewish colonization in the Soviet Union and then provided an overview of Birobidzhan: first, the history of its conquest by tsarist Russia and the subjugation of its aboriginal population; then a series of chapters describing its geography and geology; its climate; its natu-

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

39

ral resources, including timber, animals and fish, minerals, and coal and peat; and its water resources. The commission had studied the region’s agricultural and industrial potential, its transportation and communications links, and the housing and sanitation situation.38 The commissioners noted that Birobidzhan was about 46,700 square kilometres in area, occupying that part of the Amur River basin extending from Pashkova on the west to Khabarovsk on the east. The northeastern boundary was the Urmi River, the northwestern boundary the Khingan River. Most of Birobidzhan lay between the 48th and 49th parallels north latitude – the same latitude as the northern United States and central European states such as France and Germany. It had short, warm, and wet summers and dry, clear, and severe winters; they compared it, topographically, to “Ontario and Michigan.” Given the types of soil and availability of water, they determined that “all crops possible of cultivation in the temperate zone could be successfully grown in Biro-Bidjan,” including wheat, rye, barley, oats, and buckwheat. The climate was also favourable to root crops, soybeans, and rice. In addition, Birobidzhan had “minerals of considerable industrial and commercial importance.”39 Some 28,000 people lived in Birobidzhan at this time, about half of them Koreans and other peoples native to the region, the rest Slavic descendents of earlier colonists. By then some 1,300 Jews had also already settled in the region. The commissioners were agreed that “the Jew presents untried material as a colonist” since “the tilling of the soil” is to him/her “a long forgotten art.” But the predictions by some pessimists that Jews were “physically incapable and psychically unwilling to go back to the land” had been proved false by the success of the colonies in the European parts of the country.40 In any case, the far eastern region of the ussr “finds itself in great need of most of the commodities which might be produced in BiroBidjan,” though adequate facilities for transportation and communication would need to be developed before manufacturing could be envisioned, they indicated.41 Shimen Dimanshtein, chair of gezerd, had predicted that, with the help of “Jewish overseas proletarian organizations, above all icor in America,” all things were possible.42 After having spent six weeks in the area, icor commissioners agreed, describing Birobidzhan as “a vast empire in the making ... There seems to be no reason why this region should not develop into a well-populated area and its settlers into a prosperous people.” The commissioners believed that the best results would be accomplished by placing the colonization of Birobidzhan “under a centralized management which would in turn be responsible directly to the Government and such

40

Jerusalem on the Amur

other agencies as it would enlist to assist in the work of colonization.” Notwithstanding the difficulties of pioneering conditions, there were no problems in Birobidzhan that could “not be overcome by diligent work and the intelligent application of modern technical organizational methods.” The prospective Jewish settlers, “with intelligent and sympathetic guidance, and with the necessary material assistance forthcoming,” could turn Birobidzhan “into a well-developed, thriving country and thus realize the hopes and aspirations connected with the success of this project.”43 In a radio address entitled “Jewish Colonization in Biro-Bidjan” broadcast over Washington radio station wol on 29 October 1929, Professor Harris told listeners that “never, in all history has yet such an opportunity dawned upon the toiling Jewish people” for the building of “a creative productive community ... on the basis of real equality of opportunity.” The commission had found a region with more than 4 million hectares of fertile land, abundant sunshine, and a growing season similar to that of the northern United States, one particularly well suited to the cultivation of root crops and legumes, including soy beans and rice. It was also well adapted to the livestock industry, particularly dairy farming. There was an abundance of mineral resources and forest products. As for transportation, the Trans-Siberian Railroad served the region, and the rivers flowing into the Amur would allow transportation by water to the Pacific Ocean. “The Commission is of the opinion that the settlement in order to be most effective, requires the aid of American organization ability and also modern American equipment.” Given that icor had taken up the task of furnishing these, “the colonization should progress rapidly and it should aid in the solution of the Jewish problem in Russia,” Harris concluded. His address was included in a pamphlet that called on American Jews to join icor and “share in the burden, responsibilities and joy of this really creative work.” Money was needed to provide Birobidzhan with “the best American technical advice” and the “most effective American Agricultural, road building and home building machinery.” Every dollar contributed “will bring nearer the day of the formation of the Jewish Socialist Soviet Republic there.”44 A new Jewish nation, a pearl of the Far East, was to be created, ushering in a new epoch in Jewish history that would guarantee the Jewish people their nationhood, with Yiddish as their national language. Birobidzhan would be a beam of light for the entire Jewish people. The national executive of icor in November 1929 published a pamphlet addressing some of the issues that had been brought up in the Yiddish press, which, they noted with some sarcasm, was at last acknowledging Birobidzhan’s reality rather

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

41

than calling it a “Communist illusion,” an “adventure,” a “catastrophe,” at the very best a “dream” that would never be realized. “But they are now realizing that the news from Birobidzhan is positive, as reported by the Experts Commission of icor earlier in the year. The area is fit for mass colonization, it is a land full of natural resources and is superbly adapted for agricultural and industrial development.” The report of the commissioners, learned and non-partisan American scholars, had put an end to all the libels and misrepresentations spread about Birobidzhan. “The project to settle large masses of Jews in Birobidzhan and to create a Jewish autonomous territory has been so well received that simply opposing the colonization is no longer an option. No longer can detractors say it will not work and ask ‘who will build it?’” The Jewish masses in America “understand that only in the Soviet Union, where there reigns the power of work, where the proletarian state concerns itself with the fate of Jewish poverty,” is it possible for a great piece of land, rich in possibilities, to be set aside for the creation of an autonomous Jewish Soviet republic.45 icor again summarized the work of the experts who had visited Birobidzhan in 1929. They had confirmed the great possibilities in a vast land full of riches that had not yet been exploited by human beings. They had also pointed out the difficulties inherent in such an undertaking, but they emphasized that these could all be overcome by resolute pioneers, especially as behind them stood the mighty Soviet Union, which was determined to solve the problems of the Jewish masses. Birobidzhan “will not be socialist in name only, but in reality, in the entire organization of its new way of life, in that spirit of socialism that is being built in the Soviet Union.” The Experts Commission had sought to find the most modern methods for colonizing Birobidzhan. Its work had brought about excellent results and put an end to the doubts regarding the feasibility of colonization in Birobidzhan. Its practical recommendations were already being implemented.46 The opponents of the project had tried to counter this news through lies and misrepresentations. They tried to frighten the public with their cry of “Siberia,” claiming that Birobidzhan had an impossibly harsh climate and was infested with flies and mosquitoes. Shloime Almazov asked every member of icor to study the report carefully as its conclusions were “a slap in the face” of the enemies of the Soviet Union and could be used to counter the lies spread about the project.47 The fourth national icor convention met in New York from 27 to 29 December 1929. More than 2,000 people filled the hall for the evening opening session, which began with a concert featuring the Frayhayt Gezang Farayn and the Frayhayt Mandolin Orkester under the direction of Jacob

42

Jerusalem on the Amur

Schaefer. Dr Joseph Glassman and Professor Charles Kuntz, who had spent more than a year in Birobidzhan, provided the opening remarks. As well, greetings were received from gezerd and komerd and from Professor Harris in Provo. Kuntz told the delegates not to waste time trying to define the political orientation of icor. It did not matter whether, and to what degree, it was Communist, Yiddishist, territorialist, nationalist, socialist, “or all combined.” The “intrinsic grandeur” of the Birobidzhan project was such that there was something for every idealist, which was why “the elements centering about the ‘Icor’ are so diverse.” He said that icor recognized the fact that, in what had been Russia, the Jews had been emancipated economically, socially, and nationally. Those who had gone into farming needed a helping hand, and so icor sprang into existence: “When it became increasingly difficult to find patches of land in the various Soviet republics for the Jews, the idea of finding one great tract of land sufficiently large to solve the whole problem has found its realization.” With the appearance of Birobidzhan, “this new ‘promised’ land,” icor had become an active participant in the colonization work. The Experts Commission had learned that Birobidzhan was as suitable both agriculturally and industrially for colonization “as are some of our north-western states.” The colonization there was assuming “a type of empire building unprecedented in history.” The “primitive peasant methods of work” were being discarded and replaced by an “Industrial Plan.” All productive activities, including farming, would be “industrialized on the basis of the modern machine and scientific management.” Colonists would settle as industrial workers, in communities of 1,000 or so families. There would be about 24.3 hectares of land plus 2,000 rubles in credit allocated for each family. This modern industrial form of agriculture required tractors, power machinery, and implements, most of which had still to be imported. Kuntz estimated that about $100,000 to $150,000 worth of machinery would be required for a community of 1,000 families. This would raise productivity and enable the colonists “to get on their feet in a relatively short time.” It was this contribution that was required of icor, which had already sent to Birobidzhan a lumber mill that would reduce the cost of, and speed up, the building of houses. “The Biro-Bidjan project means to the Soviet Jews, the building of a true Commonwealth where the happiness of the one is not contingent on the unhappiness of the many, a Commonwealth built by the masses and for the masses on the basis of perfect equality.” icor was supplying “the missing

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

43

link, notably the appropriate machinery and the expert specialist.” It was for that reason, concluded Kuntz, that the Birobidzhan colonists “have already learned to know your ‘Icor’ as their brother-organization.” Benjamin Brown related his experience in Birobidzhan. Apart from agriculture, Birobidzhan had great potential in its forests, its mineral wealth, its rivers and lakes. The Amur River, flowing into the Pacific, “brings Birobidzhan quite close to us,” he noted. The climate was suitable for people and domestic animals and, particularly, for the cultivation of rice. The land had remained uninhabited because the soil was too hard to farm using old methods: “It awaited a time when it could be cultivated by modern methods. It would have to be conquered through collectivisation. The commission recommended that machinery and technical help be sent to Birobidzhan and in this the ‘Icor’ can play an important role. Now is not the time to play politics. Whatever our ideological ideas, all of us can completely trust the Soviet government.” The playwright Peretz Hirshbein, who had spent more than a year in the Soviet Union in 1928–29, then addressed the convention. Though he wrote for Der Tog, his spirit was in a “prison” there due to the paper’s hostility towards the Soviet Union: “I am with my entire heart attached to the Soviet Union. That’s where I felt free.” He had been impressed by the report of the Experts Commission, which clearly showed the potential of the country. He compared Birobidzhan to the California of the nineteenth century, which was at the time equally undeveloped. “Today we have chapters with registered members in 78 cities,” announced Leon Talmy. “We have 115 chapters in these cities, of which 90 are active and functioning. And we have single members or small groups in another 59 communities.” From Atlanta to Youngstown, Ohio, icor covered the United States and Canada. Most communities had single chapters, but New York already had fourteen; Los Angeles eight; Chicago, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh three each; and Detroit two. All told, membership dues had resulted in some $7,000 received by icor. Such sums were not nearly enough to sustain the large projects to which icor wished to contribute, so it was imperative that the membership of the organization be expanded. Talmy then reported on the activities of icor since the previous convention two years earlier. That convention had proclaimed its willingness to work to help the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union in their great project to reconstruct their lives along productive lines. icor had already helped GEZERD create the Icor commune in the Crimea, housing five new Jewish settlements. Now an even greater project was at hand: Birobidzhan, which had been enthusiastically welcomed by the Jewish masses and

44

Jerusalem on the Amur

had been designated a national district open to mass Jewish colonization. A Technical Commission had been formed to provide advice on buying machinery, materials, and all necessary technical literature for shipment to Birobidzhan at economical prices. Some $140,000 worth of machinery had been sent to Birobidzhan, including a woodworking plant that would employ 500 Jewish workers. According to Talmy, “The role that these machines have already played in the first year and a half of the colonization in Birobidzhan has already been assessed, by the people on the ground, by the Soviet authorities, by our own Experts-Commission, who had seen the machines at work.” In May 1928 Professor Charles Kuntz had gone to Birobidzhan as icor’s representative “and had informed us of the situation there and of what we could and should do to help. He also did much to help in the work of colonization and gained the love and attention of the people who were settling Birobidzhan.” The KOMERD, GEZERD, and icor Experts Commission had accepted his recommendations. Everywhere it went, the commission had been warmly received. Following its investigation, the commission held meetings in a number of large Soviet cities, including Moscow, Leningrad, Minsk, Kharkov, and Kiev, and met with members of various Soviet academic, administrative, and scientific agencies. As Talmy observed, “The Soviet press also followed the commission’s work closely and often reported on it.” The Soviet government had contributed 5,000 rubles towards its work. Talmy reported that the $13,000 that it had cost icor to send the commission to Birobidzhan had more than repaid itself in full. KOMERD officials in the far eastern region were treating its recommendations with great seriousness. “The report on the Commission to Birobidzhan and the colonization work there has provided the basis for our work among the broad Jewish masses in America, particularly among the Jewish working masses, whose friendship towards the Soviet Union and towards Jewish colonization arises from their feelings of solidarity with the country of workers and peasants. The efforts made by the Soviet government within the Jewish milieu have awakened the interest and sympathy of sections of the petty bourgeoisie towards the Soviet Union.” Given such circumstances, concluded Talmy, icor would be able to become a mass organization. The report “will be strong ammunition in our hands in the fight against all the enemies of our work.” Talmy noted in his report that “icor had never had a shortage of enemies, and indeed their numbers have multiplied in the past two years, as a result of our work on behalf of Biro-bidzhan. The issue of Biro-bidzhan has

icor as an “Inclusive” Organization, 1924–29

45

stirred up all the anti-Soviet muck and resulted in a stream of lies, false accusation, falsifications and slanders,” both open and disguised as “scholarly.” The goal was to discredit Birobidzhan by insisting that the whole scheme, as concocted by the Yevsektsiya, was a catastrophe for Jews, to be fought by any means available. To counter this opposition, icor had in the past two years distributed 300,000 pieces of literature and organized 330 meetings. But icor needed to work even harder to demonstrate the importance of the socialist work of colonization in Birobidzhan and its role in supporting it, said Talmy. “It has now become clear ... that the creation of a large Jewish community” that would evolve into an autonomous Jewish socialist republic “is bound up with the whole Five-Year Plan,” which was announced in 1928. Talmy was referring to what is now called the “Great Break” at the end of the 1920s, when Stalin embarked on all-out collectivization and industrialization. A new fundraising campaign was launched in an attempt to raise $200,000 for Birobidzhan. Talmy noted that some $56,000 had been raised in 1928 and $87,000 in 1929, showing that the organization was gaining strength. Of this amount, $99,760 was spent on machinery and technical assistance for Birobidzhan – far more than the $75,000 icor had promised in an agreement signed with KOMERD in February 1929. The sale of literature had generated income that was applied to administrative expenses, Talmy pointed out, and as a result the organization would come through with no deficit. Talmy also reported on the activities of the Forverts, the mass circulation social democratic Yiddish daily. The paper, he declared, remained the most implacable foe of icor and was now trying to discredit it further by questioning the Birobidzhan settlement. As well, it had organized a campaign to “aid” lishentsy, or déclassé Jews, in the Soviet Union by sending them tools, a ploy designed to make the Soviet Union look bad by implying that the Jewish community in the USSR was in dire straits and that its situation was worsening. Following the sessions, the delegates greeted “with joy and enthusiasm” the building of a socialist Jewish Birobidzhan and proclaimed 28 March, the date Birobidzhan had been declared a district for mass Jewish colonization, to be an annual icor holiday. The convention closed with the singing of the “Internationale.”48 icor had until this point hoped to attract a broad range of support for its work; however, events beyond the control of the organization would now cause it to veer sharply to the left.

–35

3 The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

As the decade of the 1920s came to an end, icor found itself involved in controversies outside its own orbit. As a result of various power struggles within the Soviet leadership, and the growing rift between Stalin and Leon Trotsky, the Communist International (Comintern) at its sixth congress in July-August 1928 had announced a sharp “left turn” for the world Communist movement. This “Third Period,” as it was called, was one of intense sectarianism, in which the Communist parties defined themselves as sole representatives of the proletariat. In order to pursue this new “class against class” strategy, Communists were instructed to denounce socialists and social democrats as “social fascists” and capitalist collaborators and to avoid any alliances with their parties and movements. Trotsky’s supporters, too, were to be shunned. “Of course the icor will not allow Trotskyist counter revolutionaries to make use of the icor as a base for their work of slandering the Soviet Union,” wrote Shloime Almazov in 1932.1 But for the Jewish Communists, there was something more: the issue of Palestine. While all Communist organizations were required to adjust to the new Comintern strategy in 1928, Jewish groups were also affected by events in Palestine a year later. Anti-Jewish riots broke out in the British Mandate in the summer of 1929. Pogroms took place in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Safed, Hebron, and a number of smaller locales in British-ruled Palestine, killing 113 Jews and wounding hundreds. In Hebron alone, sixty-seven Jews were murdered on 23 August.2 Almost all non-Communist Jewish groups denounced the Palestinian Arab perpetrators. However, Moscow described the violence as a revolutionary struggle against British imperialism,3 and the Frayhayt and Jewish Communists were forced to dutifully follow suit – although a number of famous Yiddish writers, such as Abraham Reisin, Halpern Leivick, Menachem Boraisha, and A. (Isaac) Raboy, left the

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

47

Frayhayt in protest (Raboy later rejoined its staff).4 Many non-Communist members of icor objected to the pro-Arab line; they feared that if icor opposed Zionism, the organization would have difficulty reaching out to less class-conscious Jewish workers or even to petty bourgeois Jews who might otherwise support the Soviet Union. Thus, on 11 September 1929, the icor management committee passed, by eight votes to four, a resolution condemning the cpusa’s anti-Zionist position. The Frayhayt minimized the incident, calling the vote “informal,” and the organization was forced back into line after the resignation of the non-Communists involved.5 The fallout over this issue would dominate the fourth national icor convention, which met at the Central Opera House in New York from 27 to 29 December 1929. Leon Talmy, the national secretary, complained that the recent Arab-Jewish hostilities in Palestine had been utilized by enemies of icor in an attempt to create “hysteria” and reduce support for the organization. Enemies of the left and of icor were also calling attention to the fact that the management committee of icor had condemned the Frayhayt and the entire Communist movement for its support of the Arab cause. Talmy insisted that the management committee had acted on its own initiative; in fact, he insisted, the committee had no right to make such a declaration without authorization from the full plenum of the national executive: “Instead of concentrating on how the Soviet Union had solved the national question, instead of dealing with how the events in Palestine might affect the success of the colonization effort in Birobidzhan, the majority of the committee got caught up in the hysteria and took a step which placed in jeopardy the entire existence of the icor.” Rather than debating the “real issues,” they had mistakenly moved against the Communists in icor, stating that Communists should be removed from leadership positions. This internal battle “almost completely for a while paralysed the work of the icor.” However, Talmy reassured the delegates, “the great majority of our membership did not allow themselves to be swayed and except in a few isolated cases, our work did not cease.” Indeed, he claimed in the aftermath of this conflict, icor had grown stronger and larger. In the discussion that followed Talmy’s speech, Jacob Levin noted that, for the past few years, there had been “two lines” in icor. One faction, which included people like the noted socialist Yiddishist Khaim Zhitlovsky, wished to make icor as broad an organization as possible; the other faction wanted to “put boundaries around it.” Now the Communist Party had taken the lead in clarifying the political line and had instructed organizations such as icor to follow suit. In the wake of the events in Palestine, it was decided that some on the management panel were in opposition to

48

Jerusalem on the Amur

icor. That, stated Levin, was false. “Does it mean that those who had brought up the resolution [opposing the cp line on the events in Palestine as a “liberation struggle”] had become Zionists?” Levin noted that he had himself been an opponent of the Balfour Declaration. However, “had we remained silent now, it would have been as though we had extended our hand to those who had shed innocent blood.” In any case, continued Levin, the declaration of those who spoke out was in no way opposed to the Frayhayt or the Communist Party. For years now, icor had claimed it was non-partisan. Yet, said Levin, Melech Epstein and the Jewish Section of the cpusa now told us that icor was a Communist organization. Levin noted that Boraisha, who had broken with the Frayhayt over Palestine, was told he was also no longer welcome in icor. Long-time icor activists in Detroit and Philadelphia met the same fate, remarked Levin. Is it a wonder that many who had supported icor were now turning away from it? They felt that icor was “broken.” Levin stated that he loved the Soviet Union “with all [his] heart” and considered the Birobidzhan project “a matter of life and death.” Was there not a place in icor for people like him? Now was the time to demonstrate that it was truly a non-partisan organization. Other supporters of Levin said that icor had reached a fork in the road: it was now obviously becoming an openly Communist organization, which meant that those Jews who had supported the colonization efforts in the ussr, and especially Birobidzhan, for nationalistic-Jewish reasons rather than because these were Soviet projects, would be forced to leave. Melech Epstein responded that the “opposition” in icor had always tried to divert the organization away from being a workers’ movement and had tried to use it to gain influence with the wealthy Jews. Because of them, mistakes were made that now needed correction. The opposition had worked to bring opponents of the Soviet Union, such as Zhitlovsky, a friend of “counter-revolutionaries,” into icor. Levin may have said he was not a Zionist, continued Epstein, but “he had become as chauvinistic as every Zionist.” These oppositional elements had become morally the same as those carrying out “pogroms” against the Frayhayt, declared Epstein. Kalmen Marmor stated that any enemy of the Morgn Frayhayt was also an enemy of the workers’ movement and, hence, of icor. People like Levin wanted, on the one hand, to be friends of the Soviet Union, but, on the other, were opposed to building socialism there: “They want to have it both ways [zay viln tantsen oyf tsvay khasenes].” There were only two ideologies “on the Jewish street,” continued Marmor, “the bourgeois one, which is chauvinistic, and the workers’ ideology – of class conflict.” In between was

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

49

an untenable “no man’s land.” Workers had no choice but to accept the second ideology, “either with the working class, or with Jewish nationalism [klal yisroel] ... We cannot be non-partisan: either with the working class, or with the others – with their enemies!” Elias Wattenberg accused Levin of being a saboteur who was trying to “liquidate” icor by turning it into a territorialist party. Levin wanted icor to move to the right and come closer to the Forverts and the social democratic unions. But, said, Wattenberg, icor must remain linked to the working class and to those petty bourgeois and intellectual strata who supported the Soviet Union. Its base would always be among the workers. Talmy summed up the discussion by emphasizing that icor was “not a nationalistic organization” but one that supported the building of Birobidzhan, which was, he reminded the delegates, a socialist enterprise conducted by Communists. Although a broad organization was necessary to support this work, it should not be “impartial” when it came to support for the Soviet Union. Dr Joseph Glassman, who had signed the management committee resolution condemning the Frayhayt, tried to smooth over the dispute while attempting to defend Levin and his allies from the charge of being “counter-revolutionaries.” They were friends of the Soviet Union and wanted a large organization that would unite Jews around the colonization work, he explained. There were many people who would simply not allow themselves to be led by the Communists: “But I’m not afraid of Communists, and that’s why I’ll continue working with the ‘Icor,’ and there is still room for many like me. Those who want to continue helping with the cause of Birobidzhan should be welcome in the ‘Icor.’” More debate followed. Melech Epstein accused the non-Communists of inciting “hatred”: While these so-called friends of the Soviet Union “spoke in sweet tones [es gist zikh mamish honik fun zayere lipn], they had a sharp knife up their sleeve.” The friendship of such people as Levin for the Soviet Union “is a very unhealthy one. It is the love of the ape, who holds her child to her breast so tightly that the child chokes to death. These people put Birobidzhan on a pedestal above the great historical work being done in the Soviet Union as a whole. From too much love for Birobidzhan they have become blinded and no longer see the forest for the trees.” Epstein spoke sarcastically of other new so-called “friends” of Birobidzhan, such as the bourgeois Der Tog and even the Morgn Zhurnal, the paper for the Orthodox (yarmulke-tsaytung). They too were saying that Birobidzhan was a good idea but that icor was the wrong instrument by which to assist this worthy project. It was with such “friends” that Levin wanted to

50

Jerusalem on the Amur

help Birobidzhan. Levin wanted to bring into the pro-Birobidzhan work the “bloody enemies” of the Soviet Union, the bourgeois Jewish organizations, and drown out the true voice of the Jewish working class – icor. Were these others to be brought in to the work, they would cause more damage than good to the Soviet Union. Epstein said some of these elements in icor even wanted to take part in the Forverts campaign to “aid” lishentsy. But the Forverts had no “clean motives,” indeed it was only mounting this effort in order to destroy icor. Epstein concluded by indicating that only those who sincerely supported the Soviet Union should remain members of icor. Budish concurred: “The ‘Icor’ can broaden its base only among those elements that sympathize with the socialist construction in the Soviet Union.” He asserted that the Five-Year Plan in the ussr was proving more successful than even its most optimistic backers had predicted. It was “opening the eyes of the world” and could no longer be kept hidden from the working masses. This, according to Budish, explained the ever-increasing anti-Soviet manifestations in the capitalist world: the attempts to mislead people through clever psychological propaganda were intended to block the socialist construction in the Soviet Union: “And I think that the [icor] opposition is heading down that slippery path.” Budish reminded Levin and the other oppositionists of the many times they had stated their opposition to “Zionist-imperialistic adventurism”; yet now they bemoaned the events in Palestine. Did this not constitute support for Zionism and its bourgeois politics? The events in Palestine, added Adolph Maurice, had split the Jewish world in America into two camps: (1) the working class and all those who followed the lead of the Jewish Section of the Communist Party and the Morgn Frayhayt and (2) those in the bourgeois, fascist, and Zionist camp. Such people used the notion of “non-partisanship” as a means of introducing anti-Communist ideas into icor. The anti-Soviet press had cited the management committee’s resolution; for them, it was proof that icor should receive no support. But the Jewish Section of the cpusa had pointed out that the committee did not represent the entire icor: they were but a small group, who, in order to pass the resolution, took advantage of the fact that a number of members of the committee were not present in New York: “Only this declaration [by the Jewish Section] had saved the ‘Icor,’ and had made possible this convention.” Maurice was certain that the opposition would now “vanish over the horizon” and no longer interfere in the important work of the organization.

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

51

Israel Hershbain of Montreal remarked that, when icor members there read the resolution, it “hit them like a thunderclap. What did the ‘Icor’ have to do with events in Palestine? The opposition had served the icor a great blow by providing its enemies with a weapon. If they were honest, they should acknowledge their mistake, which has hindered our work.” Max Levin stated that there would be no way of working with the opposition any longer. He was himself not a member of the Communist Party, yet he had no problem working with them in icor. Why could others not do so? Levin had been one of the signatories to the management committee’s resolution, thinking it would help icor achieve credibility, attract middleclass people, and gain a favourable press. “But in less than 24 hours the opposite happened, and I recognized my mistake. This proves that the organized Jewish community will not move towards the ‘Icor’ and not even towards the opposition. No one not interested in the Soviet Union and in a Soviet-socialist colonization will join the ‘Icor.’” Jacob Levin, in rebuttal, declared that it was the non-partisan members of icor that had done most of the work and attracted the most new members. The Communist Party had been neglectful of icor as it was more assimilationist in orientation. If the resolution regarding Palestine were to be rescinded, it would drive workers away from icor and make it a narrower, rather than a broader, organization. Melech Epstein called Levin a wolf in sheep’s clothing: the resolution dealing with Palestine had been designed to destroy icor, said Epstein, and only the prompt action of the Jewish Section had saved it, by making it possible for 2,500 workers to attend the national convention and thereby successfully defending the organization. Wattenberg suggested that “non-partisan” did not mean being without principles, nor did it mean having no views concerning Jewish communal life. Obviously, in that sense, icor was not non-partisan. After all, icor had a positive attitude towards the Soviet Union and its nationality policy. It approved of the way in which Jewish life was being rebuilt in the Soviet Union, and it supported the colonization of Birobidzhan along socialist lines. So obviously icor had a socialist orientation and in its ranks were, first and foremost, workers, followed by those petty bourgeois and intellectuals who supported the Soviet Union. But that did not mean it was bound to a political party. “The doors of the ‘Icor’ are open to all who accept its principles as formulated in its resolutions,” Wattenberg stressed. The resolutions condemning the “opposition” all passed, with just five negative votes. The resolutions included an assertion that, in the previous

52

Jerusalem on the Amur

two years, a tendency had arisen to “neglect the working class base” of icor. The organization would continue to expose “Zionist illusions” among the Jewish masses. The entire bourgeois press, along with the Forverts, had created a climate of hysteria around the Palestine events in order to destroy the Jewish workers’ movement and its institutions, particularly the Frayhayt. Unfortunately, the management committee had been led by some of its members to join in the attacks. The earlier resolution passed by the management committee was rescinded on the grounds that it “had done damage to the icor and only the energetic efforts of the icor leadership had saved the organization from a great danger.” The convention delegates passed their own resolution declaring that the national question could only be solved “in the conditions that obtain in the Soviet Union.” The convention elected a national executive of seventy-three members, forty of whom were from New York.6 On 1 October 1930 Birobidzhan was given the status of an administrative rayon. Kuntz observed that Birobidzhan would now have a unified administration and that this would benefit the district economically. The colonization process, too, would now be rationalized and under more local control. This was the first step towards Birobidzhan eventually attaining republic status.7 Four days later, icor held a national plenum in New York to deal with Kuntz’s proposals for a model commune (he called it a “Socgorodok”) in Birobidzhan. These were remarkable times, Talmy told the delegates. Birobidzhan had become a rayon and its first Soviet was now in session; Ab. Epstein, the national organizer, was in Birobidzhan representing icor. The positive findings of the 1929 Experts Commission had been confirmed and were being implemented. More than 80 million rubles were to be invested in Birobidzhan over the next three years, said Talmy. The potential in Birobidzhan exceeded all the estimates in previous studies. And icor was playing no small role; the machinery sent over was being utilized extensively. The tractors and other equipment were ploughing the land and building the roads. The cars and trucks were making transportation easier. The woodworking factory was being built with the equipment sent the previous year. And now icor would be sending over two electrical power stations and an incubator for poultry.8 Epstein wrote about his three-week stay in Birobidzhan in the December 1930 issue of ICOR. He had seen so much that he could “barely catch his breath,” and he was certain that Birobidzhan was destined to play an important role in the agricultural and industrial development of the Soviet Union. During his visit to the 355 inhabitants of Amurzet, he had been impressed by their livestock and various crops; by their tractors and other

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

53

farm machinery; and by their housing, schools, bakery, club, and other social amenities. On the way from Amurzet to Waldheim, Epstein had seen icor-donated excavators working on the roads. Waldheim’s 350 inhabitants lived in four-family and six-family dwellings; they shared a communal dining hall and club, and a school. They had livestock, beehives, and cultivated fields. Birofeld, with 400 inhabitants, grew wheat, soybeans, and garden vegetables. The collectives had dairy cows, beef cattle, horses, and beehives. The Icor commune housed sixty-five young men and women. The commune had livestock, and its members also grew crops of potatoes, tomatoes, and other foodstuffs. The members also fished in the Tunguska River and produced caviar. In Birokan, with about fifty-five families, the main industries involved the production of lime and tar. Epstein was told that the settlement would soon also be producing cement, asbestos, marble, and various dyes. Tikhonkaia had become “a true European-style town. The people promenade in the streets, they gather, they speak, they laugh – Moscow on a smaller scale.” Epstein found streets with electric lampposts and telephones in buildings: soon all of Birobidzhan would be connected by telephone. The town was becoming an industrial centre. Epstein was shown a printing press, newly arrived, and was told a weekly Yiddish newspaper would soon be published.9 And indeed, at the end of December, copies of the new Birobidzhaner Shtern arrived by mail to the icor office in New York. “When we opened the packet, we were overcome,” exclaimed the poet Aaron Kurtz. The paper was yet more proof that, for Jews, “the land of deepest darkness” had become “the land of brightest light.” Without the Soviet Union, after all, Birobidzhan “would be nothing. Just another corner of the world, also waiting to be saved.” So, even in the midst of all its difficulties, Birobidzhan was already producing a newspaper. After all, “behind it stands the colossal might of the proletarian nation!”10 Epstein also wrote about the first meeting of the new Birobidzhan Soviet in December 1930, which he had attended. Candidates had been elected from every town and village in the region. The evening before the Soviet met, “all of Tikhonkaia was red” with banners and flags, and the roofs of houses carried greetings and proclamations. The various festivities “strengthened my belief that no power on earth will be able to obstruct the Soviet Union in its process of construction.” Epstein told his readers that “we in icor can feel proud and lucky to have such ‘partners.’” The tempo of development in Birobidzhan ought to inspire icor at home to devote more energy to its work and thus to help build Birobidzhan.11 Moved by

54

Jerusalem on the Amur

this experience, he expressed his regrets at having to leave “the soil of the Soviet Union, the soil of my fatherland.”12 In November 1930, Charles Kuntz again travelled to Birobidzhan to serve as the icor representative in the planning and construction of the “Model Colony” for 1,000 families. A farewell banquet was held for him on 9 November, attended by some 300 people. The socialist method was creating “a psychologically new type of person and Jew,” he declared. Kalmen Marmor, the cultural director of the iwo, assured the guests that an iwo pledge to raise $25,000 for icor would be fulfilled.13 The 10–16 December 1930 gezerd congress in Moscow, which Kuntz attended, noted that icor now had 115 branches with 5,000 members in the United States and Canada. It also commended icor for having sent the 1929 Experts Commission to Birobidzhan. Kuntz was singled out for praise for having developed an “industrial method for colonization in Birobidzhan,” one that had been accepted by gezerd and komerd. Dimanshtein thanked the “fraternal proletarian organizations” such as icor for popularizing the Jewish settlement work in the Soviet Union and for gaining support for the country among the Jewish communities in the capitalist world.14 On 18 January 1931, the icor national executive held an enlarged plenum to discuss putting into concrete form the plan to help create the model Icor commune in Birobidzhan that had been envisaged by Professor Kuntz. It was suggested the new model commune be built near the alreadyexisting Icor commune as there was sufficient land there that was not too far from the railway line or from Khabarovsk. The recent gezerd convention, noted Talmy, had made it clear that, notwithstanding any early difficulties, the colonization project in Birobidzhan was moving ahead and had the full support of the government.15 The settlement would eventually house 1,000 families, or some 5,000 people, and would be completed by 1933. It would be necessary to send modern machinery to the new settlement; members of icor were encouraged to intensify their campaign to raise money and attract new members.16 Kuntz, back in Birobidzhan, sent a letter to icor on 6 February 1931: “Soviet agriculture has turned the corner. The old individualist peasant psychology has been replaced by a new collective attitude as a result of the rapid collectivisation of agriculture.” Electrification was also proceeding and agriculture was being “industrialized.” Amurzet, Birofeld, Waldheim, and the Icor commune were all expanding. New arrivals would join these existing collectives. Birobidzhan now also had machine tractor stations. State farms (Sovkhozes) were now going to be established by komerd and

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

55

would employ a substantial number of the new arrivals, including the new model settlement planned “along the lines suggested by the Icor.” As well, various industrial enterprises were being created, including a woodworking factory, where materials for the construction of houses were being produced “in an American manner.” New telephone lines and roads, “almost entirely lacking in this virgin land,” were also making communications easier. The local administration could now handle many of the functions that had been performed by gezerd. The main impediment to further growth, noted Kuntz, was the shortage of housing. This was the most urgent issue at hand, and Kuntz provided detailed plans of the type of housing to be built on the model settlement as well as the cultural centre and other buildings. This was why the woodworking plant and sawmills were so necessary. Kuntz suggested that icor organize “a first class repair shop fitted out with American machinery, to take care of all the repair work on tractors, road and housing building machinery and agricultural implements.” He was certain that, as part of that mighty socialist “empire” being built under the Five-Year Plan, Birobidzhan’s prospects were “brighter than ever.” The Jews throughout the ussr were part of “the great process of socialist industrialization” that was taking place, but in Birobidzhan this economic selfdetermination would also be the basis for national self-determination.17 In March 1931 icor sent a 250-kilowatt electric station to Birobidzhan; another would follow in April. Additional machinery was being prepared for shipment and technical help would also be forthcoming.18 Kuntz also thought the Icor commune needed a polytechnic institute to train its youth.19 In the fall of 1931 Gina Medem again visited Birobidzhan, travelling from Seattle via Japan to Vladivostok and then by boat and train to Birobidzhan. She brought with her shovels, nails, a washing machine, and a motor for an electrical generator. Visiting the Icor commune and other sites, she was impressed by the progress that had been made. She described the young teachers, technicians, doctors, engineers, and mechanics, newly graduated from technical schools and universities, an “enthusiastic element” arriving from other parts of the Soviet Union.20 Her article “The Taiga Calls” was published in the March 1932 issue of ICOR. She spoke of returning to Birobidzhan after a hiatus of two years to see once again the farms and towns, of the “wonderful” Amur, and of her amazement at the progress made. There were now so many Jews in Birobidzhan, and the pulse of life had so changed, that “it was almost impossible to recognize it.” Forests had been cleared, crops planted, industries developed, communities built. She lauded the work of settlers who had come from western

56

Jerusalem on the Amur

Europe and North America. After work, they sat and sang songs in German, Ukrainian, English, Russian, and Yiddish: “the Argentinean and Tel Aviver, the Hamburger and Los Angeleser, the New Yorker and Chicagoan.” This was a land where the worker was the boss and where the mandate to build socialism lay in the hands of the workers and peasants. In Birobidzhan, land was not being wrested from Arab peasants, and poor Jews, Medem wrote with irony, were not “so fortunate” as to deal with Tel Aviv’s sands and Jerusalem’s naked stones but, rather, could become productive workers and not be exploited.21 In tsarist times a wilderness, Birobidzhan now lay on the railway lines that ran from France to China. Medem maintained that Birobidzhan was rapidly industrializing and making Soviet citizens out of lishentsy, déclassé Jews who had lost their legal rights after the revolution; they were working “systematically and vehemently, because the area must, like the rest of the Soviet Union, in ten years catch up and surpass the capitalist countries!” Birobidzhan was, she declared, “becoming more and more a part of the general Soviet economic and political, cultural and social organism.” Medem described the natural resources of the region and the Jewish settlements rapidly rising on the taiga. Where there had been nothing but forest, one could now see cars, locomotives, electricity, telegraph lines. She visited a chicken farm near the city of Birobidzhan and was shown American incubators that had been donated by icor in New York. She praised the “thousands of icor workers in far off America, who are lending a hand in the fiery construction of socialism throughout the world.” She also spoke of 600 foreign workers from all corners of the world who had come to help build Birobidzhan. Medem toured the United States and Canada for three months in the spring of 1931, visiting sixty cities and speaking of the growth in Birobidzhan. In her memoir, she recalled having to travel to “all four corners of America,” while “homesick” for Birobidzhan, where Jewish pioneers were building a productive life for themselves. But these lectures were “building a bridge between the American working people and the land of the new man – the Soviet Union.”22 Indeed, the rhapsodic tales she brought back created a small-scale aliyah, or immigration, to the Jewish region.23 The 14 June 1931 plenum of the national executive was told that Birobidzhan was being developed at a quick tempo. The Bira River, connecting Tikhonkaia to the Amur, was being dammed, and a north-south railway line of 200 kilometres was planned. There was now boat service along the Amur and Tunguska rivers. Telephone lines were being extended, and all of Birobidzhan’s towns, villages, and settlements would be connected by November 1931. The rayon had also been given extra ter-

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

57

ritory in the north and had doubled in size. The construction of the model settlement, to be known as the socialist town of Icor, was under way, with a completion date of 1933. Professor Kuntz was in Birobidzhan organizing the work. With a planned population of at least 1,000 families, it would own about 250 hectares of land and sit by the river Tunguska, near the present settlement of Icor.24 icor now published a detailed account of the progress being made in building the Socgorodok. It would be an agro-industrial settlement, a scientific combination of industry and agriculture, a model not just for the far east but also for the entire Soviet Union. All work would be mechanized. A school would teach each of its 2,500 students how to become a “true socialist free person, a citizen of the proletarian nation that had entered the period of socialism.” There would be stalls and barns for 2,000 cows, 2,000 pigs, and 50,000 chickens. The town would also have a cannery, a cheese and butter plant, a lock factory, and a woodworking factory to produce wood for furniture and home construction. Apart from the help from icor, the Soviet government was providing a 1-million-ruble loan.25 Ab. Victor even published a poem in honour of the commune.26 icor continued in its opposition to the rival Palestine project. The campaign against Zionism was discussed at the 14 June 1931 plenum of the national executive. icor decided to make July an anti-Zionist month, starting with “workers and peoples conferences” on 29 June, to coincide with the opening of the 17th World Zionist Congress in Basle. Political Zionism, declared icor, was in decline and had been taking “one blow after another” in the past two years. The Zionist “house of cards,” kept alive through British “grace,” was beginning to collapse, and the Zionist organization, divided into various warring factions, was in a state of chaos. The ideology of Zionism remained a danger in that it retained deep roots among the Jewish petty bourgeoisie and some sectors of the working class; some continued to believe in the Palestine “illusions.” Zionists continued their systematic campaign against Jewish reconstruction in the Soviet Union and, in particular, Birobidzhan; the “wildest” accusations against the Soviet Union could be found in Zionist publications: “In every anti-Soviet hysteria they are in the forefront.” Such Zionist and nationalist ideas remained a continuing hindrance to the work of icor. The Jewish masses would need to rid themselves of Zionist ideas in order to become more sympathetic to the colonization and reconstruction of Jewish life in the Soviet Union. The Zionist attacks were part of a larger anti-Soviet campaign waged by American imperialism to distract people from the success of the Five-Year Plan. This was why it was of the utmost

58

Jerusalem on the Amur

importance that all friends of a Jewish Soviet socialist republic in Birobidzhan throw themselves into the anti-Zionist campaign with all their energy and clarify for the Jewish masses the progress being made by the proletarian republic.27 A 29 June 1931 anti-Zionist conference in New York brought together 220 delegates from 120 organizations. The Canadian icor activist Abraham Shek reported on the proceedings for the journal ICOR. In his presentation Elias Wattenberg indicated that Zionism stood on the threshold of complete bankruptcy. The recent Passfield White Paper of 1930, the first attempt by Britain to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine, and other decisions regarding Palestine were making the Balfour Declaration a dead letter and had exposed the Zionist “swindle.” Melech Epstein, in an hour-long speech, described the situation of the Jewish masses in Palestine, living in constant fear and protected only by British bayonets. No wonder, he noted, that Zionism was such a faithful servant of British imperialism. The Labour Zionists in Palestine claimed they were building socialism, but the reality was far different and needed to be “unmasked.” They were misleading Jewish workers. Epstein contrasted the life of Jewish workers in Palestine unfavourably to the life of those in the Soviet Union.28 The Basle Congress of the World Zionist Organization had demonstrated the “complete bankruptcy” of the goals of Zionism and laid bare its inability to provide anything positive to the Jewish masses. Indeed, declared icor, Zionism “is a heavy parasitical growth on the body of the Jewish masses, which sucks out their energy, paralyses their independence, leads them astray into the path of darkest chauvinism, and erects a blind wall between them and the working masses of the other peoples.” Zionism was the handmaiden of imperialism in Palestine, dividing Arabs from Jews. In other countries it motivated reactionaries within the Jewish communities to attack those who called for solidarity with the anti-imperialist camp. The Zionist press in America constantly referred to the events in Palestine in 1929 to lay the groundwork for an attack on the revolutionary organizations. The Zionists remained “bitter enemies of all that is healthy and alive and revolutionary in the Jewish environment.”29 An icor membership card from 1932 stated, in Yiddish: “Against the bloody adventures of the Zionists, the partners of the British Imperialists, the icor mobilizes the Jewish masses to help actively to defend the only place where the Jewish National problem is really and completely solved.”30 In advance of the fifth national convention, to be held in New York from 16 to 18 October 1931, Ab. Epstein recalled the “sleepless nights, the long and passionate discussions, that were carried on for many weeks on the

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

59

national executive prior to the last convention.” As a result of the events in Palestine at the end of the summer of 1929, the Zionists, social fascists, and enemies of the Soviet Union, such as Jacob Levin and Menachem Boraisha, had “paralyzed” the work of icor. Yet icor not only survived, it emerged stronger and with a clearer line. Now things were different. Birobidzhan’s early problems had been solved, and “all doubts must disappear in the light of living facts.” Settlers were arriving by the thousands, including people from Brazil, Cuba, Latvia, Canada, “and even from our America.” This was why “we are coming to our 5th national convention with the full confidence that the time is very near when Birobidzhan will be proclaimed as a Jewish socialist Soviet-republic.”31 The convention opened the evening of 16 October, with a mass meeting and concert, attended by 2,000 people, at the Central Opera House in Manhattan. It included the recitation of a poem by Aaron Kurtz and a “mass declamation” by a group from the Artef, the Arbayter Teater Farband, or Workers Theatre Group. The 224 delegates, from twenty-six cities in thirteen American states and two Canadian provinces, represented 122 organizations. In his opening convention address, which followed the singing of the “Internationale,” Elias Wattenberg contrasted the “catastrophic” life of the Jews in the capitalist countries, especially Poland, home to 3 million Jews, to that of the Jews in the ussr, who were living a free, healthy, and productive life. They owed this to the October Revolution, “and we should be proud and happy that we are taking part in this historic reconstruction work.” Israel Amter, one of the country’s leading Jewish Communists, greeted the convention in the name of the central committee of the American Communist Party. Leon Talmy reported to the delegates on behalf of the national executive. This was the first convention at which the organization was truly united, he said. “The work of the icor is tied to the socialist construction in the Soviet Union,” though concentrated specifically in the Jewish districts, particularly Birobidzhan. In its early years icor had worked with some Zionists, and even bourgeois elements, who had brought their “antiworker” ideology into the organization. The fourth national convention had placed icor on the correct path and put it firmly in the camp of the working class. It had given the lie to those who in 1929 had warned that by moving left icor would “isolate itself.” But Talmy admitted that icor had suffered ostracism in the larger Jewish community. There remained much to be done if it was to truly become a mass movement able to mobilize people to do more than just collect money.

60

Jerusalem on the Amur

icor’s two main tasks in the present circumstances, Talmy asserted, were to support the building of a socialist Birobidzhan and to counter the antiSoviet fascistic and chauvinistic forces within the Jewish community: “To carry on an energetic campaign against Zionism and other manifestations of fascism is a fight against the forces of social-fascism in the Jewish community.” Both in America and Europe, the Zionist “misleading illusions” were dying, thanks to the intensified economic and political crises. Zionism had been exposed as a collaborator with imperialist adventurism and as an enemy of the actual interests of the Jewish masses, whereas the incredible advances made by the Soviet Union, and its solution of the national question, had made a tremendous impression. icor could now point to the Jewish national districts in Ukraine and the Crimea and to the rapid socialist advances being made in Birobidzhan, which would soon make that region a Soviet Jewish republic. icor needed to mobilize the Jewish masses to defend the Soviet Union and counter the lies and slanders thrown out at it by the bourgeois and Zionist organizations and press. Of course, supporting the work in Birobidzhan remained icor’s primary raison d’être. Talmy reported on the progress being made in building the model socialist Icor commune, noting that the older Icor settlement had now amalgamated with it. The commune now had a population of 700 people; the settlement would be completed within two years. Since 1929, icor had presented Birobidzhan with two electric stations, an incubator capable of producing 32,000 eggs, machinery to fell timber, trench-digging equipment, a printing press, and cars and trucks. The whole situation in Birobidzhan had fundamentally changed since the fourth convention. There were now many agricultural collectives and industrial undertakings and a Jewish population of 6,000 that would, Talmy forecast, reach 8,000 by year’s end and 30,000 by the end of 1933. The delegates resolved to strengthen their work on behalf of Birobidzhan and the Soviet Union; to carry on an energetic campaign against Zionism, chauvinism, and social fascism; to involve themselves in actions to defend the Soviet Union; and to work among the broadest Jewish masses even, if possible, in organizations not friendly to the Soviet Union. At the close of the convention, a national executive of seventy people, thirty-seven of whom were from New York, was elected.32 The fifth national convention had also called on icor to bring the membership up to 25,000 in 1932 and had asked every icor member to enrol five new ones. The executive felt this was a realistic goal, given the immense interest now being shown in Birobidzhan. Groups in landsmanshaften and

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

61

professionals were forming new icor branches, and attendance at lectures and other icor activities was on the rise. icor was duty bound to bring to American Jews the news of the organization’s work in Birobidzhan, including its role in the new model settlement Icor. By 1933 some 40,000 to 50,000 Jews would be living in Birobidzhan, and some 6,000 from outside the ussr might also be admitted, stated the executive. The enemies of the Soviet Union were “grinding their teeth” in frustration as the colonization work proceeded. Already some 300,000 Jews were farming the land in the Crimea, Belarus, and Ukraine. More had been accomplished in a short time than in Palestine, where millions had been spent over the past half-century.33 “The eyes of the world are directed upon the Soviet Union,” stated one icor brochure published in both English and Yiddish in late 1931. While its enemies had “spread all kinds of baseless inventions” about Birobidzhan, 8,000 Jews had already settled there. icor informed its readers that the “Control Plan for 1932 provides for the immigration of 20,000 additional Jewish settlers in Biro-Bidjan.” As well, in 1931 “Biro-Bidjan was opened to hundreds of Jewish immigrants from capitalist countries. Many Jewish families from Lithuania, Argentina, the United States and Germany have found in Biro-Bidjan both a solution to their immediate economic problems, and an opportunity for the full development of their creative energies by participating in the building up of that new life which knows of no crisis and no unemployment. During the coming year of 1932, 6,000 Jewish immigrants from capitalist lands will be included among the 20,000 new Jewish settlers in Biro-Bidjan.” The pamphlet noted that, on 30 September 1931, the Central Executive Committee of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic had issued a decree to government offices and organizations to make sure that the Jewish population in Birobidzhan would soon be large enough to make possible, by 1933, the creation “of an autonomous Jewish Soviet Socialist Republic.”34 As Ab. Epstein, wrote to the membership, “We are doing a great historical project, we are helping to build socialism in the Soviet land, and with our effort we are helping build the socialist Birobidzhan.”35 On 27 March 1932, a plenum of the national executive was held in New York, preceded two days earlier by a banquet to celebrate the fourth anniversary of Birobidzhan. A month earlier Shloime Almazov had replaced Talmy, who later that year would immigrate to the Soviet Union, as national secretary. icor, said Almazov, had turned the corner and was becoming a force to be reckoned with. Some $25,000 had been collected, and equipment had been bought and sent to Birobidzhan, despite the

62

Jerusalem on the Amur

terrible economic conditions in the country.36 Ab. Epstein reported that fall that, in the first nine months of the year, 7,000 new members had joined icor. Still, the organization was nowhere near its goal of 25,000 members. He also noted that, while the Soviet Union had allocated more than a billion rubles for colonization in Birobidzhan since 1927, the second Five-Year Plan, which was to begin in 1933, would require even greater sums. It would also require the purchase of sophisticated machinery – machinery that was only available in capitalist countries and could only be paid for in their currencies. So the Soviets would still require help from external organizations such as icor.37 The national executive plenum met in New York on 16 October 1932, and it congratulated the membership on the spirited campaigns to defend the Soviet Union and to counter Zionism. While the condition of the Jewish masses in the capitalist world was growing worse by the day, and was especially dire in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Germany, the situation in the Soviet Union was improving for Jews, and the national executive was confident that by the end of 1933 Birobidzhan would be proclaimed a Jewish Soviet republic. No longer could the enemies of the project jest about a “few thousand” Jews who had been “tricked” into moving to Birobidzhan and who immediately wished to escape. The initial difficulties had been overcome, asserted the executive, and the pioneers were now committed to building a socialist Birobidzhan. Indeed, there were now immigrants from all over the world, with more arriving all the time; this meant that the earlier settlers had been sending back positive letters to their friends and relatives. The old Tikhonkaia, now the City of Birobidzhan, with a population of 7,000, boasted paved streets, sidewalks, electricity, factories, and administrative buildings. Other settlements in the region were growing just as quickly. The Soviet government planned to invest 1.3 billion rubles in agricultural and industrial development projects in Birobidzhan during the second Five-Year Plan. By the end of 1937 it expected Birobidzhan to achieve a population of 300,000, with 60,000 living in the capital. The national executive called on all Jews to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, which had freed Russian Jewry from tsarist oppression. icor, Almazov announced, with its correct political line, would in a short period of time become “one of the biggest mass organizations among the Jewish masses in America.” Instead of focusing only on the left-wing workers organizations, icor needed to involve itself more in the larger Jewish community, and especially in the landsmanshaften, whose tens of thousands of members were all potential recruits. Even in those organizations that were predominantly hostile to the Soviet Union, there were many sympa-

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

63

thetic members, and these friends should be drawn into icor’s work. In New York 235 meetings and lectures had been held in the previous six months, while Ab. Epstein, Charles Kuntz, and Shloime Almazov had undertaken national tours. Despite the terrible economy, $13,149 had been donated in the previous six months. Even so, icor would be cutting back its budget by $5,000 a year by eliminating some specialized committees at the national level. The plenum resolved to begin a campaign to raise another $50,000 for Birobidzhan and to concentrate on attracting more youth to icor.38 By the spring of 1932, Kuntz was back in Birobidzhan, reporting on the progress being made at the socialist commune Icor. A lumber industry was developing, a metallurgical works was in the planning stage, and he hoped that the woodworking factory would be in operation by June 1933. As well, a school for eighty children would soon open, and some 100 hectares were now under cultivation. He did, however, admit that there had been “serious” though not “fatal” failures in the work, with difficulties in organizing proper management, transport, and supply. Kuntz returned to New York in December and briefed icor at a meeting held on 23 December 1932.39 Medem’s third visit to Birobidzhan came in 1933. More Soviet youths had arrived with a mandate to industrialize the region as part of the first Five-Year Plan. Young women had answered the call for teachers and medical workers in the far east. Some of the arrivals were former Bundists, Poale Zionists, and assorted intellectuals. Medem met some Jews from Lithuania. They readily endured the hardships of the taiga and the lack of consumer goods. They were also schooled in agricultural knowledge. They were fighters, undaunted by the difficult tasks they faced, wrote Medem. “Yes, we will have to endure difficulties, until things get better!” one declared. Medem found it hard to say goodbye to these “warm comrades” and to the beautiful countryside, rivers, and hills of Birobidzhan. “I did not feel like leaving,” she wrote.40 Before departing for the Soviet Union, Leon Talmy provided a summary of the first four years of Jewish settlement in Birobidzhan. He noted that Birobidzhan was now known far and wide, beyond the borders of the Soviet Union; it was spoken of wherever Jewish workers lived. They knew it as a land of great possibilities, a living manifestation of the Soviet nationality policy and its vow to the Jewish masses that the foundations were being laid for the future Jewish Soviet socialist republic. Although Birobidzhan had been selected as an area for Jewish settlement in 1928, it was only at the end of 1929, following the report of the icor expedition, Talmy reminded people, that really large-scale immigration began.

64

Jerusalem on the Amur

In addition to the Icor commune, three Soviet collectives – Birofeld, Waldheim and Amurzet – had been established, and by 1930 there were more than 3,000 Jewish settlers and factories that marked the beginnings of industrialization. A Yiddish newspaper, the Birobidzhaner Shtern, had been founded. In 1931, the Jewish population had increased to 7,000, some of them coming from other countries, and 29,000 hectares of land were under cultivation, double the amount in 1927. icor was playing a “great role,” Talmy asserted, “in focusing the gaze of the Jewish masses on Birobidzhan and, tied in with this, bringing to the attention of the Jewish masses the message of the Leninist national policy of the Soviet Union, in contrast to the politics of national enmity, persecution and oppression in the capitalist countries.”41 Optimistic projections such as these could not fail to inspire the friends of Birobidzhan in North America. icor, stressed Charles Kuntz, “fully envisages the socialist reconstruction, the wholesale regeneration of Jewish life in the Soviet Union and the significance of Birobidjan in this respect.” In particular, the organization was supplying materials, machinery, and expertise in housing and road building, the areas of infrastructure most vital for further colonization. Kuntz was confident that “the poorer classes” of American Jews would “rally round the Icor.”42 As the fifth anniversary of the creation of Birobidzhan as a district for Jewish colonization drew near, Almazov, too, noted the accelerated pace of settlement. In 1932, an average of 1,100 were arriving each month, many from countries outside the ussr. icor had sent $250,000 worth of supplies that were “of immense value in the easing of the burden of toil for the Jewish Pioneers in Biro-Bidjan.” Friends of the colonization should continue to aid icor in its work, “so that more and more machines and tools may be sent.”43 Though much of icor’s work now centred on Birobidzhan, it continued to serve as a vehicle to mobilize Jews in support of the Soviet Union. icor reiterated that the classical symbol of the Jewish ghetto, the luftmensh, “the sorry fruit of the Czarist regime, the man without a productive occupation, without a present and without hope for a future, the man without roots in the economy of the country or in its social and cultural life, psychologically unsettled and spiritually pitiful,” was now becoming extinct in the new ussr, his place “taken by the new Jew, the creative toiler, the colonist on land, the labourer in the factory or in the mine, the creator of new values, the contributor to the common happiness, the master of his destiny in collective effort with his fellow toilers on land and at the machine, in manual or in spiritual exertion, the master shaping the new world of socialism.”44

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

65

icor contrasted the economic crisis in the capitalist world, including America, to the Soviet Union, where unemployment had been eliminated. The last remnants of poverty were being vanquished among Soviet Jews.45 Joseph Sultan, secretary of the Jewish Bureau of the cpusa, spoke to the 27 March 1932 national executive plenum about the dangers of war facing the Soviet Union. It passed a resolution calling on all its members to protest against any planned military offensive against the Soviet Union.46 The capitalist world had given Japan a free hand to conquer Manchuria, which would be used as a base to attack Soviet Russia in the east, just as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania were bases to attack the ussr from the west: “The liberated people of the Soviet Union must not again be enslaved. Along with the proletariat of the entire world, the Jewish working masses are ready to defend the only workers country.” The ussr “has not only secured for the Jews their political emancipation, but there is every effort made to put a firm economic foundation under their feet.” icor called on all its members to support the Friends of the Soviet Union and, if possible, participate in its work.47 Shloime Almazov added that the enemies of the Soviet Union continued to plot ways to effect its downfall, especially now that the success of the Five-Year Plan demonstrated the superiority of socialist construction over the economic crisis that had enveloped the capitalist world. Capitalists wanted to bring back the system of robbery and exploitation, racism and pogroms, inequality and bloodshed. Jewish workers knew that only in the Soviet Union had an end been made of the “Jewish question” and that it was necessary for them to enter the ranks of those willing to defend the Soviet Union: “Jewish workers, stand on guard!”48 icor also continued its battles against those who questioned the Soviet treatment of its Jewish population. It was outraged when 200 rabbis, meeting in Palestine, issued a call to make 27 March 1933 a day of protest against oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union. On 26 February icor had held a conference in New York, attended by 259 delegates, to decide what measures to take. Almazov read a list of “lies” being spread by the rabbis and denounced them as part of a clericalist attack on the workers’ state: “We have to unmask them and clarify to the broad Jewish masses their dark powers.” The conference concluded that the role of rabbis as accomplices of capitalism and the enemies of the Soviet Union needed to be emphasized; as well, icor needed to demonstrate that not only was Jewish life not being obstructed in the Soviet Union but that, on the contrary, a process had been put into effect to strengthen the life of the Jewish masses. The conference participants condemned the rabbis and their Zionist allies, such as the poet Khaim Nakhman Bialik, for their unfounded accusations

66

Jerusalem on the Amur

against the Soviet Union. Why were they not instead calling attention to the growing danger to Jews from the “terror regime” in Poland, from Romania, and from Hitler’s Germany?49 The organization published a pamphlet criticizing the rabbis and accusing them of having been spies for the tsar and servants of capital and reaction. They had become part of an orchestrated anti-Soviet campaign mounted by the country’s enemies and were “doing the work that the capitalist rulers of the world wanted.” The Soviet Union had made pogroms impossible, had given Jews full equality with all the other peoples in the country, and had put an end to national and racial hatred. Jewish cultural institutions and the Yiddish language were stronger than ever before, while in capitalist countries, such as Poland and Romania, Jewish life was marked by pogroms and antiSemitism. Yet the rabbis were criticizing not these countries but, rather, the Soviet Union; this was because they were bitter enemies of the workers’ country and loyal handmaidens of the rulers of the capitalist countries. “But the broad Jewish masses are ridding themselves of you,” stated icor. “The broad Jewish masses want to defend the only workers’ country and will rebuff all attacks on it by its enemies, who want to destroy the country that no longer knows of pogroms. The country where there is no longer denial of rights, no longer oppression and persecution of national minorities.”50 The 26 March 1932 national executive committee plenum denounced the campaign of the rabbis and Zionists in Palestine against the Soviet Union. The delegates also denounced Japanese imperialism in China. Almazov stated that icor would certainly play a very vital role in mobilizing the Jewish masses in America in the defence of the Soviet Union, in the battle against Zionism, and in providing aid to the Jews suffering in various capitalist countries.51 The sixteenth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution was celebrated with a forty-eight-page issue of ICOR in November 1933. Many articles were devoted to describing the great socialist achievements in the Soviet Union and, especially, in Birobidzhan. Moishe Katz noted that, in the Soviet Union, Jews could now attain the highest positions: the commissar for foreign affairs, Maxim Litvinov, was a Jew. But, he added, this was not seen as an issue in the Soviet Union, given the freedom that had been accorded every nationality, in contrast to the situation in capitalist countries, where there were ruling ethnicities that oppressed others. Under the leadership of the Leninist Communist Party, the Soviet Union had put an end to all oppression of nation by nation, of person by person.52 Shloime Almazov, in

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

67

the English section, described the “colossal” achievements in agriculture and industry in the Soviet Union and assured readers that the country had solved the problem of its national minorities. “The entire life of the Jews in the ussr was completely transformed.” From middlemen and shopkeepers, they had been transformed into “productive and useful” citizens working in farms, in factories, and in government.53 icor held another plenum of the national executive in New York on 25 March 1934, joined by delegates representing iwo branches, workers’ clubs, and landsmanshaften. National Secretary Shloime Almazov noted the remarkable cultural and economic progress being made in the Soviet Union and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the ussr. In response to these developments, however, the enemies of the Soviet Union, who were trying to induce a war fever, had intensified rather than diminished their attacks: the greater the accomplishments of the ussr, the “wilder their cries” and “the greater the appetite of these bloodthirsty dogs to sink their fangs into the only workers state.” Hitler, now in power in Germany, had begun to plot the expansion of Germany into the territory of the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, and relations between the two countries were becoming strained. In the east, Japanese militarists were also provoking the Soviets in order to have a pretext for an attack. It was, therefore, ever more important to mobilize the masses to defend the Soviet Union in a time of increasing danger. icor, Almazov told the gathering, “was in the forefront of those organizations that demanded an authentic struggle against fascism.” Defeating fascism would require a united effort among all sectors of the working class. In many cities, it had been icor branches that took the initiative in organizing anti-fascist conferences, lectures, and demonstrations in front of German consulates. Almazov warned the delegates that in America, too, the “fascist animal rears its head”: anti-Semitic and fascist organizations were “sprouting like mushrooms after a rain.” Yet the bourgeois Jewish groups and the circles around the Forverts were not interested in truly combating fascism. The delegates ought never to lose sight of the fact that the building of Birobidzhan was possible only as part of the overall Soviet development; it constituted, Almazov stressed, “one ring in a golden chain of great achievements in the Soviet effort to reconstruct the entire life of the Jewish masses in new and productive directions. We underscore all the time, and in the future we should underline this even more clearly, that only in the Soviet Union have the problem of all peoples been solved and that only there has the long-suffering ‘Jewish Question’ been put to rest.” While “love for the

68

Jerusalem on the Amur

Soviet Union was constantly increasing” the more that the Jewish masses learned about its solution of the “Jewish question,” it remained necessary to “mobilize the Jewish masses” and to carry on the struggle against its enemies, in particular against the social fascists grouped around the “yellow” Forverts. It was the duty of icor “to carry on an uncompromising campaign” against “anti-Soviet forces on the Jewish street.” They spread the coarsest lies, the wildest fables, the ramblings of the gutter, in order to besmirch the Soviet Union. Thanks to Zionist politics, Almazov contended, Palestine had become yet another corner of the world with a “Jewish question.” The Zionist “solution” was in fact no solution to the crisis facing Jews in the capitalist countries. Zionism misled Jews and diverted their attention away from their immediate struggles for justice and equality in the countries where they lived. “We need to demonstrate,” he declared, “that Zionist politics, which consists of seizing the land and seizing the work” of the Arabs, “is one hundred percent fascism.” The situation in Palestine could only culminate in catastrophe. Given the increasingly volatile situation in the world, the plenum decided that it was necessary to mobilize the broadest possible sections of the Jewish community to defend the Soviet Union, to combat fascism and Zionism, and to support the work of building a new Jewish existence in the Soviet Union in general and Birobidzhan in particular. The plenum condemned the Zionist movement for what was termed its collaboration, through trade, with the murderous Hitler regime and for its dealings with fascist Italy and Poland, enemies of the Soviet Union. A resolution was passed calling Zionism “part of the international fascist movement.” The plenum decided that the months of May, July, and September 1934 were to be devoted, respectively, to anti-fascist, pro-Soviet, and antiZionist work. Literature specific to these campaigns would be produced and disseminated. The gathering also resolved to send a fifteen-person delegation, including eight factory workers, to the Soviet Union to familiarize themselves with the life of the Jewish masses. Almazov was hopeful that the ever-increasing affection the Jewish masses were exhibiting towards the Soviet Union would enable icor to grow into a mass organization. The Soviet Union, he concluded, was the hope and the light for all the oppressed peoples of the world, as opposed to the dark fascism that enslaved the working masses and “fanned the flames of national hatred, anti-Semitism, [and] pogroms” and that demonstrated “a bloodthirstiness that knew no bounds.”54

The Sectarian Years, 1929–35

69

The 565 delegates that gathered in New York from 8 to 10 February 1935 for the sixth national icor convention celebrated ten years of icor. Shloime Almazov, in his report on icor’s work, described the great achievements in Birobidzhan and pointed to the solidarity being shown by the other Soviet peoples and republics in regard to its work. Among the Jewish masses in America, Birobidzhan had become “the topic of the day.” Tens of thousands realized that “before their very eyes history was being made – history of a character that demonstrated that in the country of the proletariat the way had been found to the complete liberation and brotherhood of all peoples.” icor had special reason to be pleased with the economic and political advances in Birobidzhan. It was the first organization in America that had called upon the Jewish masses to bind themselves to the building of Birobidzhan: “We are partners in this great holiday.” From the first, he continued, quoting Lenin, icor supported the Soviet approach to the solution of national minority rights: “We believe that all other remedies to the national problem are either groundless or misleading.” Thus icor opposed Zionist theories that, without their own state, minorities such as the Jews must always suffer from anti-Semitism. Zionism misled the Jewish masses into thinking that they could not demand equal rights wherever they lived: “Zionism sought to build a wall [mekhitze] between Jewish workers and the workers of other nationalities, in order to weaken their joint struggle against exploitation and oppression.” Zionism simply stoked the fires of chauvinism and anti-Semitism. Almazov made it clear that, while icor fought the chauvinistic and nationalistic excesses of Zionism, it was not an enemy of the Jewish yishuv in Palestine, any more than it was an enemy of any other Jewish community in the capitalist world. Almazov reminded the convention of the material help icor had been providing for the reconstruction of Jewish life in the Soviet Union. Between 1924 and 1928, $60,000 worth of money and material had been sent to the colonies in the Crimea, Ukraine, and White Russia. As for Birobidzhan, a quarter of a million dollars worth of goods and materials had flowed to the region. icor’s steadfast support, despite its being mocked by enemies who threw “dirt” at it, had now been vindicated. Almazov hoped that a projected icor delegation to Birobidzhan would help to tie the Jewish masses in the United States to the pioneers. Since the previous national convention forty months earlier, the battle against fascism and anti-Semitism had become a very important issue. icor had thrown itself into the fight against the Pilsudski regime in Poland and

70

Jerusalem on the Amur

Hitler’s Nazi Germany. As fascism spread its tentacles across Europe, becoming “more wild from day to day,” it was essential that icor stand behind the Soviet Union in the struggle to fend off its enemies, Almazov said. Clearly, many Jews were answering the call, and Almazov announced that icor now had 19,000 members in eighty-five different branches.55 icor (and Ambijan) would now enter a period of great growth. In 1935, faced with the Nazi challenge, Stalin had instructed the Comintern to focus on the fascist threat and to legitimate the collaboration of Communists with liberals in a wide array of “popular front” groups rather than to stress proletarian revolution; the following decade would see a general relaxation of ideological rigour. The United States was especially important as a potential Soviet ally against Germany and Japan; as Earl Browder, then general secretary of the cpusa, later remarked, the party “rapidly moved out of its extreme leftist sectarianism ... towards the broadest united front tactics of reformism for strictly limited immediate aims.”56 Among the Jewish Communists, this meant a softening of the previous political line condemning wholesale such “enemies” as social democrats and, especially, Zionists; indeed, the campaign against Zionism and social democracy was to a large degree suspended. The increased strength of fascist regimes in Europe, in which Jews were economically trapped and physically threatened, made the ussr seem ever more the only beacon of hope. After all, according to the Jewish Communists, Jews in Soviet Russia had full national-cultural rights, including a territory of their own in Birobidzhan with Yiddish as its official language. icor and Ambijan would prosper and succeed “in stirring up a great deal of interest for the Jewish region in the Soviet far east.”57 This would also hold true for the Canadian icor, which became an independent organization that same year.

The First Decade, 1925–35

4 Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

For many Jewish immigrant radicals in Canada, their actual country of residence was irrelevant: in their own minds, they lived in “America.” It was natural, then, that Canadian supporters of Birobidzhan readily involved themselves in the work of icor; in fact, the Canadian icor at first functioned as a section of the United States-based organization. From 1917 on, many Canadian Jews gave uncritical support to the country that emerged from the Bolshevik Revolution. Some even moved to the ussr to take part in the building of a socialist society.1 A significant minority became involved, either as members or sympathizers, with the Communist Party of Canada (cpc). Founded in 1921, the cpc by 1927 had formed a national Jewish Bureau, a subcommittee of the party’s central committee, with members in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg.2 According to historian David Rome, the Jewish group was the most vital faction in the Canadian Communist movement: “It was a total society with its own political and cultural institutes.”3 The Jewish Communists, in particular, felt duty-bound to “counteract the nationalist, imperialist Zionist movement” by demonstrating that the Soviet Union had “the only true and sensible solution” to the “national question.” Winnipeg’s North End, home to most of that city’s 15,000 or so Jews, was a hotbed of radical politics, and among the Jews, its cultural life was dominated by secular Yiddishists, to the extent that “the strongest of Winnipeg’s Jewish political organizations ... were leftist.” 4 As the Winnipeg district bureau of the cpc stated in a resolution passed at a meeting in January 1930, it was necessary to rally Jewish support for the ussr “upon the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people.”5 Indeed, the struggle between Jewish Communists and their opponents for leadership of the Jewish working class was “a hallmark of the immigrant community in the inter-war period.”6

72

Jerusalem on the Amur

In his study of the American Jewish left, Arthur Liebman has referred to the various Jewish fraternal orders, newspapers, and unions grouped around the Communist Party as having constituted a distinct “Jewish Left subculture.”7 This was also the case in Canada. Communists active in the Jewish community encouraged the formation of organizations that would appeal to Jews interested in preserving their Jewish culture in non-Zionist ways. Their strategy was to combat ethnic nationalism while harnessing feelings of Jewish identity to the class struggle. A variety of these “front” organizations operated in the Jewish community, especially among its large urban working class. Yiddish-language pro-Soviet groups, comprised mainly of eastern European working-class immigrants, were in particular concerned with Soviet treatment of its Jewish population and were impressed by the decision to found a national Jewish territory in the far east. Organizations such as the Friends of the Soviet Union (fsu), formed in 1930, grew in numbers and influence in the Jewish community. Specifically Jewish groups were also created as tension between anti-Soviet social democrats and pro-Soviet radicals grew, particularly in the wc (Arbayter Ring), which had, in 1922 at its Toronto national conference, condemned Soviet-style Communism. In 1923, the Jewish Communists in Toronto opened a Frayhayt club and organized the Jewish Women’s Labour League (Yidishe Arbayter Froyen Farayn), which raised money to buy tractors for Birobidzhan. The Froyen Farayn also organized a children’s camp, Kindervelt, on Lake Ontario in 1925. One year later, the Communists broke away from the wc altogether and formed the Labour League.8 In Winnipeg, radical Jewish women formed the Muter Farayn, or Mother’s League, in 1919.9 The Jewish Communists also founded a weekly newspaper, Der Kamf, in November 1924.10 Shloime Almazov, the national secretary of icor in the United States, had himself begun his career as a radical while in Canada. Born in 1889 in Rovno, Ukraine, he had come to Winnipeg in 1913 and soon thereafter joined the Social Democratic Party of Canada. As a student at the University of Manitoba, Almazov, who in Winnipeg sometimes went by the name Moses, rose to prominence in that city’s radical Jewish milieu. According to Roz Usiskin, Almazov’s “organizational skills and his fiery oratory earned him respect among all elements within the Jewish community.” In a debate with the Poale Zionists held on 1 April 1918, he denounced the Balfour Declaration, insisting that socialism, not Zionism, would secure cultural fulfilment and social equality for Jews. A year later, Almazov was one of only two delegates to the first Canadian Jewish Congress, which convened in Montreal in March 1919, who refused to endorse a resolution approving a

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

73

British mandate for Palestine. “I do not believe that the Imperialistic ambitions of Britain or of France can help the Jewish people,” he told the congress, prompting many in the audience to call loudly for his expulsion from the hall.11 A few months later, Almazov was involved in the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike, was arrested as an “alien,” was charged with seditious conspiracy, and spent two months in jail.12 He moved to Toronto and was soon teaching at the Russian Workers’ School on Dundas Street, a “thoroughly Bolshevistic” establishment, according to an informant.13 The rcmp remained convinced that he and others active at the school were “dangerous men.”14 While working in the garment industry in Toronto, Almazov became “one of the first organizers for a Communist party.” He moved to New York in 1922, where he began writing for the Frayhayt.15 Two years later he would help found icor . While the icor branches in Canada did not form a separate national organization until 1935, they quickly gained supporters following the creation of the us organization in 1924. In Toronto, fifty-nine delegates from twenty-two organizations met on 15 February 1925 and formed a sixteen-person icor committee under S. Dreeze and Sam Lapedes. On 19 February a “mass meeting” was held in Ottawa to raise money for icor. The Ottawa branch selected as its secretary A. Levitin. On 15 March a conference in Montreal, attended by thirty-six delegates representing twenty organizations, including wc branches and union locals, established its own icor committee, with Avrom Feldman as secretary. A month of enthusiastic door-to-door canvassing in Montreal culminated, on 16 April, in a mass meeting addressed by Ab. Epstein, who had been appointed national organizer of icor in Canada. Meetings were also held in Windsor and Winnipeg.16 N. Teminson, secretary of the new Winnipeg icor, sent a very detailed report to the journal ICOR, describing the excitement felt in the city when it was learned that the Soviet government would go beyond ameliorative measures to help Jews who had been harmed during the pogroms and the civil war, and had decided to “put on the agenda the question of how to secure the whole future of millions of Jewish souls on a solid foundation, so that the people who had tried to earn a living through trade, in an uncertain fashion, could now be settled on the land.” Members of the Winnipeg community had come together to form an icor group and, thus, become part of “the national body that had spontaneously been formed on the entire American continent with the single goal of helping the Jewish colonization in Soviet Russia.” A Winnipeg conference was called for 12 April 1925 at the Liberty Temple, and eighty-five organizations were invited;

74

Jerusalem on the Amur

nineteen sent delegates. An executive committee was elected, wrote Teminson, and the newly established icor decided to send a representative to the forthcoming national icor convention in New York. The committee organized two house-to-house canvasses, handing out 8,000 leaflets and about 800 journals sent from the head office in New York. The committee also presented a play, Der Blutiker Gelekhter, by the German Jewish playwright Ernst Toller. At a second conference, held on 17 January 1926, the Winnipeg icor undertook to establish twenty-five Jewish families on the land in Soviet Russia. The conference elected various officials, including Dr Benjamin A. Victor as president, Joseph Litman and Y. Dworkin as vice-presidents, and L. Gutkin as treasurer. The new financial secretary, V. Ornstein, notified the New York office that 224 shares in the icor Holding Corporation had been sold between 12 April 1925 and 11 January 1926. Altogether, $1,241.47 had come in, of which $824.50 was sent on to New York.17 Ab. Epstein had been appointed national organizer of icor on 15 February 1925 and a week later embarked on a tour of thirty-five American and Canadian cities, including Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Hamilton. Moishe Katz, the American icor activist and one of the editors of the Morgn Frayhayt, also undertook a tour of Canadian cities to raise money to send tractors to Jewish farm settlements. When 122 delegates from thirty-two cities met in New York on 30 April and 1 May 1925 for icor’s first national convention, there were representatives from Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, and Winnipeg. Mainstream Canadian opinion seemed favourable to the new movement: the Kanader Adler chastised both the right-wing socialists and the Zionists for opposing icor and suggested that helping Jews become farmers was a good idea. At the New York meetings, the national secretary of icor, Elias Wattenberg, noted that the Yidishe Shtime in Winnipeg had also commented favourably on the work and goals of icor. All in all, noted Wattenberg, “Canada occupies quite a respected place in our financial reports, as well as in the reports regarding the activities of the committees, which are in place in all the locations with a Jewish population, such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and even Hamilton and Windsor.” The convention elected a fifty-five-member national executive, with two members from Canada: M. Tsherniovsky from Montreal and Philip Halperin from Toronto.18 Among the twenty icor delegations at the second national icor convention held in New York between 19 and 21 February 1926 were representatives from Montreal and Toronto. Abraham Nisnevitz of Toronto made one of the opening speeches, while Y. Israelovitch was elected to the

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

75

resolutions committee. Wattenberg reported that various icor speakers had gone on national tours and had visited Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Hamilton, and Winnipeg. At the conclusion of the convention, Israelovitch of Montreal and Nisnevitz of Toronto were both elected to the sixty-person national executive.19 Ottawa’s icor reported that its committee had sold more than fifty shares and had brought in $300, and more was raised at a garden party. “For Ottawa, that’s quite good,” stated Levitin. The committee was meeting twice a month, and its members were trying to sell shares or, failing that, to get donations. Windsor’s icor secretary, M. Rapoport, reported that the branch also hosted Ab. Epstein at a successful meeting and, as of 6 January, had sold thirty shares. According to Nisnevitz, in Toronto a number of landsmanshaften, union locals, wc branches, Marxist clubs, and the Left Poale Zion had come out in support of icor. From 15 February 1925 to 9 February 1926, the Toronto icor sold 144 shares for a total of $1,450.20 N. Teminson of Winnipeg, M. Klig of Toronto, and S. Koch and A. Feldman of Montreal were among the delegates to the third national icor convention in Philadelphia on 30 December 1927 to 1 January 1928. Koch suggested that icor make a greater effort to draw bourgeois Jews into its work as they could donate more money to the organization than could working-class Jews. The national executive reported on icor’s work and noted that the organization now had a presence in Edmonton, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Saskatoon, Toronto, Vancouver, Windsor, and Winnipeg. Except in Saskatoon, icor committees were all functioning well. Winnipeg was one of only five North American cities with a women’s committee; the group had 160 members and on its own initiative had sent a tractor to the Soviet Union. Winnipeg also had a youth club. The new national executive committee of sixty elected at the Philadelphia convention included Teminson and Dr Victor of Winnipeg, Klig and S. Elentoff of Toronto, and Koch of Montreal.21 icor declared 19 to 27 May 1928 an “icor week,” the purpose of which was to celebrate and make “a good beginning” to the work of explaining the Birobidzhan project to the Jewish masses of America. The hundreds of thousands of friends of Jewish colonization in the United States and Canada should want to take part, stated the organization; indeed, it was their duty. Leon Talmy exhorted members to demonstrate the determination of the Jewish masses in America to work towards the construction of an autonomous Jewish Soviet centre. As well, icor was organizing tours by Reuben Brainin, Ab. Victor, Ab. Epstein, and Moishe Katz, among others, with lectures in fifty cities. Katz

76

Jerusalem on the Amur

had just returned from the Soviet Union, and among the cities he visited were Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, and Winnipeg. Katz noted that, despite some pessimism among the Hamilton icor leadership prior to his arrival, a crowd of more than 150 came to hear him. In Toronto about 700 people turned out, demonstrating a very lively interest in icor and its work. However, the Poale Zionists had now left the Toronto icor and had founded their own group, the “Prokor,” which was being mocked as the “anti-icor.” Katz called them “active enemies” whose only goal was to take over icor for their own ends. In Winnipeg, which Katz visited between 12 and 15 May, he discovered a true “icor spirit.” No other city on his tour in either the United States or Canada, he wrote, had been as prepared for his visit or had utilized it as well as had Winnipeg. icor had held its annual bazaar from 11 to 14 February 1928 and published a souvenir booklet. As well, the B’nai Abraham Free Loan Society showed its enthusiastic support of the Jewish colonization effort in Birobidzhan by providing $1,250 for the purchase of a tractor that icor would send there. During his four-day stay Katz made nine appearances. Many different organizations took part in one of the conferences he attended, thus demonstrating the strength of icor in Winnipeg. He hoped other cities would emulate its example.22 In the spring of 1928, Ab. Victor visited thirteen cities in the American far west and in western Canada, including Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnipeg. He was greeted warmly by the Vancouver activists and saw the membership of that branch double in numbers as the result of a single meeting. New icor branches were established in Calgary and Regina; in Edmonton, where an icor committee was already in existence, a mass meeting resulted in ten new members joining. The Winnipeg icorists were, Victor wrote, already very well informed and very loyal to the organization’s policies.23 A Winnipeg icor activist, Y. Waldman, himself made a tour of the west, travelling in July to Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, and Vancouver as well as to American west coast cities.24 The icor national office provided a summary of all of the monies that had been collected by the various branches, from the creation of icor until 15 April 1928. The sum total from the 107 North American locations was $162,613.42. Not surprisingly, New York City led the list, with $53,990.80. Los Angeles was second, with $13,042. But Winnipeg was third, having contributed $7,134.25, including the B’nai Abraham Free Loan Society’s contribution.25 At the national executive plenum held on 24 June 1928 in New York, national secretary Leon Talmy reported that icor had received favourable

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

77

l. to r.: Sam Lapedes, manager, Der Kamf; Sam Carr, national organizer, Communist Party; Norman Freed, cp functionary; Bill Sidney, trade union organizer; and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1928 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

coverage in Der Kamf of Toronto, in the Kanader Adler of Montreal, and in the Yidishe Vort of Winnipeg.26 Winnipeg had produced a bazaar journal, while in Toronto a special edition of Der Kamf had appeared to publicize icor week in May.27 In late 1928 the national executive had decided to mount a special threemonth campaign to raise $150,000, and much was expected from Canada.28 On 21 December 1928, Ab. Epstein set out for another North American tour of twenty cities to seek support for the campaign. He would stop in Montreal from 24 to 25 December, Ottawa on 26 December, Toronto from 30 to 31 December, Hamilton on 1 January 1929, and Windsor on 6 January. Epstein carried with him slides from the gezerd movie Yidn Oyf Erd. His visits were “a great success, and everywhere he went he left behind a strong spirit.”29 The Ottawa icor had met on 14 November 1928 to organize itself for his visit, and his speech resulted in fourteen new members. In Winnipeg, activity centred on the bazaar held from 29 November to 2 December. Toronto’s icor reorganized itself, held a concert on 25 November, and awaited Epstein’s visit at the end of December. His appearance left a “strong impression” on the 300 people who came to hear him. In Hamilton, over 200 people showed up to hear him – “a rarity for that city.”

78

Jerusalem on the Amur

l. to r.: Max Dolgoy and Annie Dolgoy, Communist activists; Joshua Gershman; and Labl Basman, Winnipeg, 1929 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

Windsor saw a crowd of 175 people, and icor activists felt they would meet their quota for the campaign. As for Montreal, Epstein spoke at three different venues and attracted 1,000 people. The local icor had earlier held a concert and large meeting, featuring as its speaker Gina Medem, the prominent American Jewish Communist.30 The Winnipeg icor had “a great influence in the city” and, as usual, had done exceedingly well. Its campaign had opened in December with a mass meeting addressed by Reuben Brainin, followed in January with a visit by Epstein. On 3–4 February there were street collections and, on 28 April, a concert. In Montreal the campaign commenced on 24 February with a mass meeting that was addressed by A.S. Sachs. In Toronto fund-raising continued with a concert scheduled for 4 May. Of the smaller chapters, icor particularly singled out the newly formed Niagara chapter under

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

79

the energetic leadership of Abraham Gampel, a storekeeper, and the Edmonton chapter. The national office extended the campaign, and, by the end of the summer, $75,882.93 had come in. Of this amount, Winnipeg had contributed $4,700, behind only New York, southern California, and Detroit, and ahead of cities such as Boston, Chicago, and Baltimore.31 The Winnipeg icor sent a message to the fourth national icor convention, which met from 27 to 29 December 1929 in New York, calling for it to adopt a political line that would enable the Jewish masses to participate in the building of a Jewish socialist republic in the Soviet Union. A message from the Toronto icor stated that the branch hoped that the convention would emphasize that the building of Birobidzhan was an important issue for the Jewish masses of North America. The convention heard from Leon Talmy on the state of the organization, including its Canadian component. In Canada, Winnipeg already had two branches. Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, Kitchener, Montreal, Niagara District, Ottawa, Regina, Toronto, Vancouver, and Windsor had one branch each. There were small groups of sympathizers in Halifax and Welland. Talmy also reported on icor’s finances. Of the monies collected by icor between 15 December 1927 and 15 December 1929 – a total of $142,436 – Winnipeg had contributed $9,321.25, the third highest amount, behind only New York and Los Angeles. At the close of the convention, two Canadians, Israel Hershbain of Montreal (a bicycle manufacturer who was a staunch supporter of icor) and Abraham Nisnevitz were elected to the seventy-three-member national executive.32 icor had organized a printers committee, also known as the Typographical icor Committee, in March 1929 under the auspices of the New York City Committee. It had at first raised money to send tractors to Birobidzhan. The Printers Committee soon decided, however, that it would be more appropriate to help Birobidzhan by donating printing machinery and equipment. J. Burakoff, the secretary, sent out an appeal: “Let Us Help Build a Press in Biro Bidzhan.” In March 1931, Professor Kuntz transmitted to the icor Printers Committee a request from Birobidzhan for a printing press, which would enable the Birobidzhaner Shtern “to spread the printed word” among the builders of Birobidzhan.33 Avrom Feldman, secretary of the icor Printers Committee of Montreal, formed in 1932, announced that its eight members had begun collecting money for a linotype machine that would be donated to Birobidzhan.34 New Canadian icor branches were being established even as the existing ones expanded their work. By 1929, members of Branch 607 of the wc in

80

Jerusalem on the Amur

Edmonton had formed an icor branch, which pledged to raise $500 as part of the $150,000 North American campaign. The Women’s Progressive Club held a bazaar to raise money for icor.35 On 26 May 1929, to celebrate the first anniversary of the Birobidzhan project, the Toronto icor Committee held a mass meeting and concert at the Jewish Workers’ Cultural Centre, 7 Brunswick Avenue. A singer, pianist, actors, and members of the Toronto Proletarian Writers’ Circle participated in the evening’s entertainment. The leaflet publicizing the event spoke of the “new wonderful life” the pioneers in Birobidzhan were creating for themselves. They were also creating a place for thousands of homeless and jobless Jewish workers from other capitalist countries. The Toronto meeting also honoured the recently deceased Peter Smidovitch, a vice-president of the Supreme Soviet who had been active in gezerd since 1925 and had helped with the development of Birobidzhan.36 The Toronto icor held fund-raising campaigns on 8 and 15 December 1929. Involved with icor were members of the Labour League, the Jewish Women’s Labour League, various unions, the Communist Party, and the Young Communist League. The branch had already collected $200 as part of its obligation to raise $2,000 as its share of a new $200,000 campaign for Birobidzhan. However, it reported that the “waves of nationalism and chauvinism that resulted from the events in Palestine” had weakened the Toronto icor by putting it in a defensive position. Its unity had been shattered and the committee, as a result, had been reorganized. The branch asked for help from all those who “take to heart the great work in the Soviet Union” to resettle Jews in the “immense” territory of Birobidzhan. Montreal’s icor carried out a successful fund-raising campaign on 13 October 1929 and held an organizational conference on 13 April 1930 to attract new members. In Winnipeg, canvassing was also carried out on 13 October 1929, and a very successful bazaar was held from 25 to 26 November, “despite the uproar that had been created by the events in Palestine.” The Winnipeg icor also hosted two well-attended meetings in December with Professor Charles Kuntz, back from Birobidzhan, who discussed the Experts Commission findings. On 9 March 1930, Talmy visited Winnipeg and reported on the December 1929 national convention. Another conference was held on 15 April and a concert on 20 April. By May 1930 Winnipeg had raised one-quarter of its quota of $6,000. Overall, though, the $200,000 campaign was not going well across North America. Just $38,000 had been raised by 28 April 1930. In Canada, even Winnipeg, at $1,450, had raised less than expected. The national executive blamed this poor showing on the effects of the Depression and on the anti-

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

81

Soviet campaign generated by the Zionists following the 1929 events in Palestine, which had placed many icor sympathizers on the defensive.37 As well, the cpc had begun to hew to the “class against class” policies, as laid down by the Comintern in 1928.38 This change of direction also affected the “front” groups and was reflected in icor, where the new demands of ideological purity drove out many lukewarm supporters or those suspected of political deviation.39 Still, news about Birobidzhan and the work of icor was being covered even in the general press. The Toronto Daily Star carried an interview with Professor Charles Kuntz when he spoke to the Toronto icor in January 1930. In the interview, Kuntz, who had just returned from a fifteen-month sojourn in Birobidzhan, declared that, within a few years, Birobidzhan would become home to 500,000 Jews. The Soviets would give each settler 2,000 rubles and a twenty-four hectare farm. “The land is virgin, covered in many places with primeval forests,” he said. “The ‘Icor’ will supply the machinery to help their brethren in Russia to return to the soil ... We hope to aid thousands of Jewish people in Russia who, since the revolution, have been destitute.”40 On 11 May 1930, the national executive met in a plenum in New York to discuss the progress of the $200,000 fundraising campaign and the situation in Birobidzhan. Talmy said that the anti-Soviet campaign was now so intense that in many cities icor branches were being refused permission to rent halls for events. The non-Communists who had been part of icor before 1930, and who had wanted to appropriate the Birobidzhan project in the name of the “Jewish people,” had now become its bitter enemies; Talmy noted that some of these opponents were from Winnipeg. The organization had also been weakened in Niagara Falls and Hamilton, where fund-raising had for the moment almost ceased. The organization had countered with a protest campaign against the anti-Soviet agitation in many cities, including Winnipeg. Talmy noted that Kuntz had visited Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto; Ab. Epstein had visited Montreal; and he himself had been to Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. According to Epstein, “the most active among our enemies are the Poale Zion.” In some cities they had gone so far as to inform on icor volunteers to the police, he said.41 At the 5 October national plenum in New York, Talmy reported on the financial state of the organization. The first few months had seen little money come in. Talmy attributed this, first, to the terrible economic situation in the country following the stock market crash a year earlier and, second, to the anti-Soviet attacks launched by the Jewish press and the

82

Jerusalem on the Amur

Zionists, who were misrepresenting the facts about Birobidzhan and claiming that Jews did not want to settle there. As well, following the December 1929 convention, some of the wealthier contributors to the organization had left. But of late things had improved: since 1 May, $23,895.10 had come in for the campaign; as usual, the largest donation within Canada — $1,750 – came from the Winnipeg icor.42 In November 1930, Ab. Epstein returned via the Pacific from a threeweek visit to Birobidzhan. Arriving in Vancouver, he immediately embarked on a three-month tour of forty-nine North American cities, including Toronto, Hamilton, and Windsor. His visit, reported the Vancouver icor, was “a great moral and financial success, given the small Jewish community here. The audience packed into the Sholem Aleichem Institute here had with deep attention listened to Comrade Epstein’s detailed speech. It was an outstanding report that illustrated the bright sides and great possibilities of Biro-bidzhan and – the darker sides and difficulties that need to be overcome and defeated. He made a very good impression even on those opposed.”43 Ab. Victor had been in Hamilton, Toronto, and Windsor.44 His visit to Toronto on 18 December brought out 400 people, wrote the secretary, Y. Zelyanski, and his speech made a very strong impression on the audience.45 icor sent greetings to the new Soviet in Birobidzhan, as did many of its branches across Canada. Abraham Nisnevitz said, “The Toronto icor committee and all of our members partake in this holiday.” Wrote V. Bekenshtein, a bookkeeper and secretary of the Windsor icor, “Your victory is the victory of the world proletariat!”46 With his wife and three children, Bekenshtein would emigrate to Birobidzhan a year later.47 In Winnipeg, on 19 April 1931, icor held a conference attended by delegates from a large number of unions, landsmanshaften, the Communist Party, and other organizations. Arguments ensued as to whether icor should concentrate on propaganda work on behalf of the ussr or work primarily to raise money for the Jewish colonization effort. It was decided that both were necessary and, in fact, intertwined. The delegates passed a resolution supporting the Soviet efforts to solve the Jewish question in the Soviet Union through the rebuilding of Jewish life on a productive basis. They applauded the work being done to speed up the construction of Birobidzhan as part of the Five-Year Plan. The conference also resolved to do its part to create a model socialist community in Birobidzhan. Finally, it denounced the negative articles appearing in the bourgeois press, while commending the Communist newspapers Der Kamf and Morgn Frayhayt for their coverage and support of the colonization movement. The Winnipeg

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

83

icor had carried out a number of activities and meetings, including a visit from Gina Medem, who was on a major North American tour, and this despite the “great problems” it had faced from elements in opposition to icor’s political line. Gina Medem had also visited Edmonton, where she persuaded many Zionists to rethink their position on Birobidzhan. The icor secretary, Y. Levin, was convinced that, as a result of her visit, the Zionists in the city had lost ground. However, those Zionists who remained fervent were all the more intent on hindering the work of icor; the Poale Zion activists, especially, were livid. “The time is near when the broad Jewish masses will realize that Zionism is no more and no less than adventurism,” Levin predicted. As well, Gina Medem gave two lectures in Calgary while on tour. The secretary, H.D. Berson, reported that the local icor held a musical evening at which 110 members were registered and a committee of twelve was elected to oversee the work of the branch.48 In advance of the fifth national convention in New York, icor announced that it had raised $97,003 towards the $200,000 campaign by 15 October 1931. Of this amount, $3,222 had come in from Winnipeg, $1,310 from Montreal, and $1,281 from Toronto.49 The Canadian icor was still tied to the larger American organization. Indeed, when, in the fall of 1931, Samuel Rosenfeld of Los Angeles, a member of the national executive, suggested ways to make icor more effective, he recommended that it be divided into districts. He proposed that the Pacific region include Vancouver alongside the American cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, Petaluma, and Los Angeles.50 This plan, however, was not implemented. At the convention held between 16 and 18 October 1931 in New York, Israel Hershbain and Yetta Tsudnovsky represented the Montreal icor and Abraham Nisnevitz the Toronto icor. They heard Leon Talmy state that, despite the economic crisis, in many cities icor had actually increased its activities and collections since 1929. Among those Talmy named were Toronto, Edmonton, Hamilton, Vancouver, Windsor, and Montreal. icor had also managed to carry forward the anti-Zionist campaign in a number of important cities, including Toronto and Montreal. Nisnevitz suggested that the national executive make an effort to coordinate the activities of icor with the Communist Party, which tended to put the organization “in the background when it comes to various campaigns.” He argued that the cp “should feel some duty towards the icor. We are open Bolsheviks. We no longer hide this. If we are to help other organizations,

84

Jerusalem on the Amur

then they should also help us.” At the close of the convention, a national executive of seventy people was elected, including Hershbain from Montreal and Nisnevitz from Toronto.51 Der Kamf sent greetings to the convention, assuring it that “the Jewish workers in Canada would follow its proceedings with great interest,” especially as the convention was taking place at a time when capitalism “was wracked by convulsions of a deep crisis” and when the “bloody, imperialistic adventurism” of Zionism was clear to all. The Montreal chapter of icor sent a message welcoming the historic work in Birobidzhan, where the pioneers were building a Jewish socialist republic “under the flag of the hammer and sickle.”52 How were individual branches doing as icor entered the 1930s? One of the cities about which we have a fair amount of information is Hamilton. Prior to 1930, snippets of information concerning the branch appeared in the American ICOR. For example, in December 1928, the branch announced that it had eighty registered members. The Hamilton icor also sent its greetings to icor on the occasion of its fifth anniversary in December 1929.53 But after 1930 there is more detail. The Goldie Vine Papers, deposited at the Archives of Ontario, Toronto, include a minute book, handwritten in Yiddish, of meetings of the Hamilton icor from 1930 to 1937. The Hamilton icor was particularly active and even had a separate women’s branch. The earliest recorded meeting is that of 23 November 1930, at which Ike Shapiro was elected chair, Khaim Smith secretary, Mila Litvack treasurer, and Harry Price protocol secretary. Smith explained that much of the work entailed raising money to buy modern machines for Birobidzhan that were unavailable in the Soviet Union. The icor branch, he continued, would have to become a mass organization and also engage in propaganda and cultural work; in short, it must became an organization able to answer any questions the Jewish working masses of Hamilton might have. Smith informed members that Ab. Epstein, newly returned from Birobidzhan, was scheduled to speak in Hamilton. However, in early December 1930 Shapiro reported that Canadian immigration officials had refused Epstein permission to cross the border. At the 25 January 1931 meeting, Louis Steinberg proposed that icor sponsor a lecture that would explain to the working masses the errors of Zionism. Rakhmiel Brick, a Yiddish teacher, opposed this suggestion, arguing that, in small centres such as Hamilton, such activities would do icor more harm than good. Following a spirited debate, the branch decided to invite Joseph Baruch (J.B.) Salsberg of Toronto to speak on the issue; he visited Hamilton on 19 April. Meanwhile, in February 1931, the Hamilton icor

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

85

sponsored two other lecturers: Professor Charles Kuntz and Gina Medem, whose lecture was deemed a great success. (Kuntz would make another visit to Hamilton in February 1933, when, soon after returning from a sixmonth stay in Birobidzhan, he lectured on icor’s role in developing the region.) A banquet to celebrate the third anniversary of the selection of Birobidzhan as a site for Jewish settlement was held in March 1931, and Gina Medem returned on 10 May to lecture on Jewish regeneration in the Soviet Union; her talk again attracted many listeners and helped icor gain new members. In September 1931, the unfortunate death at age fifty-seven of Ike Shapiro, a mainstay of the Hamilton icor, did at least serve to demonstrate the breadth of support for the organization: his funeral was attended by more than 500 people, including members of the Communist Party, the wc, Friends of the Soviet Union, and, of course, icor. Sam Lipshitz, on behalf of the Arbayter Ring, and Rakhmiel Brick, on behalf of icor, spoke at the cemetery. By late October 1931, the branch was making preparations to honour the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. The minutes of the Hamilton branch also demonstrate the close ties the Canadian icor had with the national office in New York. Almost every meeting began with reference to letters that had been received asking the branch for money for literature. The 8 December 1930 meeting, for example, included an appeal from Leon Talmy to help raise $50,000 for agricultural machinery for Birobidzhan. It also periodically provided help to the Canadian Labour Defence League, another cpc front. The minutes of 21 December 1931 make mention of the “ladies auxiliary.” In late 1933 this became a separate women’s branch since, according to the minutes of a 19 November meeting, “the women were doing better work than the men.”54 In Montreal, icor held elections for its executive in December 1931; Israel Hershbain was elected as chair, Yetta Tsudnovsky as secretary, and Avrom Feldman as city organizer. On 1 January 1932, a meeting of 500 people kicked off a membership campaign. icor had begun to hold annual jubilees and bazaars for Birobidzhan. It published an occasional newsletter and held meetings every two weeks, dealing with topics such as Zionism, religion, economics, and the work of icor on behalf of the Soviet Union. The 17 January 1932 jubilee concert was attended by Leon Talmy, who spoke about the achievements being made in building socialism in the Soviet Union in general and Birobidzhan in particular. The branch now boasted a membership of 275, according to its secretary, and intended to organize a branch for doctors. It hoped to have 500 members by May.55 A conference of the Canadian district committee was held in Toronto on 11 and 12 March 1932, followed by a conference of the eastern Canadian

86

Jerusalem on the Amur

branches of icor in Montreal on 20 March. The Montreal conference was attended by Israel Hershbain, chair of the Montreal branch; Y. Trachimovsky, its secretary; A. Singerman, Avrom Feldman, Yetta Tsudnovsky, Y. Bendoff, and Y. Rapoport of Windsor; and Khaim Smith, Louis Steinberg, and Rakhmiel Brick of Hamilton. They decided to open a district office and elected Singerman treasurer, Tsudnovsky secretary, and Trachimovsky communications director, with Bendoff, Tsudnovsky, and Singerman serving as the executive committee of the district. The organizer would remain in Montreal for two months to strengthen existing icor branches and create new ones. Members were encouraged to solicit subscriptions to Der Kamf. All branches were told to hold celebrations on or about 28 March, the anniversary of the decision to make Birobidzhan a Jewish national district. Finally, the executive resolved that the branches should acquire $8,000 dollars and 3,000 new members within the next year.56 A week later, Sam Lapedes of Toronto, chair of the Jewish Bureau of the Communist Party of Canada, spoke at the plenum of the national executive in New York. He told delegates that icor in Canada had recently gathered much strength, despite the reactionary politics instituted in that country – a reaction that benefited Zionism. He promised that icor would continue to defend the Soviet Union, the only workers’ and peasants’ country in the whole world.57 In western Canada, the Winnipeg branch gained 125 new members in the first five months of 1932. A women’s branch was formed in December 1932, and by February 1933 it had twenty-five members. The Winnipeg members heard three lectures on 24 and 26 February 1933 by Charles Kuntz, who had returned from a six-month stay in Birobidzhan and was on a major tour for icor, and they held a three-day bazaar. On 22 April, there was a celebration in honour of the fifth anniversary of Birobidzhan.58 An icor branch was formed in December 1932 in the rural community of Edenbridge, Saskatchewan, a farming community settled in 1906 with the help of the Paris-based Jewish Colonization Association (jca), which had been founded by Baron Maurice de Hirsch. According to Bendoff, who visited the community in late 1932 to help set up the icor branch, Edenbridge was the home of forty-two families, who had carved it out of “forest and swamp.” Unlike urban and bourgeois Jews, he said, the Edenbridge residents understood the hardships facing the Jewish pioneers in Birobidzhan, who would have to forego the comforts of a big city. As a result, they had “responded with enthusiasm to the call from the icor to help in the work of Jewish colonization in Birobidzhan,” a place where farmers would not find themselves in debt to capitalists, as the Edenbridge

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

87

Edenbridge, Saskatchewan, farm colony, 1933 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

colony was to the jca. “I have seen in the homes of Edenbridge farmers pictures of Lenin on walls, which had been clipped from newspapers and framed,” reported Bendoff. While in the colony, Bendoff gave two lectures: “The Bankruptcy of Zionism” and “Palestinism and Birobidzhan.” He departed while his hosts sang the “Internationale.”59 In the May 1933 edition of the American journal ICOR Bendoff described Edenbridge as a Jewish settlement in the Canadian far west, “cut off from the ‘civilized world.’” He recounted how the colonists’ eyes “lit up” when he told them about Birobidzhan. The jca was “sucking their blood” so badly that the farmers had no money even to buy new overalls, and they envied the pioneers in Birobidzhan.60 At a Toronto-area conference on 5 February 1933, many delegates criticized the Toronto branches, whose work was described as being “weak.” They argued that icor was not taking sufficient advantage of the sympathy that thousands of Jewish workers felt with regard to its work.61 Bendoff lamented the fact that icor had not been living up to its potential and cast some of the blame on other left-wing organizations, such as the Labour League, many of whose activists had slighted icor as a “petty bourgeois organization.” The icor leadership, too, was partly to blame: it had not formulated a sharp ideological line, with the result that many sympathizers

88

Jerusalem on the Amur

had abandoned the organization (this was especially true in Montreal) or had become passive (the case in Toronto).62 Sam Lapedes, in Der Kamf, had already criticized the Canadian organization for having remained too dependent on the American icor, which found it difficult to supply speakers and literature to Canadian branches. “The New York office can’t really provide for all of the smaller centres across Canada,” he stated. Lapedes was pleased to note that now there were functioning icor committees in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Windsor, Hamilton, Cornwall, Ottawa, and Edenbridge as well as branches in western centres such as Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver. “The icor does more than just raise money for Birobidzhan,” he reminded readers. “It campaigns on behalf of the Soviet Union and struggles against the foes of the workers’ fatherland, including Zionism, an enemy of the Jewish toiling masses.” The prospects of its success were improving: “A lot of petty bourgeois are being strangled due to the depression,” he continued. “They feel it might be preferable to be a worker in a workers’ state than to become déclassé under capitalism. Such people can be attracted to the icor.”63 The second national conference, held in Toronto on 11 and 12 February 1933, was a critical one. Delegates from icor branches in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, and Cornwall attended, as did representatives of other left-wing organizations; altogether, thirty-eight people representing sixteen organizations were present. Charles Kuntz, who had recently visited Birobidzhan, was a guest speaker. They heard “sharp self- criticism” from icor members who lamented the failures of the organization in raising money and working together with other left-wing organizations. The American icor executives in New York were censured for their lack of cooperation with the Canadian section of icor. The conference decided that the eastern Canadian section should formally incorporate the western Canadian branches to become a truly all-Canadian organization, with its headquarters in Toronto. The conference passed a resolution calling for the elimination of Section 98 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which made it illegal to advocate any change in government by the use of force or even to attend a meeting of an association deemed to be revolutionary. Section 98 had effectively made the cpc, and groups such as icor, illegal organizations. The delegates sent greetings to the eight Communist Party leaders then in jail, including Sam Carr, the national organizational secretary and highestranking Jew in the party. Convicted under the provisions of Section 98, they were imprisoned between 1931 and 1934. The delegates also passed resolutions in opposition to Zionism and in support of the ussr.64

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

89

Sam Carr and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1930 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

Following the conference, the Toronto office began to send out regular information bulletins to the Canadian icor groups in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa, Cornwall, Winnipeg, Edenbridge, Edmonton, and Vancouver. The Toronto office also sent organizers to nearby Ontario towns such as Kitchener, Guelph, Peterborough, London, and smaller centres in the Niagara region in an attempt to increase icor membership.65 The eastern Canadian district held a meeting in Toronto on 18 February, attended by Labl Basman, Israel Zelinsky, J.B. Salsberg, Sam Lapedes, Abraham Nisnevitz, and Harry Shapiro. It was decided that all the records of the eastern Canadian branches should be housed at the Labour League building. Lapedes suggested that a member of the national office in New York – he mentioned Almazov by name – should come to Toronto so that the status of the Canadian branches and their relationship to the American

90

Jerusalem on the Amur

icor could be clarified.66 Such friction would culminate in the decision made two years later to make the Canadian icor a separate organization. The organizers of the 23 February 1933 meeting of the Hamilton icor decided to include on the program a lecture to celebrate Barukh Spinoza. In April the branch celebrated the fifth anniversary of the designation of Birobidzhan as a Jewish region; Abraham Nisnevitz and Labl Basman of Toronto, and Abraham Gampel of Niagara Falls, gave speeches. A resolution was passed protesting Japanese militarism in Asia.67 The secretary of the Vancouver icor, Max Erenberg, informed the national office in March 1933 that, while members were working enthusiastically and sympathy for icor was growing, the “hard economic situation” made it difficult to collect large amounts of money. He also told them of his disappointment that Vancouver had been left off a tour organized for Professor Kuntz: “It has become something of a tradition that once a year we get a speaker from the centre.”68 The Toronto icor held a joint three-day bazaar with Der Kamf from 18 to 21 March 1933 and celebrated the fifth anniversary of Birobidzhan with a concert on 30 March. School children from the Morris Winchevsky School performed a play about Soviet life. It was noted that, even in the depth of the economic depression, icor still had trouble attracting new members outside its core working-class constituency.69 In Montreal, Trachimovsky, the secretary, noted in April 1933 that in the previous year they had held twenty-five general meetings, two house-to-house collection drives, and a bazaar. The Montreal icor had also scored some propaganda successes, its members having given lectures in petty bourgeois venues such as societies and landsmanshaften.70 Der Kamf was now full of stories about socialist construction in Birobidzhan, and icor continued to receive enthusiastic reports from the gezerd leadership concerning the immense progress being made on all fronts – cultural, economic, and political – by the settlers arriving in Birobidzhan.71 Spurred on by such exhortations, icor chapters across Canada worked ever harder to raise money for goods and supplies; by the end of 1933, the Canadian section of icor, in its first national campaign, was collecting money for two tractors for Birobidzhan on behalf of two activists, Noah Levin of Winnipeg and Philip Halperin of Toronto, who had both recently died. Levin had grown up in an Orthodox home in Belarus but joined the Socialist Party after coming to Winnipeg in 1908. After the Bolshevik Revolution, he joined the cpc and was a correspondent for the Frayhayt. He became a member of icor at its inception, and it was due to people such as Levin, stated the obituary in ICOR, that Winnipeg was in the forefront of

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

91

communities working on behalf of Birobidzhan. Levin spent a few months in 1927 touring the Soviet Union and returned even more enthusiastic in his work on behalf of icor. Until his dying day on 10 October 1930, even when ill in the hospital, Levin retained his interest in Birobidzhan and the Soviet Union, and he “left behind a bright memory.” Halperin, also a founding member of icor, was editor of Der Kamf from 1926 until his death in early 1932. He had been a member of the Left Poale Zion before becoming a Communist and was on the national executive committee of icor in 1925.72 Halperin’s death was of course given front-page coverage in Der Kamf. Sam Carr and Tim Buck, who was general secretary of the cpc, described him as “a good soldier of the revolutionary movement.”73 On 23 October 1933, the Canadian section of icor held an executive meeting in Toronto regarding the tractor campaign. The chapters had sent out propaganda in Yiddish and English, and Salsberg was asked to contact the Friends of the Soviet Union to endorse the campaign. Branches were reminded to solicit contributions to the campaign at celebrations marking the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution on 7 November. The third national conference of the Canadian section of icor, held in Toronto on 10 and 11 March 1934, brought together fifty-six delegates from five eastern Canadian cities, nineteen of them sympathizers from other Jewish organizations. No western delegates were present as, in this time of economic crisis, the costs of coming to Toronto were too great. Ab. Victor noted that icor was still technically banned in Canada. The postal authorities returned literature sent from the New York office, and icor speakers from the United States were often prevented from entering Canada at the border; sometimes icor gatherings were disrupted. When the Canadian Communist leader Reverend A.E. Smith, general secretary of the Canadian Labour Defence League and recently freed from jail, addressed the conference, it spontaneously broke out singing the “Internationale.” Children from the Morris Winchevsky School, led by Yiddish teacher Moishe Feldman, sang the “Internationale” again the next day, and, noted Victor, the delegates and guests alike were filled with inspiration and happiness. There was much self-criticism, but delegates vowed to make icor a mass organization, one that could take action in defence of the Soviet Union and in the battles against fascism and “misleading” Zionism. The delegates agreed that Canada was a fruitful arena for icor work and, Victor felt, should be able to attract 2,000 new members; the “human material” was present.74 The 25 March 1934 plenum of the icor national executive in the United States, meeting in New York, also noted the reactionary character of the

92

Jerusalem on the Amur

Canadian Conservative government of R.B. Bennett and its “sharp oppression” of Canadian workers, including the deportation of the foreign born. The executive called upon Bennett’s government to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. It noted that icor literature and speakers from the United States were denied entry to the country.75 For instance, Ab. Epstein had been scheduled to address a meeting of the Windsor icor committee on 16 December 1932 but was barred from entering Canada at the Detroit-Windsor border crossing. “The doors are closing ever more tightly against comrades from the States,” warned icor, and hence the Canadian organization would have to work harder to develop its own leadership.76 Although Epstein had been stopped in person, the Canadian District Committee of icor, now two years old, in April 1934 published Epstein’s twenty-page pamphlet encouraging Jews to join the organization. The main task of icor, noted the pamphlet, was to mobilize Jewish workers for the defence of the Soviet Union, “the only country where workers rule and where every vestige of anti-Semitism, racism or national discrimination has been abolished.” icor had also demonstrated the “adventurist and imperialist character of Zionism” and had therefore “weakened Zionist influence among the broad Jewish working masses.” icor fought fascism, social fascism and other enemies of the Soviet Union, “who work hand in hand.” Epstein called on the Jewish masses to pay their debt to the Jewish pioneers who were building a socialist Birobidzhan.77 In early 1934 Sam Lapedes had criticized icor supporters in Canada for not having yet created their own national movement “in our great country.” He also noted that, while the work of icor was becoming “ever more popular among the Jewish population,” despite opposition from “Zionists of all hues” and the Jewish bourgeois press, the movement still had no journal of its own to counter their “falsehoods.” Furthermore, thanks to the “terror” tactics of the Bennett government, most American icor literature was prevented from entering Canada. “Every journal, every pamphlet, is sent to the censor in Ottawa and in most cases destroyed,” he lamented. He was pleased to learn that the Canadian section of icor had therefore decided to publish a bimonthly supplement to Der Kamf called the “Icor” Bulletin.78 The Toronto conference of March 1934 went further, authorizing the launching of a periodical, the Kanader “Icor,” to be edited by Harry Guralnick. He would be replaced as editor of Der Kamf by Joshua Gershman. The first issue, not surprisingly, carried as its lead story the decision made by the Soviet government the month before to transform

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

93

Birobidzhan into a jar.79 An editorial, entitled “An Important Step Forward,” called the creation of the journal a sign of icor’s increasing relevance to the Jewish working class in Canada. It also demonstrated that the organization was strong enough to operate autonomously of the American icor and would be able to address the specific issues facing the pro-Soviet, anti-fascist, and anti-war Jewish masses in Canada in their daily struggle against capitalism. icor was more than just a “collection agency”: it was “spreading the truth about the Soviet Union” and gaining sympathizers among the Jewish community. It was the duty of icor members to disseminate the journal in factories, landsmanshaften, and other societies – indeed, anywhere and everywhere that Jewish workers gathered.80 Y. Trachimovsky praised the 7 May 1934 Soviet declaration establishing Birobidzhan as a Jewish Autonomous Region (Oblast) as a “great historical event.” The proclamation of Jewish autonomy was “a slap in the face” to the enemies of the Soviet Union, from the Kanader Adler (the Montreal Yiddish daily) and the Forverts (the New York social democratic daily) to the Zionists and so-called socialists, who had been spreading lies and slanders about Birobidzhan. Trachimovsky called on icor committees throughout the country to follow up on the resolutions passed at the Toronto conference the month before and to take advantage of the newly favourable conditions to penetrate and work among the broad Jewish masses in Canada – not only in landsmanshaften but even in branches of the “right-wing” wc , indeed, wherever Jewish workers and petit bourgeois sympathizers of the Soviet Union were to be found. icor militants, who could now point to the concrete efforts made by the Soviets to “make healthy” the life of the Jewish masses, ought to organize icor groups within all Jewish mass organizations. Trachimovsky also suggested closer cooperation with the fsu.81 Sam Lapedes called icor “one of the most important organizations of the Jewish working masses.” It provided a home for those who had realized that the Soviet Union had abolished racial hatred and pogroms. It mobilized those elements in the community who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union and opposed to fascism and to the Zionists; the latter were “the expression of fascism in the Jewish community.” icor served as an antidote to the “divide and conquer” tactics of the ruling class, which sought to create hatred between whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Jews and Arabs.82 A few months earlier, the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, and icor, alongside the fsu, had begun a campaign to pressure the Bennett government to establish full diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow. Trade with the ussr would result in more jobs for unemployed

94

Jerusalem on the Amur

workers and more sales for farmers. While it would not end anti-Soviet rhetoric, it would make it harder for Bennett to engage in “imperialist economic manoeuvres” and would aid the Soviet Union in its efforts on behalf of peace.83 icor was now conducting a campaign to send a delegation of three Jewish workers to the Soviet Union for the forthcoming seventeenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Sending such a group, the Kanader “Icor” editorialized, would enable the Canadian Jewish working masses to involve themselves more closely with the “heroic builders of a new and productive Soviet life” and with those creating a socialist Birobidzhan. It would strengthen the ties between the only internationalist country in the world and the Jewish labouring masses in Canada. Upon their return, the delegates would be better placed to refute the lies spread by the enemies of the Soviet Union and to “mobilize the broad Jewish masses in Canada” on behalf of socialism. They would also, concluded one editorial, argue against the anti-Soviet and pro-imperialist policies of the Canadian government. Of course this project required money; but raising the necessary funds would also be a way to involve icor members in the working-class Jewish community and would thus enable them to draw new members into the organization. An article written in English, at the back of the journal, compared the work of icor to that of the fsu and emphasized that icor “has been instrumental in bringing the truth about the position of the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union.” Birobidzhan, wrote Sol Ellis, “is a tremendous factor in the life of the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union and abroad” and was the best example of “how a workers’ republic solves the problems of the national minorities. We say that the solution to the problems of the Jews all over the world will only come through a successful proletarian revolution, as in the Soviet Union.” The campaign to send a delegation to the Soviet Union would “mobilize the widest masses for the defence of the Soviet Union, for the fight against fascism and Zionism and for the concrete participation in the building up of the Jewish Socialist Soviet Republic – Biro Bidjan.”84 Sam Lipshitz was pleased to note an increase in visits of activists from bigger centres, in particular Winnipeg, to smaller towns. But he criticized Winnipeg for not distributing enough copies of the new journal. He also reproached members who, while bemoaning the lack of sufficient literature from the Toronto office, refused to write articles themselves on the grounds that they were not professional journalists. Lipshitz reminded them that icor was a mass organization, not one led by so-called “men of distinction”; the journal ought to reflect that fact.85 Abraham Shek, now

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

95

secretary of the Canadian section, too was disappointed by the apparent indifference of the icor branches concerning the new journal. Far too few members were writing for it or even distributing it. The branch secretaries neglected even to send in reports of their activities, leaving all the work to the Toronto office.86 Still, local icor committees were active across Canada that year. According to an undated letter (probably written in the summer of 1934) from the executive of the Canadian section of icor, the Canadian movement, headquartered at 414 Markham Street, in Toronto (also the home of the Labour League), claimed chapters in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Windsor, Hamilton, Ottawa, Cornwall, Ontario, the Niagara region of Ontario, and the farming community of Edenbridge. There were also affiliates in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Halifax, Kitchener, and London, Ontario.87 The October 1934 issue of the Kanader “Icor” announced that there were 5,000 icor members in Canada, with thousands more supporting socialist construction in Birobidzhan.88 The cp’s Jewish Bureau, meeting that October, called on its supporters to build up a stronger icor.89 The June and August 1934 issues of the Kanader “Icor” provided an overview of icor’s work. Abraham Shek noted that the declaration establishing Birobidzhan as a Jewish Autonomous Region had resulted in celebrations throughout the entire country. The founding of jar was celebrated at a concert and mass meeting on 27 May at the Labour Lyceum; 2,000 special leaflets were printed for the occasion. Harry Shapiro had managed to bring in a substantial sum of money for the new journal through sale of advertisements, and the branch was active in selling copies. He and Velvel Katz organized a picnic on 5 August on behalf of the campaign to send a delegation to the ussr. The Toronto branch also gave support to the Communist candidates in the Toronto municipal elections: it printed leaflets and held five open-air rallies on their behalf. In Montreal, 25 May was selected as the day to hold a concert and mass meeting on behalf of the Soviet declaration. The branch had also begun preparing to do its part in sending a delegation to the ussr; propaganda was being distributed and money was being collected for that purpose. The branch had raised money for Der Kamf and for workers on strike against Noranda mines. In the Niagara District a conference was held in the home of Abraham Gampel, an enthusiastic supporter of icor, for members from Niagara Falls, Port Colborne, Welland, and Thorold. Secretary Fayvel Brooks of Welland announced that the branch had been active in raising money for

96

Jerusalem on the Amur

the tractor campaign. Max Dolgoy, Harry Shapiro, and Abraham Nisnevitz of the Canadian section’s executive participated in a lengthy discussion regarding icor’s activities, and a motion was passed in appreciation of the work of Shek. The Hamilton chapter committed itself to help in the campaign for tractors for Birobidzhan, and it celebrated the announcement of Birobidzhan autonomy with a concert on 20 May, featuring the Frayhayt Gezang Farayn un Mandolin Orkester from the Toronto Cultural Centre. There was a large turnout, despite calls for a boycott on the part of various rabbis and businesspeople. Khaim Smith and Lipshitz spoke of the work of the organization and the upcoming delegation to the ussr; a financial drive would be launched to enable Hamilton to send two delegates. Hamilton’s branches participated in a united front conference to aid striking workers of the Ladies Jacket Industrial Union, a cp-led “dual union,” at the Victoria Leather Jacket Company. The Hamilton women’s branch was commended for its work in the June 1934 issue of the Kanader “Icor”; it had recently sent in new applications along with members’ dues. Yet the 11 November 1934 minutes of the Hamilton icor executive show that all was not well with the women’s branch. At a meeting of the men’s chapter, Herman Abramovitch reported that the women’s branch was not gaining strength and that its leadership was discouraged; they complained that they had no special role to play as a separate branch. Harry Guralnick responded that it would be a mistake to disband the branch because it would mean abandoning icor’s work among women and leaving the field open to the petty bourgeois women’s groups. Guralnick suggested that the men’s branch work more closely with the women’s branch, and it was resolved that executives of the two branches would meet to plan activities together. But the problems persisted into 1935, with some icor activists complaining that the women’s branch was not actively involved in fund-raising campaigns. In Winnipeg, Moishe Katz participated in a celebration of the sixth anniversary of the selection of Birobidzhan as a site for Jewish colonization; a special leaflet was distributed for the occasion. Winnipeg was the only branch that had already held a bazaar to raise money for the tractor campaign. The Winnipeg branch was also spearheading an anti-fascist campaign among the various Jewish organizations: icor members spoke to organizations and landsmanshaften about the danger of fascism. When news of the 7 May Soviet decision making Birobidzhan a jar was received, the Winnipeg icor decided to hold a celebration on 9 June, as part of its antifascism work, according to Freda Coodin, branch secretary. The Winnipeg

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

97

branch was also running a summer camp in Gimli, Manitoba, with the income to go towards funding the icor delegation to the ussr. The icor in Winnipeg had asked that the west have one member on the three-person delegation; it was gratified to hear that the national executive had allotted one slot to the Winnipeg icor. The city icor hosted a western Canadian icor conference, held in the Liberty Temple, on 9 September, with the cooperation of “petty bourgeois” organizations in the city. Vancouver, too, had done “exemplary” work on behalf of the tractor campaign, reported the Kanader “Icor,” and the branch had requested that the national executive sponsor a western tour to attract more members to the organization. Calgary’s branch, organized by Cecil (Khaim) Sheinin, held a Birobidzhan banquet and celebration on 23 May. Sam Lipshitz visited Calgary on 16 and 17 October 1934. He gave two lectures, in Yiddish, entitled “The Danger of War and Fascism” and “Biro-Bidzhan as a Jewish Autonomous Territory,” at the Peretz Shule. The Edenbridge chapter was especially concerned with the economic and social health of the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union, and it contributed farm products to a bazaar held in Winnipeg. Edenbridge members asked for more icor literature and suggested that their chapter, like the one in Calgary, would benefit from visiting speakers. Lipshitz agreed to the necessity of mounting a western tour in order to enhance icor’s presence nationally. Meanwhile, Lapedes and Katz had recently helped organize an icor branch in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. In Ontario, the small Windsor branch mounted lectures and participated in all of icor’s national campaigns; but then, it benefited from the organizational efforts of icor in Detroit. The small branch in Cornwall, Ontario, was also very active: it supported Der Kamf and the Canadian Labour Defence League; it held a celebration for Birobidzhan on May Day; and on 29 July it organized a picnic on behalf of the icor delegation to the ussr.90 But in October the Kanader “Icor” stated that the planned Canadian icor delegation’s visit to Birobidzhan, where liberated Jews “are building their own happy and free life,” had been delayed.91 During this sectarian period, the icor struggle against Zionism was a prominent theme: after all, Birobidzhan, unlike Palestine, was not, as an article in Der Kamf declared, “soaked in the blood of race hatred.”92 In an article written in late 1932, Paul Novick of the Morgn Frayhayt in New York compared the Zionists to German Nazis: both pretended to be socialist movements and appropriated the symbols of the left yet demanded privileges only for the workers of their own nationalities – in the one case, Germans, in the other, Jews. Novick urged that “not one cent” should

98

Jerusalem on the Amur

be donated to these “spies for British imperialism,” “chauvinists,” “racebaiters,” and “Palestinian Hitlerites.”93 In early 1933, Bendoff assured Der Kamf readers that the Balfour Declaration had become a dead letter and that the Zionists were downcast about the prospects for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Still, it remained necessary to counter “Zionist fantasies” and “adventurism.” He recommended that readers protest the call made by A.J. Freiman, president of the Zionist Organization of Canada, for Jews to celebrate the sixtieth birthday of the Hebrew poet Khaim Nakhman Bialik. Bialik was, after all, Bendoff noted, “the bitter enemy of the Soviet Union.” While Zionists in Palestine continued to depend “on the sword and the bayonet,” Birobidzhan was being built on a healthy basis. Astonishing results were being reported after only five years of settlement: in the previous nine months alone, clothing and furniture factories, brickyards, metalworks, and coal and electricity plants had been built. Apartment blocks were being readied for new arrivals; ten new Jewish schools and a pedagogical school had been opened. The Soviet government had announced it would invest 1.36 billion rubles for economic development in the forthcoming second Five-Year Plan. Birobidzhan was also benefiting from overseas support: “The icor movement in Canada is in the process of widening its work and becoming an important factor in the creation of a Soviet Birobidzhan.”94 Moishe Katz reported in early 1934 that, despite the “fantasies” of the Zionists, the reality in Palestine was one of mass unemployment. Indeed, the Histadrut, the Jewish labour federation, was visiting worksites employing Arab and Jewish labour and using violence to force Arabs workers from their jobs to make room for Jews. Instead of siding with the Arab workers, he wrote, the Zionists were in league with British imperialism and encouraged British troops to suppress Arab demonstrations. The Zionists, though, were themselves, he declared, simply pawns of Britain’s own imperial ambitions. The British played their Zionist “lackeys” and Arabs off against each other so as to prevent the Arab people from resisting British rule. But, in those instances when Zionist and British aims differed, the British “boss” was always prepared to “hit the Zionists over the head.”95 The Histadrut was also accused of collaborating with Hitler by selling oranges to Nazi Germany instead of joining a worldwide boycott of German goods. By themselves practising “the darkest chauvinism,” the Zionists were doing good work for the Nazis.96 A “declaration of chairs of revolutionary mass organizations” (icor, the fsu, the Labour League, Der Kamf, and a Communist “dual union”) reminded the “Jewish masses in Canada” that the “historic decision” to

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

99

create a Jewish entity in Birobidzhan was “entirely different” from the “hot air [belfer-dekleratsye]” about “a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine,” which had been nothing but a wartime manoeuvre on the part of the British imperialist government. The Zionists had become the servants of British imperialism.97 Moishe Feldman, in the Kanader “Icor,” proclaimed the Zionist movement a fascist tool of the Jewish bourgeoisie and berated it for its nationalism. The Zionists in Palestine, he maintained, surpassed even Hitler in their ultra-nationalist discourse. Zionist fascism was no better than any other; indeed, it was the most dangerous enemy of the Jewish masses. Birobidzhan, on the other hand, remained the “great shining hope of the Jewish masses world-wide.”98 The time had come, contended Y. Trachimovsky, to carry forward the battle against Zionism; the Jewish masses had to become aware of the fascistic politics of the Zionists in Palestine, who were “appropriating the land and appropriating the work” of the Arabs. While the Zionists had become servants of British imperialism, the Arab masses were carrying on the fight against it.99 The creation of Birobidzhan, exulted A. Hamer, was a “catastrophe” for the Zionists. It would serve as a “death blow” to their “adventure” in the so-called “Jewish homeland.”100 Another writer sneered at the Zionists in Palestine, for whom “taking bread and land away from the Arabs is a Jewish mitzvah”; he called on the Jewish masses there to unite with the non-Jews to combat war and fascism, and to defend the Soviet Union: “That’s the need of the hour.”101 A. Minsker informed readers of the Kanader “Icor” in 1936 that Birobidzhan was not a competitor with Palestine but, rather, a portent of the future. The enemies of Birobidzhan, no longer able to deny completely the incredible progress being made by its Jewish settlers, would still like to “stick a knife in its back” through demagoguery, by claiming it had been set up “not to help the Jews but to thwart Zionism.” The Zionists, he wrote, feared they would lose some of the vast amounts of money they needed in order to “rob” land from the Arab peasants by buying it from the landlords. In Birobidzhan, there was no need to raise money for such purposes, and in any case the Soviet government was itself investing in the region. Birobidzhan had not been formed for purposes of speculation, exploitation, and national chauvinism under the aegis of an imperialist power. How could Birobidzhan be regarded as a rival to Palestine, when the Zionists refused to eliminate capitalism, to form an alliance with the Arabs, or to eliminate the imperialist oppressors? In Birobidzhan, in contrast, the Red Army protected the socialist accomplishments of a region governed by workers and peasants. In order to demonstrate the economic as well as moral superiority of Birobidzhan, Minsker listed its vast and varied natural

100

Jerusalem on the Amur

resources. Birobidzhan, he concluded, “was no ‘rival’ to Palestine but rather a symbol and a message for the Jewish masses throughout the world, including Palestine.”102 icor was equally vehement in opposition to the newly formed Canadian Jewish Congress (cjc). The Kanader “Icor,” in its inaugural issue, castigated the cjc as a creation of the Jewish bourgeoisie, designed to control the masses and divert them from the path of revolution. The notion of “one Jewish people” was a fantasy, exposed by the realities of class conflict. Fortunately, the workers and impoverished masses of Jews would refuse to be swayed by the “bigwigs [karpen-kep]” of the Congress, whose aim was to perpetuate the hegemony of the wealthy bosses and the religious “parasites” in the community; they wanted only to keep the poor hungry and in darkness.103 In the same vein, a Winnipeg activist wrote to the American Communist-run magazine New Masses that such organizations were themselves fascist in character and that Jews who supported them were “deluded and naïve.” Fascism could only be beaten if Jews would form alliances with other workers.104 In November, the Kanader “Icor” published a piece noting that the Canadian icor had indeed sent speakers to western Canada to counter the antiSoviet propaganda of the Zionists and the cjc. icor derided the cjc for lumping the ussr together with capitalist countries as “golus [diaspora].”105 Some eighty people (plus an rcmp informant) had attended one meeting in Edmonton on 21 October. Harry Guralnick outlined the aims of icor and described the opportunities awaiting Jews in Birobidzhan. While the capitalist class and British imperialism dominated the Palestine project, the audience was told, Birobidzhan was ruled by and for workers. The rcmp member who was present noted in his report that the Edmonton icor was “completely dominated by the Communist Party. It is, in fact, an extension of the latter.”106 On 29 January 1935, Charles Kuntz, another of the speakers on the western tour, addressed a public meeting in the Peretz Hall in Winnipeg. It was such a success that hundreds of people had to be turned away for lack of accommodation. Kuntz described the economic progress being made in Birobidzhan and the increasing prosperity of the settlement. He reported that Jews there “have lost their national clannishness and have welcomed into their midst people of other racial origin with whom they live like brothers.” A large amount of Communist literature was circulated and sold.107 The sixth national icor convention met in New York between 8 and 10 February 1935 to celebrate ten years of icor in the United States. Included among the 565 delegates was a large contingent from the Canadian icor,

Canadian icor Branches: The First Decade, 1925–35

101

headed by, among others, Harry Guralnick, editor of Der Kamf, and Abraham Nisnevitz. Guralnick was elected to the resolutions committee and Nisnevitz to the finance and literature committee. Harry Shapiro of Toronto called on the national icor to send a “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan, and Nisnevitz promised that enough money would be raised to send a tractor to Birobidzhan. Guralnick asserted that, despite the political difficulties in Canada, icor would gain hundreds of new members. The convention noted tendencies among some icor supporters, particularly in the Canadian section, to regard the task of icor as completed now that Birobidzhan was developing as a Jewish socialist region; some members suggested that icor, which already had close ties to the fsu, should become part of that organization. icor’s leadership condemned such ideas, instead stressing the need to continue icor’s activities on a larger scale than ever; its members should belong to other mass organizations and recruit new members from their ranks. It was decided to accelerate membership drives among the “broad masses” of the Jewish people in both the United States and Canada, and, for the Canadians, to extend financial aid to Der Kamf.108 In December 1934, icor members in Canada had also celebrated the tenth anniversary of the organization.109 The second decade of the proBirobidzhan movement would see the Canadian icor branches become an organization independent from the American icor.

ion, 1935–39

5 An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

In 1935, the Canadian icor became independent of its American counterpart and its first national convention, held in Toronto between 22 and 24 March, was attended by fifty-one delegates from nine cities: Toronto, Montreal, Windsor, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Welland, St Catharines, Niagara Falls, and Cornwall. There were twenty-seven delegates from icor branches; the other twenty-four represented “mass organizations.” Among the guest speakers were Gina Medem, who travelled extensively to the ussr as a correspondent for the Morgn Frayhayt and represented the American icor; Joshua Gershman, now editor of Der Kamf; and Tom Ewen (later McEwen), national secretary of the Communist-dominated Workers’ Unity League. The convention schedule included three sessions, two “mass meetings,” and a banquet. “Both the mass meetings and the banquet were very successful and full of enthusiasm,” reported the organization in its published summary of the convention. Abraham Shek, the national secretary, gave a general report on the activities of the organization between 12 March 1934 and 15 March 1935. Shek observed that the previous year had seen the proclamation of a Jewish Autonomous Region (jar) in Birobidzhan and elections to its Soviet. These “great historic events had stirred up the broadest ranks of the Jewish masses throughout the whole world.” People who had hitherto not paid much attention “have now realized that only in the Soviet Union has the national question been solved and only in the Soviet Union have the Jewish masses become prosperous.” In the rest of the world, he continued, the Jewish masses were confronted by fascism and anti-Semitism. Millions of Jews in Poland, Romania, Germany and other capitalist countries “live in constant fear of pogroms. The growing crisis and economic boycott drive tens of thousands of Jews to

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

103

hunger and want.” They could contrast that to the building of socialism in a sixth of the globe, where the Jewish masses were partaking in the building of socialism and were “becoming, because of that, productive, free, and ... lifted up to a healthy and culturally rich life.” Some 700,000 Jews were now working in factories and government agencies; another 300,000 settled on the land. Shek told the delegates that the convention was also celebrating ten years of icor’s existence; when founded in the United Sates it had been the only Jewish organization that had publicized the enormous reconstruction of Jewish life in the Soviet Union and the achievements of the Jewish masses there. Seven years ago, he said, “once the Jewish national districts in the Crimea and Ukraine were on a secure footing,” icor had “reconstituted its energies to concentrate on the building of Biro-bidzhan.” The American icor had sent an expedition of scientists and experts to examine the land, climate, and natural resources of Birobidzhan and, afterwards, had sent to Birobidzhan a quarter million dollars’ worth of machinery and instruments. Without any exaggeration, icor could state that it had successfully committed a large part of the Jewish community in Canada to the building of Birobidzhan. The Jewish masses, stated Shek, now realized that the Soviet Union was the only country that had permanently eliminated anti-Semitism, discrimination, and national inequality. It had spared no effort or energy to rejuvenate the life of the Jewish masses by drawing them into industrial and agricultural work; encouraging Jewish culture “national in form and socialist in content”; developing autonomous Jewish districts in the Crimea, Ukraine, and Belarus; and, finally, designating Birobidzhan as an area of concentrated Jewish settlement that would become a Soviet Republic. The centrepiece of icor’s work would remain its support for the building of Birobidzhan. But the success of the Soviet Union frightened the capitalist countries. Hence the importance, Shek stressed, of defending the Soviet Union against those who were preparing for war against it, especially Germany. Shek defined fascism, which made use of race-hatred as its sharpest and bloodiest tool, as “the manifestation of capitalist classes.” icor branches would need to take an active part in the anti-fascist and anti-war movement in Canada. The idea of sending an icor delegation to Birobidzhan had unfortunately not yet come to fruition, noted Shek, as icor had been unable to reach an understanding with gezerd in the Soviet Union regarding the mechanics of such a trip. The convention would have to take up this question again,

104

Jerusalem on the Amur

declared Shek, “because there is a great sentiment across the country in favour of such a delegation.” There was also good news: the Canadian icor had the previous October organized a western tour for Sam Lipshitz. It was, Shek said, a great success: as a result of the tour, a branch in Edmonton and an English-language branch in Vancouver had been formed. Contacts were also made with people in localities that did not have icor branches. Branches had been organized in Ottawa and Windsor as well. A second tour was organized for Charles Kuntz, who lectured in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Windsor, Welland, and Hamilton. Kuntz provided “rich details” regarding the development of the Soviet Union and of jar and was well received everywhere. “The conditions and possibilities of building the ‘Icor’ into a mass organization have never been as good as at this moment,” Shek declared. He stressed the need to involve societies and landsmanshaften, and for icor members to organize within these. “These organizations can and must be drawn into in the concrete work of the ‘Icor.’” Shek lamented the fact that icor now had only one women’s branch, located in Hamilton, and only one youth club, in Vancouver, made up mostly of young people who had been in Zionist youth organizations: “Both to women and to youth, we can speak the truth regarding the colossal achievements of women and youth in the Soviet Union.” The same workers’ power that had liberated national minorities had also freed women and given them equality, and it had opened up unlimited possibilities for youth. Gershman suggested that the convention send a delegate to the Toronto district conference of the cp-led Canadian League Against War and Fascism, which had been founded in Toronto in October 1934. His suggestion was accepted, war and fascism were condemned, and Sam Lipshitz and Gina Medem were selected to represent icor at the anti-fascist conference. The convention delegates later resolved that icor should affiliate with the league and that icor members ought to become active in anti-fascist work in their own communities. Harry Guralnick, chair of the national executive of the Canadian icor and editor of the Kanader “Icor,” reported on his attendance at the American icor convention held a month earlier, where delegates had debated the “correct line” that the organization should take in its activities. Guralnick related that the American icor had “clarified” its position on Zionism, by which he meant that the line on Zionism was softening as part of the rightward shift that had begun in the Communist movement in 1935. He was impressed at the rapid growth of icor in the United States, as indicated by the large number of delegates – 565 – that had been in

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

105

attendance, “representing tens of thousands of Jewish proletarians from across the length and breadth of the United States.” He also spoke of the necessity of bringing more “zest” into the organization to enable it to broaden its activities among the tens of thousands of members of the various landsmanshaften and trade unions in Canada. “This will bring us closer to the position of making the ‘Icor’ a broader mass-organization in Canada,” he asserted. Medem took note of the “rapid construction” in Birobidzhan and praised the Jewish pioneers doing the work, with the support of the Soviet state and the Soviet Communist Party. Their spirit was exemplary, she declared, and they were working as hard as they could in order to make it possible for Birobidzhan to become a Jewish Soviet Republic in five years time. The convention called for the “Jewish masses” in Canada to mobilize for the defence of the Soviet Union, which, through its nationality policy, had “eliminated the bleak lack of rights which the Jews had experienced in tsarist Russia, abolished pogroms, anti-Semitism and in general every form of national oppression.” Fascism in Germany, in particular, was preparing a war against the Soviet Union. It was incumbent upon icor to mobilize people against war and to defend “the great achievements of the only free, only equal Jewish masses in the world – the Jewish masses of the Soviet Union.” The icor convention rejected accusations that it opposed the Jewish community in Palestine: “Our position on the Jewish yishuv in Palestine is the same one as for every other Jewish community in the capitalist countries. We are in solidarity with the Jewish proletariat in Palestine, who struggle in unison with the Arab proletariat against their common enemy.” But at the centre of icor’s activity, the delegates agreed, was its support for Birobidzhan, by means of establishing close relations with jar and sending it technical aid. The convention passed a number of resolutions. It was agreed that the Canadian icor should remain closely tied to the American icor and to gezerd in the Soviet Union. Referring to the still-illegal status of the cp in Canada, a message of greetings from Shloime Almazov, secretary of icor in the United States, noted that the Canadian icor worked under even more adverse conditions than did its American counterpart. The delegates asked the Bennett government to eliminate Section 98 of the criminal code. The building of Birobidzhan as part of the overall advance of socialism in the Soviet Union “has brought about great joy and love from the broad mass of Jewish workers, folk people and intellectuals.” Yet most of the Jewish press continued to ridicule and discount these accomplishments, noted the delegates. The only true exception was Der Kamf. The convention called

106

Jerusalem on the Amur

on all members and sympathizers to subscribe to Der Kamf and to icor’s journal. This would be the best response to the “dark incitements of the Jewish bourgeois press.” Another resolution called for trade with, and diplomatic recognition of, the Soviet Union. Noting that the Soviet Union had never locked its door against those persecuted politically in capitalist countries, or against persecuted Jews in fascist countries, the delegates resolved to start a campaign for a “people’s delegation” to visit the Soviet Union, an idea that would gain wide currency in American pro-Soviet Jewish movements a year later. The executive was mandated to approach gezerd with this proposal. This “would be one of the most important conditions for the growth of the icor in Canada.” The convention elected a national executive consisting of forty members and a central committee of nine, including Abraham Shek, Harry Guralnick, Sam Lipshitz, Abraham Nisnevitz, Harry Shapiro, Israel Zelinsky, Freida Shochat, and Dr Rose Bronstein. The convention ended with the singing of the “Internationale.”1 The Canadian icor’s new membership cards, in Yiddish, described it as a “communal organization of the Jewish folk masses.” It was a “pro-Soviet, non-partisan organization” working on behalf of the construction of the “only Jewish autonomous territory in the world – Biro-Bidzhan.”2 At a meeting held in Toronto on 17 May 1935, the national executive decided to take an active role in a national conference to deal with matters concerning the development of a mass people’s movement for friendship with the Soviet Union, to be held under the auspices of the Friends of the Soviet Union (fsu) in Toronto on 29 and 30 June. This was only logical, noted the Kanader “Icor” in an editorial, since icor was “a pro-Soviet organization popularizing and defending the Soviet solution to the national question.” icor appealed to all Jewish workers and popular organizations to participate in the conference, which was intended to pressure the Canadian government into establishing normal relations, including trade, with the ussr, and into refusing to aid Germany or Japan. At present, the Canadian government was anti-Soviet in its policies and supported those countries eager for war against the ussr.3 Given this situation, asked Sam Lipshitz, should icor concern itself with the forthcoming federal election? The March 1935 national convention had called upon icor to reach out to other labour and progressive organizations; as a mass organization, it should not isolate itself from the activities of the labour movement. But it was also pointed out that icor attracted people of different political opinions. “The only thing binding the mem-

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

107

bers of our organization together is friendship towards the Soviet Union,” Lipshitz wrote. Yet it would be wrong to suggest that icor ought not to get mixed up in political campaigns. “When we speak of the defence of the Soviet Union, we don’t mean that the Jewish workers and masses in Canada should shoulder rifles and head off to the Soviet Union to defend its borders,” Lipshitz wrote. “The best way to defend the Soviet Union is to foster friendship between Canadian and Soviet workers, to win the sympathy of the broad masses for the concrete resolution of the national question by the Soviet Union, and to organize societal opinion in such a manner that, in the event of a war against the Soviet Union, such pressure would be brought to bear against our own government, that it would not be able to take part in such a war and would be pressured to stop trading with those countries that did.” The same held true in the battle against fascism. “We here in Canada wish to deliver the strongest death-blow against international fascism,” and “we want to halt the spread of the fascist blaze in this country. To do this we must fight against every manifestation of fascist tendency, in whatever form it appears.” Hence, contended Lipshitz, it would be a mistake to remain passive bystanders; rather, he emphasized, icor had to support the aims of the working class and, by participating in all of its struggles, make workers aware of icor’s work. He went on: “Does the icor have its own interests in the election campaign? Of course! The Bennett government carries on a consistently anti-Soviet, imperialist, warmongering policy.” It supported Japanese aggression and “directly aids the German fascist government in its obvious preparations for war against the Soviet Union. Our government carries on a policy in the country which leads to blatant fascism.” But which candidates to endorse? Communists had shown themselves to be “the best fighters on behalf of the working-class and the Soviet Union and in opposition to fascism. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, the Soviet Union had solved the problems of the national minorities and had provided complete equality to the Jewish masses.” In the coming campaign, therefore, icor would endorse Communists plus any other candidates “who declared themselves ready to fight for our demands.” Lipshitz made it clear that icor would be tacitly supporting William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Liberal Party.4 In October 1935, the Liberals defeated Bennett’s Tories. In July 1936, the new Liberal government repealed Section 98 of the Criminal Code, which had effectively made the Communist Party and groups such as icor illegal; those Communists who had been jailed under the provisions of Section 98 were released. The movement had now begun to benefit from the

108

Jerusalem on the Amur

rightward shift in the world Communist movement that followed the change of political line agreed to at the seventh congress of the Communist International (Comintern) held in the summer of 1935. At this congress, it was decided to abandon the “class against class” approach, which castigated all non-Communists as political enemies or collaborators, and to embark upon a popular front anti-fascist strategy by allying with non-Communist socialists, liberals, “progressives,” and other democrats. The cpc central committee followed suit by endorsing the “Canadian People’s Front” in November 1935. The Front soon became a significant force in the country’s trade union movement, on campuses, and in various left-wing, religious, and ethnic organizations. It also assumed a more public profile. cpc leaders such as Tim Buck, Stewart Smith, and J.B. Salsberg, a member of the national executive of icor, now toured the country and spoke regularly on the radio, presenting the Communist viewpoint on numerous issues.5 Buck was not Jewish, nor were matters of Jewish concern uppermost on his agenda. Still, he frequently addressed Jewish supporters, and, in the 1935 election, ran for a seat in Parliament in Winnipeg North, a hotbed of Jewish radicalism, where Sam Carr campaigned for him in Yiddish.6 At one meeting held on 20 March 1936 in Montreal, before an audience of 500, Buck contended that Zionism offered no solution to Jewish problems and “eulogized the efforts made by the Soviet Union with a view to establishing a Jewish autonomous state in Eastern Siberia known as Biro-Bidjan, which, he said, was given to the Jews as a home.”7 The party now had “greater social, political, moral and cultural force than at any time in its history.”8 Given the increased awareness that Hitler posed a terrible danger to European Jewry, many Canadian Jews saw in the ussr a potential bulwark against the spread of fascism, which, in turn, made some more receptive to the politics of the Jewish pro-Soviet organizations. Most icor branches celebrated the first anniversary of the declaration on Birobidzhan autonomy in May 1935, and many sectors of the community joined in for the first time. The memory of Peter Smidovitch, a vice-president of the Supreme Soviet who had been active in gezerd since 1925, and who had recently died, was honoured at some rallies. In Vancouver, Montreal, and Winnipeg, some wc branches took part. On 23 April Ab. Epstein lectured to the Vancouver icor, which was collecting money for the Worker, the Communist Party’s newspaper. According to Mendel Bernstein, the Edmonton icor branch sponsored a lecture by Sam Carr and was preparing three events featuring Harry Guralnick. In Calgary, the noted author and playwright Peretz Hirshbein had delivered a lecture at the I.L. Peretz School on 22 February entitled “The Feasibility of a Jewish Republic in the

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

109

Soviet Union.” The Calgary branch, reported branch secretary Cecil Sheinin, had also organized a lecture by Carr and a lecture and banquet for Harry Guralnick on his western tour. Even in Edenbridge, where farmers would be in the midst of the harvest season, icor members were making themselves ready for Guralnick’s visit, reported secretary Michael Usiskin. Winnipeg was praised for its activities, which included a presentation to various foreign-language groups and other societies of slides illustrating the progress being made in Birobidzhan. icor members remained very enthusiastic about the proposal to send a delegation to the Soviet Union: “The tidings which the delegation would bring back from Birobidzhan and the entire Soviet Union, to tens of Jewish organizations comprising thousands of Jewish proletarians, would certainly strengthen and broaden our activities among the masses. We await with great hope the moment when we will resume the campaign for the delegation.” In Montreal, the branch held a mass meeting at Prince Arthur Hall, with guest speaker Gina Medem, attended by more than 600 people. The Birobidzhan celebration organized by the Montreal branch at the ymha was attended by 700 people, including Rabbi Benjamin Goldstein of Temple Beth-Or in Atlanta, who was a member of the national executive of icor in the United States. “The evening was a great morale booster,” wrote the branch secretary, Y. Trachimovsky. A youth branch had been created in Toronto and was working hard to attract a higher proportion of younger members to the movement. Gina Medem spoke in Hamilton following her appearance at the 1935 national convention in Toronto. The city’s two icor branches participated in the fsu conference and held their own Birobidzhan celebration on 16 June. The Niagara branch held its Birobidzhan celebration on 6 June, with some forty to fifty people present. Herman Abramovitch of the national executive spoke about the condition of the Jewish masses in the capitalist nations. He also compared Hitler’s five-year plan to that of the Soviet Union: It was Hitler’s intention to expel all the Jews from Germany within five years; consequently, his plan called for bloody economic and political pogroms. The Soviets, in contrast, were determined to rehabilitate the life of the Jewish masses and establish a Jewish Soviet republic. Abramovitch called for a struggle against fascism in Canada and throughout the capitalist world, and for defence of the Soviet Union, the only country where the Jewish masses were prosperous and free.9 Abramovitch’s analysis of Nazism echoed the standard Soviet approach of the 1930s. He asserted that the worsening condition of Jews in Nazi Germany was a function of the weakness of the Hitler regime. “The economic

110

Jerusalem on the Amur

situation in the country grows increasingly worse,” he wrote. Unemployment was on the rise, prices of essential goods were going up, and the unhappiness of the workers was manifesting itself in strikes and demonstrations. Hitler’s promise to end class conflict “had come back to haunt him like a spectre.” Even many rank-and-file Nazis were beginning to realize that Hitler, who had promised them jobs, “had duped them”: hence his use of the “race card [rasn-mitl].” Anti-Semitism and pogroms “are always used by capitalist countries as a device to cover up the class character of their power. No wonder Hitler has made the Jews scapegoats [kaporeh hindl] for his setbacks.” Abramovitch concluded by pointing to the strong wave of protests and the united anti-Hitler campaigns now under way. “The progressive forces are demonstrating an impressive determination to vanquish Hitler fascism.”10 He discounted the solutions to Jewish ills proposed by the ideologies of Zionism and assimilationism, and he had no time for those orthodox Jews waiting for the Messiah. The overthrow of tsarism and the creation of a Jewish entity in Birobidzhan, the highest manifestation of the Soviet solution to anti-Semitism, had demonstrated that the suffering of the Jewish people had stemmed from the capitalist system and not because “the Gentile is by nature a pogromtshik.” Due to the economic strictures under which Jews laboured under capitalism, they had not been allowed to become productive workers, and this, Abramovitch maintained, had enabled the growth of anti-Semitism. Most Jews had been forced into middle-class occupations, which made them the competitors of non-Jewish middle-class elements. Anti-Semites had been able to characterize them as “parasites” and exploit resentment against Jews. But the Jews in the Soviet Union had demonstrated that they could be just as productive as other peoples.11 Abramovitch reminded icor activists of the growing strength of antiSemitic and fascist movements in Canada. He contended that there were at least thirteen major groups and that they included prominent political and communal personalities. In Quebec, in particular, anti-Semitism had spread “like wildfire.” There had been some anti-Semitic rallies there, staged by fascists such as Adrien Arcand, “that would not be put to shame even by Hitler’s bandits.” Yet the government shut its eyes to these activities.12 Various branches had admitted that they had not devoted enough energy to the dissemination of the Kanader “Icor,” and in the fall of 1935 icor began a small campaign to create a publication fund for the journal in order to make it financially secure. All branches were asked to solicit a certain quota of advertisements in order to cover the deficit entailed in the production the journal: “Our journal provides first-hand information

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

111

about Birobidzhan and the national Jewish districts in the Crimea and in Ukraine.” Some branches did soon thereafter contribute to the publication fund and sold more advertising. Despite that, icor had to admit that its next issue had been delayed due to lack of advertising.13 The journal would remain a problem for the organization and eventually expire. Meanwhile, it was second to none in its praise of the ussr. Calling on Jews to ready themselves to celebrate the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, the journal in its October 1935 issue observed that it had been eighteen years since the Soviet Jews had been economically, politically, and culturally liberated and had been elevated by the Soviet state to equal membership in the Soviet family of nations: “Today we meet the Soviet Jewish masses as a self-governing nationality with its own autonomous nation governed in the Yiddish language.” icor called upon its members to organize celebrations in Jewish communities throughout the country and to defend the “only homeland of all the oppressed and the exploited, the country that had liberated all national minorities, including the Jewish masses – the Soviet Union!”14 Herman Abramovitch recalled when tsarist Russia had been the “prison house of nations” and minority peoples were imprisoned and “in chains.” Today, the former Russia was a union of peoples, based on their right of self-determination: “The Soviet Union is a family of peoples collectively building a happy, worry-free life. Is it any wonder that on the seventh of November – the day that they forever defeated not only tsarism but also capitalism – the Soviet masses dress up in their finest clothes and demonstrate their joy in front of the entire world? Is it any wonder that the eyes of the oppressed in capitalist countries turn towards the Soviet Union? That millions take delight in Soviet achievements?” For Jews, in particular, the anniversary was an occasion for celebration since the revolution had freed them from “the hell” of poverty and oppression and had turned their “accursed days into days of happiness.”15 The regeneration of Jewish life in the Soviet Union was taking place through the medium of the Yiddish language, which had been denigrated as a “jargon” by “the capitalist class as a way of expressing their hatred of the masses and their language.” They had preferred either Hebrew or Russian. But Yiddish was now gaining prestige, with the development of Yiddishlanguage technical institutes, universities, courts, literature, and theatre. This would accelerate with the future development of Birobidzhan as a Jewish socialist republic, where Yiddish had been proclaimed as the official language of government. The government of Birobidzhan, the journal reported, now functioned entirely in Yiddish, “further proof that under

112

Jerusalem on the Amur

Soviet rule the autonomous cultural life of the masses was developing and that the Soviet government was quickly and with practicality fulfilling its promises.” However, such progress was not accomplished without its own difficulties: due to this transition to the use of Yiddish, the Birobidzhan government lacked typewriters. icor had received an assignment from gezerd to provide five Yiddish typewriters to the Birobidzhan government, and the national executive would respond to this task with enthusiasm and delight. “The decrees, orders, proclamations, and other government documents that will improve, enhance, and make more joyful the life of the Jewish masses in Birobidzhan will be written on our typewriters,” enthused icor. “One typewriter from each branch – in the name of each branch – this should be our decision!”16 In order to boost icor’s fortunes in the west, Harry Guralnick undertook a tour with stops in Winnipeg, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Regina, Edenbridge, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. He was, reported the Kanader “Icor,” received with great enthusiasm and helped the icor branches strengthen their organizational work. The Vancouver branch scheduled two lectures and a banquet for Guralnick and was very active in the collection campaign for Yiddish typewriters. The Calgary branch hosted a lecture and banquet for him, both of which were well attended, and it, too, collected money for typewriters. A lecture and banquet were organized in Edmonton, where Guralnick encouraged the branch to broaden its activities and increase its membership. To that end, he held a meeting with people who were not positively disposed towards Birobidzhan and demonstrated to these invited guests that it was in everyone’s interest to share in the important work being done by icor. While in Edmonton, Guralnick was interviewed by the Edmonton Journal about the Soviet solution to the “Jewish question” and the building of Birobidzhan. Guralnick was described as a Rumanian Jew educated in Russia who had been a Canadian citizen for the past fifteen years, a “fellow with [a] sensitive face, wide brows, piercing grey-blue eyes and heavy dark brows” and a “voice that is soft but impregnated by a guttural accent.” Guralnick told the newspaper that the situation in Germany and the ussr were exact opposites: “Fascism endeavors to solve national problems by exterminating national minorities both physically and culturally ... The Soviet solution of national problems means full freedom of cultural, economic and political development.” He assured the paper that “by the end of 1937 Biro-Bidjan will be a Jewish Soviet republic ... My people have all the symptoms of a nation.” He made no secret of his lack of sympathy with the Zionist movement as icor’s aims were “entirely different” from those of

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

113

the Zionists. The Journal reporter noted that “it is with Biro-Bidjan ... that he deals most lovingly.” The Kanader “Icor” remarked that “such an interview with a capitalist newspaper is especially fortunate” because it reached a set of people “which we are still unable to reach with our own declarations.” Saskatoon was the venue for a lecture on 4 November 1935, at which Guralnick debated the issues with representatives of the Canadian Jewish Congress and local Zionists. Immediately afterwards, Guralnick was asked by the chair of the women’s auxiliary of the Talmud Torah to speak to them. He addressed, in English, a general meeting on 7 November celebrating the anniversary of the October Revolution. The Saskatoon Star ran an excerpt of Guralnick’s speech. In Edenbridge, Guralnick’s visit coincided with a number of disasters. Terrible cold and heavy snow prevented many farmers from nearby regions from travelling to hear him speak. As well, one of the main activists had died just before his arrival, and her funeral was scheduled for 10 November, the date of his speech. However, at a memorial meeting held a day later, it was decided to create a fund to go towards the purchase of a Yiddish typewriter for Birobidzhan. Guralnick’s final stop was in Winnipeg, where he spoke on 23 and 24 November at the Liberty Temple.17 Enthusiasm was not in short supply in Montreal: approximately 800 people attended an fsu meeting in the Prince Arthur Hall on 7 November to celebrate the eighteenth anniversary of the October Revolution. Israel Hershbain, chair of the Montreal branch, explained the work of the organization and expressed the hope that it would soon “reach a higher level.” icor in Montreal had established a cultural committee whose responsibility it was to organize frequent lectures and symposia; the committee was also gathering icor materials in order to establish an icor section in the Jewish Public Library. “The other branches in the country should emulate this good example,” suggested the journal.18 One of the speakers visiting Montreal in the fall of 1935 was Charles Kuntz, whose article on the Soviet elimination of national oppression was published in the English section of the Kanader “Icor.” Kuntz stated that the October Revolution had brought about “full emancipation, unqualified self-determination of nations.” The Soviet Jews had become free, both nationally and internationally, “because the Jewish nation, too, is revolutionizing, re-ordering its internal structure upon the socialist foundation. It is against this background that the Biro-Bidjan event must be viewed, an event the profound significance of which can be grasped only when taken in the general context of the grand socialist reconstruction.”19 icor suggested that both 28 March, the date in 1928 when Birobidzhan was chosen

114

Jerusalem on the Amur

as a site for Jewish settlement, and 7 May, the date in 1934 when it was proclaimed a Jewish Autonomous Region, should be enshrined as new Jewish holidays, days “which have opened a bright new page in the history of Jewish working people” and “have become entwined with the history of the Jewish people.”20 The Winnipeg branch was doing quite well early in 1936, reported Chana Leb, the branch secretary; it had attracted many new members and would soon move into larger quarters in the new Talmud Torah. As well, a youth branch had been organized in the city. A conference of fifty-six delegates representing twenty-three Jewish organizations was held on 25 and 26 April. It created the Committee of 15, consisting of heads of various societies, landsmanshaften, and other “popular” organizations (including the Jewish Bureau of the cpc), to coordinate the activities of the pro-Soviet work and to choose a more representative delegation for the upcoming second national convention in May. The conference addressed the issue of Jewish emigration to Birobidzhan from beyond the borders of the ussr, in particular from Poland: Should the Canadian icor send a “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan and should it provide financial aid to these migrants to help with their costs of travel and relocation? Yitzhak Trout, Joseph Litman, and Abe Zailig were especially active in setting up this Birobidzhaner Committee, which was eventually expanded to thirty members. Dr Benjamin A. Victor, who had just returned from a trip to the ussr, including Birobidzhan, gave a lecture about jar – its location, land area, population, and natural resources. The project was made possible through the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party, contended Victor, “done not out of pity for the Jews but because of national duty.” His lecture “was a slap in the face to those who minimize or completely discount the significance and development potential of the Jewish Autonomous Region,” added Abe Zailig, treasurer of the Winnipeg icor.21 Dr Victor, a mainstay of the Winnipeg movement, was born in Zhlobin, Belarus, in 1892. He had attended a gymnasium in Pinsk, arrived in Winnipeg in 1911, and grew up in the city’s North End. He graduated from medical school in 1919. After a few years of practising medicine in Verigin, Saskatchewan, and a year of further postgraduate study in London, England, he returned to Winnipeg in 1924. As a youth he had been a socialist territorialist and was one of the founders, in 1914, of what became the I.L. Peretz School in Winnipeg. However, when most of his comrades joined Poale Zion at the time of the First World War, Victor refused, declaring, along with Zhitlovsky, that an imperialist nation like Britain would not pro-

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

115

vide a national home for the Jews in Palestine. He returned from his stay in Europe in 1924 feeling ever more sympathetic to the Soviet Union. Victor was a founding member of icor and became its chair in Winnipeg. “My parents’ interest was piqued because the national language of the new settlement was Yiddish and this found great favour with my father, a dedicated Yiddishist,” wrote his son Itzi. Victor “loved this language and its literature with a passion.” His other son, Maurice, recollected that the home was devoted to Yiddish culture. “All the Jewish artists and lecturers, who came regularly to Winnipeg, would be entertained at our home,” he recalled. “Both my parents believed ardently that post-revolutionary Russia provided the hope and the leadership for a better world.” Dr Victor described his impressions of socialized Soviet medicine in the November 1937 Nailebn-New Life, the organ of the American icor, now being distributed in Canada by icor. He was especially interested in the sanatoriums and rest homes for the special treatment of specific diseases and the numerous advances made in the study and treatment of diseases. He also found the nurseries and day care centres for children to be far in advance of anything in Canada.22 “Even in cold, far-off Edmonton hearts are beating with love for the Soviet Union, for the revival of Jewish culture in one-sixth of the world,” wrote Sam Wine, secretary of Edmonton’s icor branch. In the brief period that the branch had been in existence, it had organized lectures by Jewish workers’ champions such as Guralnick and Lipshitz. “Given our relative strength,” he continued, the thirty members of the branch had done an impressive job of selling literature and contributing to the various campaigns. Wine singled out Mendel Bernstein, “whose energy, devotion and readiness to carry the burden of the work on his shoulders, made much of this possible.”23 The Windsor branch continued to solicit money to purchase a typewriter to send to Birobidzhan, as did the Niagara District. The new Toronto youth club, formed through the initiative of Harry Shapiro, was developing very well; its membership already stood at forty-three, and it took part in all of icor’s activities. The club, wrote Adolph Epstein, had indeed improved the overall tenor of icor activity in the city, and he hoped that a women’s group could be organized as well. (Such a group would be in existence by the spring of 1937.) The members were very active, with some 90 percent participating in its various activities. Epstein hoped that more Englishspeaking youth could be attracted. The chair of the youth club, Max Speisman, asserted that, despite the attacks of bourgeois Jews and other

116

Jerusalem on the Amur

enemies of the Soviet Union, at no time since its inception in 1924 had icor proved as popular as it was at present: “We have succeeded in smashing the unjust accusations of our enemies.” Speisman suggested that the “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan ought to include one member representing the youth.24 Hamilton’s branches had begun holding frequently scheduled open forums and, wrote Harry Price, more people were gravitating to icor than to any other Jewish organization in the city; they were attending its meetings and paying attention to its message. “Not just workers and the masses, but professionals and English-speaking Jews are moving closer to us,” he stated. “The Hamilton icor has a very active leadership the likes of which no other Jewish organization in the city can match. Our active members are progressive intelligent people, politically-astute comrades ... they are idealists, for whom the icor is the organization helping to rebuild Jewish life on a healthy basis.” Hamilton’s icor had organized numerous celebrations over the course of the year. It had collected money for the typewriter campaign as well as funds for the fsu, the League Against War and Fascism, and the cpc’s Daily Clarion. It had raised money for the campaign to send a delegation to the Soviet Union. It had organized large protest demonstrations against Nazi Germany and had persuaded the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (ccf) and the Trades and Labour Council in Hamilton to join in a boycott of German goods. Price was confident that the members of icor in Hamilton would continue their efforts to help those who were building “a superb structure” of a Jewish socialist republic as a part of the Soviet Union, a part of the country bringing “joy, happiness certainty and a peaceful co-existence for all peoples under socialism.” The two Hamilton branches held a banquet and concert for the eighth anniversary of Birobidzhan and elected delegates to the forthcoming national convention in Montreal.25 The campaign on behalf of Yiddish typewriters for Birobidzhan officially ended on 15 February 1936. icor had raised a total of $809.50, “160 percent of our quota,” which was enough to purchase eight typewriters. Four major centres – Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, and Windsor – had raised $483. Although some branches contributed very little, the small Edenbridge branch had managed to raise fifty dollars and was singled out for its efforts.26 gezerd sent a letter thanking the Canadian icor for its gift of eight Yiddish typewriters and for undertaking a new campaign to raise $3,000 to purchase a linotype machine for the state printing plant in Birobidzhan; this was especially appreciated in that a number of Jewish writers, such as David Bergelson, had now settled in Birobidzhan.27 Abra-

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

117

ham Nisnevitz commended icor for its drive; the linotype machine would provide cultural materials not just for the Jews of Birobidzhan but also for those throughout the Soviet Union. He noted that the campaign provided a fine opportunity to work more closely with other Jewish groups: “People are showing affection and interest in Birobidzhan.” The gift would be received by the pioneers in Birobidzhan “as a symbol of the identification on the part of the Jewish masses in Canada with their creative work.”28 Montreal remained a hotbed of icor activity. By early 1936 there were 150 icor members in Montreal and a new, English-language branch was about to be created. It was hoped that the Montreal membership would double by the time of the national convention in May. Two lectures addressed by Charles Kuntz on 16 January were well attended; indeed, the lecture hall for his second appearance was overflowing. Still, engaging in some self-criticism, Y. Trachimovsky admitted the branch had not sufficiently penetrated much of the life of the Jewish masses and, in particular, the landsmanshaften and other societies. He placed some of the blame on icor members who, when invited to debate the issue of Palestine versus Birobidzhan with a Zionist, refused the offer. This was wrong: “icor should not hide its face,” he insisted. When asked to debate the matter of Palestine, icor “should speak the truth, just as it does about Poland, Lithuania, or any other country,” though “this should be done with tact.” Only thus could icor win people over: “But times are changing, and we are receiving more invitations from societies to speak about Birobidzhan, and this is a big advance.” More efforts should be made among English-speaking Jews, he indicated. There was no use in delivering “ultimatums,” but if these elements in the community were to offer their help, this would be “for us a big victory.” A public relations committee was organized, corresponding secretary P. Blumstein told Nailebn-New Life , to respond to press questions, to provide speakers to other organizations, and to publicize forthcoming events.29 Communist “stars” were aware that Montreal had a large and supportive Jewish left and tailored their message accordingly. When British Communist mp William Gallacher arrived in Montreal on 8 August 1936 for the start of a cross-Canada speaking tour, he spoke before 3,500 people at the Mount Royal Arena on the subject of Communism and the Jewish question. He lashed out at the Zionists for their “collaboration” with “British imperialism” and pointed to the ussr and in particular to Birobidzhan as an indication of how Jews would live in a workers’ state. “The Jews must align themselves with the working class and the progressive movement as the solution of the Jewish problem cannot be found under the imperialist

118

Jerusalem on the Amur

control,” he declared.30 The Poale Zionist Socialists of Montreal had released a pamphlet – Who Is Gallacher? – declaring that he had been invited to Canada to espouse the Arab cause in Palestine.31 In a rejoinder published in the Kanader Adler, the Jewish Bureau of the Communist Party, Quebec District, declared that the Poale Zion were unfairly trying to discredit Gallacher as being “anti-Jewish.” According to the Jewish Bureau, what Gallagher actually advocated was an end to the bloodshed in Palestine between Arabs and Jews through the proclamation of a united front that would throw off the yoke of British imperialism: “Gallacher is a good friend of all oppressed peoples, including the Jews.”32 The Montreal icor was enamoured of the idea of sending a “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan. In March 1936 Trachimovsky sent out a letter of invitation to various “mass organizations, unions and societies” in the city, asking them to send two delegates each to a conference to be held on 2 April at 62 Rachel Street East, the building housing the Montreal icor, in advance of the national icor convention to be held there in May. “As you know, the icor carries on its mission to aid in the construction of the Jewish Autonomous Territory in Birobidzhan,” he wrote. “The work is moving ahead with great speed” in both the agricultural and industrial sectors. In the coming months “a few thousand Jewish families from outside” the ussr would be admitted. The Jewish masses “without exception” were sympathetic to the development of Jewish autonomy and, therefore, he wrote, ought to help in the creation of a Jewish republic in Birobidzhan. By July 1936 the Montreal icor had created the Birobidjan Committee, located at 4013 St Lawrence Boulevard, with a mandate to help organize a “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan. The officers were L.M. Benjamin, a lawyer, who served as chair; Dr Max Wiseberg (secretary); Harry Pokh (recording secretary); Dr Simon Gold (first vice-president); and H. Etcovitch (second vice-president). Others on the executive included Israel Hershbain and S. Koch. A circular letter sent out on 15 July invited interested parties to a conference to be held a week later at the Hebrew Consumptive Hall, where Benjamin and Wiseberg would explain the purpose of the people’s delegation, which was to “acquaint itself on the spot with the building of the new Jewish autonomous community and with the possibilities for a greater Jewish immigration.” The letter expressed the hope that “in this critical moment, when Jews in many countries are being persecuted and driven from their economic livelihoods, ... that you will be interested in such a project.”33 Herman Abramovitch had discussed this matter with various non-Communist community activists in Toronto, where the pedagogue and Work-

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

119

men’s Circle activist Gershon Pomerantz approved of the idea: “With the proclamation of Birobidzhan as a Jewish unit the Soviet Union has demonstrated its strong desire for national harmony on its territory.” Certainly, it would prove conducive to those Jews wishing to return to the land to plough and to sow. A delegation would familiarize itself with the situation there and bring back a full account to the Jewish masses in Canada, he stated. A. Blick, a teacher at the wc Schools in Toronto, agreed. Birobidzhan could, “during the current hardships Jews were suffering, serve as a sanctuary for a large part of the persecuted Jews.” Even Y. Weinroth, of the Jewish National Workers Alliance, or Yidish Natsionaler Arbayter Farband, the mainstream Labour Zionist movement’s fraternal organization in Canada, approved of the idea of a “people’s delegation” if it were to serve as a prelude to Soviet acceptance of Jewish refugees. He recommended that the delegation consist of a majority of non-Communists. He also warned that “Birobidzhan should not be used under any circumstances as a weapon against Erets Yisroel. One doesn’t negate the other.”34 Montreal was the site of the second national convention of the Canadian icor, held from 8 to 10 May 1936 to coincide with the second anniversary of the declaration of autonomy for Birobidzhan. That anniversary was celebrated, on the evening of 7 May, with a large mass meeting and a concert featuring the Frayhayt Gezang Farayn of Montreal. The convention proper was attended by seventy-eight delegates from ten icor branches and sixtyfour organizations. Montreal accounted for fifty-three of these, Toronto eleven, and Winnipeg six. Delegates representing various union locals, wc branches, and other organizations brought their members’ greetings to the convention and were asked to think of ways to broaden and strengthen the organization. A banquet held on the evening of 9 May included as invited guests Fred Rose (the Montreal Communist activist) and Moishe Katz (representing the American icor). In a speech filled with optimism, Katz outlined recent Soviet policies in jar. “There is no inborn hatred between peoples,” he declared. “Racehatred, animosity between peoples, these are the result of a given social order, of the state system, which spreads hatred between peoples, in order to impede them. The best example that peoples can live together peacefully, can cooperate and support one another in a truly fraternal and friendly manner is the Soviet Union.” Katz contended that the nationality policy of the Soviet Union had “led to the fullest normalization of the life of the Jewish masses.” A Jewish working class and a Jewish peasantry, as a part of the overall productive Soviet people, had come into being, and the cultural strengths of the Jewish masses, which had been repressed during the

120

Jerusalem on the Amur

tsarist period, had now been unleashed. The best Soviet Jewish writers, actors, and other cultural figures were settling there, he said. Katz spoke of the importance of icor with regard to strengthening the friendship and unity of the Jewish masses with the builders of jar. He told the delegates that, since the climatic conditions in Birobidzhan were very similar to those in Canada, the Canadian icor was in a position to provide expert advice to the builders of Birobidzhan. Abraham Shek reported on the campaign on behalf of Birobidzhan, which had made “great strides” in the two years since it had been declared a Jewish Autonomous Territory. He provided copious statistics to illustrate his claim. “We are also taking note today with great pride of another fact, that gezerd at its last plenum reported that in 1935 not a single settler abandoned Birobidzhan.” Life in Birobidzhan was improving by the day, thanks to its natural resources. Shek also paid tribute to the five Jewish national districts in the Crimea and Ukraine, and to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish workers who were now working productively throughout the Soviet Union. He spoke of “the bright light shining upon a new, free, productive and hopeful life of the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union.” How different this was from the situation of the Jewish masses under capitalism: “Bloody pogroms, economic oppression, racial discrimination – this is a daily occurrence in Poland, Germany, Romania and other countries.” Even in the so-called democracies “a broad anti-Semitic and fascist campaign of hate is being waged to drive the Jews out of all economic and social positions and to portray the Jewish masses as the ones guilty for the present crisis, which capitalism has imposed on five-sixths of the world.” In Canada, too, noted Shek, “capitalism tries to divert the wrath of the masses by inciting them against the foreign-born and the unemployed.” He singled out Quebec and Manitoba as particularly egregious examples of places where anti-Semitic baiting had become particularly severe. Shek then turned his attention to the Middle East, the scene of renewed conflict between Arabs and Jews: “The current events in Palestine, which have already cost tens of victims dead and hundreds wounded, and the destruction of hundreds of homes, is the result of the bloody politics of British imperialist rule in the colonial world, the politics of divide and rule, and also the chauvinistic racial politics carried on by the leadership of the Zionist movement and on the part of some Arab landowners, against the interests of the impoverished Arab and Jewish masses.” Today, Shek declared, the world stood on the threshold of a war that the fascist powers planned to unleash against “the country that has liberated nations, that sustains culture and civilization, freedom and happiness for

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

121

all of oppressed humanity.” It was more necessary than ever, therefore, “to mobilize the widest strata of the Jewish people for the defence of the Soviet Union.” Shek reminded the convention that, during the previous year, icor had provided support to the fsu and the League Against War and Fascism as well as to Jewish anti-fascist conferences in Montreal, Toronto, and elsewhere. The convention expressed its desire to see closer contact between icor and the fsu at both the national and local levels. Shek commended those who had in the past year founded youth branches in Toronto, Montreal, and Winnipeg. The Toronto chapter had over fifty members, and a chapter for professionals had also been organized in Toronto. However, despite the recommendations made at the previous convention, no new women’s branches had been formed. This was not acceptable, and icor should organize more professional and women’s branches as well as branches for writers and intellectuals. Shek pointed out that, except in Winnipeg, the icor branches in the west were the only “progressive” Jewish organizations in those communities. He also addressed continuing weaknesses within the organization. Why had icor still not managed to attract more Jews who were sympathizers of Birobidzhan? Why had the circulation of the Kanader “Icor” (an average 6,000 copies per issue) remained so small? He told the delegates that it could not survive in the absence of greater financial and editorial commitment from the branches. In response, the convention decided to suspend publication of the journal, resolving instead to include news of the Canadian organization in the American icor publication Nailebn–New Life. The delegates discussed the catastrophic situation of the Jews in Germany and Poland, and considered ways to organize further protests on their behalf. Sholem Shtern, described as a “proletarian poet from Montreal,” contrasted the situation of the Jews in Poland to those in the Soviet Union. “Birobidzhan showed the way for the Jewish masses everywhere,” he declared: “We will live to see the day when every country will have a Birobidzhan which will create heroes from among the Jewish masses.” Max Speisman related the grim situation of young people in the capitalist countries, including Canada, while Abraham Nisnevitz talked about the peace policy of the Soviet Union and the necessity of expanding the work of icor in Canada. Alfred Rosenberg of Montreal suggested that the convention protest to the Kanader Adler regarding the falsehoods being spread about icor by socialist Zionists in Montreal. The convention passed a resolution supporting the sending of a “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan; it instructed the national executive to select five to ten members who would travel to the region in April 1937. It was noted

122

Jerusalem on the Amur

that pro-Birobidzhan support groups had taken similar steps in the United States, Argentina, and Uruguay. The convention also resolved that, even though icor did not usually concern itself with emigration, given the worsening situation of Jews in Europe, it would ask gezerd whether it might help in settling foreign Jews in Birobidzhan. The “people’s delegation” would also study the feasibility of future immigration into jar. The convention selected an enlarged national executive committee of fifty-one members, with Louis Koldoff as national chair, Herman Abramovitch as national secretary, and Israel Zelinsky as finance secretary. Israel Hershbain became vice-chair for Quebec and Joseph Litman for Manitoba. The national executive included fifteen members from Toronto; twelve from Montreal; four from Hamilton; two from the Niagara District; and one each from Cornwall, Windsor, Saskatoon, Edenbridge, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver.35 Why had the “people’s delegation” become so central an issue? The notion that Birobidzhan might serve as a place of political refuge as well as a centre of Jewish economic and cultural regeneration had become more pronounced following Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, and icor saw its chance to recruit potential members among Jews who hoped that Birobidzhan might prove a potential haven from racial persecution for their European co-religionists. In the United States, Ambijan declared that it had received permission from the Soviet government to assist destitute non-Russian Jewish families – who would be selected chiefly from Poland, Lithuania, Romania, and Germany – to settle in Birobidzhan. The selection of immigrants would be carried out by Ambijan representatives in cooperation with Soviet officials. In Birobidzhan, the settlers would be absorbed into collectives and other cooperative enterprises. Ambijan would provide $350 for each family chosen, to cover costs of transportation and relocation.36 James Waterman Wise, who was the son of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the head of the American Jewish Congress and the editor of the Congress-affiliated liberal Opinion: A Journal of Jewish Life and Letters, had also begun publicizing the idea of Birobidzhan as a refuge for Jews. In April 1934 he had written to Reuben Brainin, asking the famed Hebraist and icor stalwart to comment on “the validity of Zionism as a hope for the Jewish people at this time,” as opposed to other political means of safeguarding Jewish life, presumably by supporting the Soviet Union.37 Wise travelled to the Soviet Union that summer and, at a forum sponsored by the Hadassah and Zionist councils of Toronto on 19 November 1934, asserted that the Soviet government took “a deep interest” in helping Jews.38 The pro-Soviet American

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

123

journalist Louis Fischer published an article in the Jewish Standard of Toronto describing Birobidzhan as a potential haven for Polish and Lithuanian Jews; it offered them “both a home and a future.”39 The idea of settling eastern European Jews in jar even gained the attention of the wider Canadian public. An article in the 13 September 1934 Toronto Daily Star observed: “This province presents to the harassed Jewry of Germany as well as eastern Europe an excellent opportunity to live and work in security and dignity.”40 In August 1936, a story in the Toronto Daily Star by a social welfare worker who had visited the Soviet Union quoted one of the main proponents of the settlement of eastern European Jews in Birobidzhan, the British fellow-traveller Lord Marley, who was an active supporter of both the American icor and Ambijan. Marley, who had been to Birobidzhan in 1933, stated that the region now had over 50,000 Jews and that it supported “about 100 schools, 17 hospitals, 50 collective farms and 50 medical practicioners.” Marley described the territory as being “about half as large as England, well adapted to agricultural settlements and well supplied with rich mineral resources.” The article asserted that settlers from Poland and elsewhere would receive land, homes, and social services. The chief requirement was that they be skilled workers or farmers and have a political outlook that would make them acceptable Soviet citizens.41 Ambijan, which had made Lord Marley its honorary president, did not operate in Canada during the 1930s, but the Canadian pro-Birobidzhan movement lauded its work. Sam Lapedes, for instance, took note of the formation of Ambijan “to facilitate the immigration of German refugees, victims of Nazi-fascism, to Biro-bidzhan,” and Y. Trachimovsky suggested that all icor committees in Canada seek out information concerning the possibility of making Birobidzhan a place of refuge for European Jews.42 In August 1934, a front-page article in the Kanader “Icor” datelined Moscow had announced that “Biro-bidzhan will accept Jewish Workers from abroad.”43 Moishe Katz published a long piece in the June 1935 issue describing the proposal in detail. He cautioned, however, that not all Jews from abroad would be able to adapt to the hardships of a “new pioneering land” like Birobidzhan. As well, the region would have to be prepared to receive such large-scale immigration.44 “Birobidzhan will become the base for a mass migration not just of Jews from the Soviet Union but from countries beyond its borders,” an article in late 1935 assured icor supporters.45 Louis Koldoff, in May 1936, described the ongoing preparations to send a delegation from the United States. It would put paid to the lies that had been spread about the Soviet Union ever since the revolution: “everything

124

Jerusalem on the Amur

has a limit, and so these [lies] too will come to an end.” Koldoff went on to praise the ussr as a country whose Jewish population now had the potential to evolve and flourish in all walks of life, “with the utmost cooperation of the Soviet government and – what is even more significant – with the cooperation and fraternal love of over 160 nationalities that constitute the union of Soviets, the large family of nations in which the Jewish people is assuming its proper place.” In organizing a people’s delegation to Birobidzhan, he hoped that it would “succeed in uniting the broad masses of Jewish proletarians around other progressive undertakings. Let the people’s delegation travel [to Birobidzhan] and see for themselves how the Jewish question should and can be solved.”46 Unfortunately, however, the Canadian Jewish Communists were not aware of the actual situation in the Soviet Union. A rising tide of xenophobia had begun to engulf the country, and Stalin’s great purges, which would destroy the Jewish leadership in Birobidzhan, would also prevent the “people’s delegation” from visiting the region. In three successive purges between 1936 and 1938 the political and cultural leadership of jar was decimated, starting with the chair of the region’s Soviet, Professor Joseph Lieberberg, who was arrested in August 1936; the first secretary of the region’s cpsu, Matvei Khavkin, who was arrested in the fall of 1937; and extending down to minor functionaries, who were accused of being counter-revolutionaries, Trotskyists, Zionists, separatists, and conspirators.47 In addition, charges of Jewish nationalism, Zionism, espionage on behalf of Germany and Japan, and other counter-revolutionary activities were laid against most former members of the Yevsektsiya, gezerd and komerd, who disappeared into the gulags of the secret police. Both gezerd and komerd were liquidated in 1938. The general suppression of Jewish culture in the Soviet Union was under way. It was not the time to allow foreign Communists and pro-Soviet sympathizers to visit Birobidzhan. On 15 January 1937, Herman Abramovitch embarked on a six-week tour of western Canada to shore up the icor branches there. He was not very impressed with Edenbridge, where he spent eight days (in part because he had been trapped by a blizzard). Although Edenbridge icor activist Michael Usiskin praised him for his ability to counter the lies of the antiSoviet bourgeois press while visiting the colony, Abramovitch, in an article he later wrote recounting his visit, said that, in Edenbridge, “the wildest nature rules in all her might.” The winters were so cold that the roads became impassable. He described the forty-two Jewish families as living a life “extremely awful and primitive,” the result of being in constant debt to the Jewish Colonization Association. They had little to show for thirty-one

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

125

years of arduous work. This explained why the Edenbridge farmers were such great supporters of Birobidzhan: “the very word brought joy and light to their dark lives.” In Birobidzhan farmers had no mortgages nor did they need to worry about falling into the hands of the Jewish Colonization Association.48 Usiskin, in 1938, also complained about such “parasites” and “exploiters,” who were “a curse for all humanity,” in an article in NailebnNew Life detailing the hardships the farmers were undergoing in the isolated settlement.49 Meanwhile, in London, Ontario, following a lecture by J.B. Salsberg, a full-fledged icor Birobidzhan committee was formed, with Bessie Carr as its secretary. It soon had twenty-five members. Jean Ambrose, secretary of the Toronto youth club, reported great success: the club sponsored lectures every Friday evening; it had helped raise money for typewriters for Birobidzhan; and it had distributed icor literature, including Nailebn-New Life. Even more impressively, the Toronto club had organized a drama group, under the direction of John Weisberg, which had performed a twoact play, Di letsteh minuten fun a zayger, by the New York Communist writer Moishe Nadir, at a concert held on 10 January. Paul Novick of the Morgn Frayhayt was a guest of the youth club and spoke about his six-week trip to Birobidzhan a few months earlier.50 In the spring, icor duly took note of the ninth anniversary of the beginning of Jewish colonization in Birobidzhan and the third anniversary of the proclamation of Jewish autonomy there. Celebrations were organized by various chapters. In Toronto, on 19 April, the Garden Theatre showed the movie Birobidjan: A Greater Promise.51 An editorial in the “Icor” Bulletin, published by the national executive, noted that Russian Jews had not just been liberated as individuals but had been elevated as a group to equal status with other Soviet nationalities. The ussr was free of the Romanovs, the nobility, and the various “parasites” that had oppressed the masses and “drunk their blood.” In the past twenty years, “a new Jewish people has been born. Birobidzhan is the evidence of this rebirth.” Thanks to the creation of Birobidzhan, “the Jewish masses have seen for themselves the way to a bright future and a better and healthier life in the lands where they live.”52 Herman Abramovitch saw in the transformation of formerly dJclassJ Jews into productive workers a dream realized; Soviet Jews now had “a healthy economic existence that would ensure their future.” Birobidzhan symbolized for Jews everywhere “hope, happiness, and the struggle for a better and healthier Jewish life,” he wrote. He also took note of the 29 August 1936 Soviet decree that had named Birobidzhan the cultural centre for all Soviet Jews: “A Jewish state, a homeland of our own – what joy we find

126

Jerusalem on the Amur

in these words!”53 The Soviet ambassador to the United States, Alexander A. Troyanovsky, sent a telegram calling the anniversaries “important historic milestones in the political, economic and cultural growth of the Jewish labouring masses in the Soviet Union.”54 Tim Buck declared the national question in the Soviet Union “solved”: Birobidzhan was an inspiration for Jews and “should receive the utmost in aid from everyone.” He hoped icor’s efforts would prove fruitful and that Jews would come to recognize “the historical role that Birobidzhan plays and will play in the solution of the national question for the Jewish masses.” A.A. MacLeod, president of the League Against War and Fascism, concurred; he suggested that the icor publish literature in English to acquaint non-Jews with “this historic event.”55 “As life for Jews in capitalist countries becomes evermore uncertain,” declared M. Drabkin and Isabel (Bella) Shane, chair and secretary of the Winnipeg icor, “Birobidzhan points us on the road to freedom.”56 As the autumn of 1937 approached, icor branches in Canada, as elsewhere, geared up to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. The national executive; icor and wc branches; labour unions; and individuals in Edmonton, Hamilton, Montreal, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Windsor, and Edenbridge placed ads in the American Nailebn-New Life. In Quebec, the Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis had passed the “Padlock Law,” which gave the provincial government the authority to raid and shut down any institution, and imprison any person, accused of disseminating Bolshevik propaganda. Thus the Montreal icor was able to rent a hall to celebrate the occasion only by means of a ruse, with its secretary, Israel Hershbain, taking the monetary risk of booking the hall in his own name. He was, wrote F. Golfman, “a born trouper.” Toronto, in contrast, was able, on 7 December, to host two Jewish opera stars, Maxim Brodin and Zelda Zlatin, who had embarked on a fifty-four-city North American tour as part of the celebrations.57 icor also scheduled a national conference in Toronto, which took place in mid-December. The campaign to raise money for a linotype machine had, according to Abraham Nisnevitz, been a success. However, he noted, the Montreal members were much more successful than were the Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver branches, and icor would try to discover the reasons for this discrepancy. Winnipeg had promised to do great work at the 1936 Montreal convention, and initially its Birobidzhan Committee, with over thirty component organizations, was very enthusiastic. Recently, however, the Winnipeg committee had become less energetic. The conference needed to analyze the situation and discover the reasons. In Toronto,

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

127

Nailebn-New Life was being widely distributed, some members singlehandedly selling as many as fifty to seventy-five a month. Why was this not the case in other cities? The conference would also evaluate icor’s role in the struggle against fascism and anti-Semitism: how successful had this been? “The Canadian ‘Icor’ must emerge from this conference strengthened and better prepared for further work and success.”58 Addressing the Toronto conference on 19 December, Herman Abramovitch, now the national secretary, remarked that, in the eighteen months that had passed since the 1936 national convention, Canadian Jews had become ever more sympathetic to the tremendous progress being made in the Soviet Union and in Birobidzhan. Despite the efforts of enemies working “hand in hand with the agents of fascism,” who were doing their utmost to sabotage the building of jar, the work was continuing. Elections had been held throughout the Soviet Union on 12 December, and this had been a day of celebration. The Jewish masses in particular were overjoyed as the new 1936 Soviet Constitution “held for them a special significance.” Its proclamation had enabled the Jews to begin to write a new page in the story of Soviet Jewish life. The Constitution affirmed the solid economic basis of Jewish life in the country. Birobidzhan, Abramovitch declared, served as a “a mirror in which we can also see Jewish life in the whole Soviet Union.” He proceeded to list the names of various factories, shops, and electrical stations built during the previous two years; he described as well as the growth of collective farms and the increase in agricultural production. Over the next five years, as part of the third Five-Year Plan, Birobidzhan would take in 150,000 Jews, which would hasten its elevation into a Soviet republic. Jewish culture was flourishing and children were being brought up in the Yiddish language. Abramovitch reeled off statistics concerning the increasing numbers of kindergartens, schools, pedagogical institutes, laboratories, theatres, newspapers, book publishers, cinemas, and radio stations. Yet, while the Canadian Jewish masses were ever more ready to defend the Soviet Union, Abramovitch cautioned that this had also led to a “liquidationist” tendency among some icor members. They questioned the need for the continued existence of icor, given that the great achievements of the Soviets were by themselves creating these thousands of new sympathizers. Abramovitch said that he had been told by some icor members that, since the Soviet Jews were doing so well, icor need no longer collect money. But, argued Abramovitch, they had an erroneous understanding of icor’s mission. Birobidzhan was an essential element in the work of icor because it was a practical example that demonstrated how to

128

Jerusalem on the Amur

create a healthier Jewish life in Canada. It was “the remedy for the sick Jewish life in the capitalist countries.” He blamed the national office for not responding sooner to the “liquidationist” perspective. He also criticized icor for not reacting to the incitements of “the fascist agent Trotsky,” who in interviews in the anti-Soviet press had charged Stalin with anti-Semitism. The fund-raising had been more successful in Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor, and the smaller centres of western Canada – Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Saskatoon. In Montreal, the city’s Birobidjan Committee had organized the campaign, involving societies, trade union branches, and community and cultural workers under the direction of Dr Simon Gold, Max Wiseberg, Hershbain, and Koch. Hundreds of people, previously hostile or indifferent to Birobidzhan, had been won over. “We should all take a lesson from Montreal,” said Abramovitch. In future campaigns, he continued, it would be important to emphasize that, while it was true that Birobidzhan was not in need of external help, nonetheless fundraising was one of the ways in which icor might “transform the idea of Birobidzhan into an influential power within Jewish life in Canada.” He pointed to the success some branches were having in becoming significant players in the wider Jewish community; he specifically commended Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor, and Vancouver for their efforts. In these cities, icor branches played an important and active role and organized celebrations for Birobidzhan and the Soviet Union, often with the assistance of other sympathetic organizations. He also observed in the course of his travels that many icor members suffered from sectarianism. In Winnipeg he saw icor brochures referring to Zionists and socialists as fascists, while in smaller centres the icor chapters often assumed that all other Jews were Zionists. Such attitudes were outdated manifestations of an earlier period, when icor had been weaker. Until now, he remarked, the membership had taken too narrow a view of its mission. icor was obligated to help build a popular front to fight the enemies of progress. “We will need to overcome such difficulties if we are to find the correct approach to the broad masses,” he declared. He recommended that more organizers be sent out across the country. “A representative of ‘Icor’ always brings in new life in the work of our local branches.” Four new branches had been organized since the May 1936 convention: three in Regina, Saskatoon, and London, plus a women’s branch in Toronto. The Cornwall and Ottawa branches had been renewed. icor now comprised sixteen branches across the country, but it faced grave challenges, concluded Abramovitch. In all of the capitalist countries, anti-Semitism and pogroms had become the order of the day: “Only in the Soviet

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

129

Union has anti-Semitism forever been vanquished.” icor needed to direct its energies into working, together with other progressive organizations, both Jewish and non-Jewish, for a world where reaction, pogroms, and antiSemitism would become a thing of the past. “With our broad and energetic work,” concluded Abramovitch, “we will be able to strengthen the forces of progress” in order to build “a better, healthier Jewish life in Canada.”59 By 1937 the Spanish Civil War had taken centre stage in the Communist movement, and the International Brigades, organized by Communist Parties, had entered the war on the Republican side. In December 1937 a Yiddish-speaking unit, the Naftali Botwin Company, was formed and fought against General Francisco Franco and his foreign allies, Hitler and Mussolini. The company became a symbol of the Jewish struggle on the Spanish battlefields and thus became significant in the campaign to attract more volunteers for Spain. “The branches across the country have taken a very lively part in the work of raising aid for the Spanish people’s government,” reported Abramovitch at the December 1937 icor conference in Toronto. He was certain that they would continue to “do their share in the struggle against fascism.” In Montreal, icor had already taken the initiative in organizing a committee, drawing upon the help of over eighty other Jewish organizations, to raise money for Dr Norman Bethune’s medical unit in Spain, and it collected over $1,000 in May and June 1937. I.L. Becker recalled one meeting at which Bethune spoke and at which Reuben Brainin was present and donated money. Harry Price of the Hamilton icor was a delegate to a Toronto conference later that year and decided to mount a special campaign to help the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, formed in July 1937 as a unit of the International Brigades fighting in the Spanish Civil War. The three Toronto branches held special meetings to organize the campaign, which culminated in a mass meeting and concert on 6 February 1938 in the Strand Theatre. The fourteen Toronto branches of the Labour League had also resolved to support icor’s campaign on behalf of the Spanish Republicans: the total collected amounted to $472.55. In early 1938 Abramovitch announced his resignation as national secretary and was given a farewell dinner on 7 January. He moved to Montreal to become a managing editor for Der Kamf and the Morgn Frayhayt and was replaced by Dr Rose Bronstein. icor decided that it needed a national organizer to facilitate its work, and it selected Samuel Rosenfeld of Los Angeles, a member of the national executive of icor in the United States who was at the time living in Toronto. Rosenfeld travelled to Montreal and held meetings with the branches to assist them in their work for Spain. He

130

Jerusalem on the Amur

helped organize a banquet for Spain in Hamilton in mid-February, and he also visited Welland, where the Niagara District members were raising money for the cause. Max Erenberg, secretary of the Vancouver branch, reported on two successful socials held early in 1938 on behalf of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, while in Winnipeg, a raffle, concert, and bazaar were held in the city to raise money for the “Mac-Paps.” The Edmonton branch reported that it too had raised funds for the campaign for Spain.60 The final defeat of the Spanish Loyalists by Franco’s Nationalists in the spring of 1939 dampened the spirits of the Jewish Communists. The Canadian Jewish Congress had been reconstituted as the “umbrella” organization for Canadian Jewry in 1933. icor was not admitted and would continue a running battle with the “bourgeois” cjc throughout the decade. The general secretary of the Congress, Hananiah Meyer Caiserman, was all too familiar with the tactics of the Communists. “The method of the Communist Party is known,” he wrote on 13 December 1935 to Dr M.L. Stitt, president of a B’nai Brith Lodge in Fort William (now Thunder Bay), Ontario: “They form here and there all kinds of non-partisan organizations and are careful to retain effective leadership of same.” He was saddened that some Jews of note – he mentioned by name Reform Rabbi Maurice N. Eisendrath of Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple – had been recruited by the Communists into working in their front groups, and he cautioned Stitt that “to be identified with the communists at the present temper of Canadian politics, is a vital danger to the Jewish population and plays into the hands of Nazi agents from coast to coast.”61 A year later Caiserman again cautioned against cooperation in any anti-fascist “united front” with the Communists. “You ... know that various elements are endeavouring to create the impression that the Jewish people and Communism are one and the same thing,” he wrote on 6 December 1936 to Rabbi Solomon Frank of Winnipeg, president of the Western Division of Congress. “Why should we prejudice the effectiveness of our work by joining a band wagon which is considered by the Mounted Police and by all other Government agencies as a communist undertaking?” He also wrote a letter on 18 December to the secretary of the Western Division of Congress in Winnipeg, the Poale Zionist Meyer Averbach, expressing regret that some Poale Zionists in Winnipeg, such as J.A. (Alter) Cherniak, a lawyer, community leader, and a founder of the I.L. Peretz School, were cooperating with the Communistdominated League Against Fascism and Anti-Semitism and thereby weakening the Congress.62 The league had been founded by, among others, Dr Victor. It organized boycotts of German-made goods and brought in speakers to arouse public opinion against Hitlerism.63

An All-Canadian Organization, 1935–39

131

In spite of opposition from Rabbi Frank, the Communists in western Canada did succeed in penetrating the cjc. On 2 April 1938, Ben Sheps, a Zionist and Congress activist in Winnipeg, informed Caiserman that “we have had many problems with J.A. Cherniak, our vice-president and his Anti-Fascist Committee.” Cherniak – who had attended the founding convention of the Communist-led ykuf in Paris a year earlier – had become a spokesperson for those who felt the league ought to be admitted into the policy-making organs of the Jewish community. Cherniak was one of two Canadian delegates to the Paris congress, the other being Montrealer Alfred Rosenberg. The two, along with Louis Koldoff, were elected to the ykuf central committee. A meeting of the cjc held in Saskatoon on 17 and 18 July 1938 to counter anti-Jewish propaganda in the west called for the establishment of “friendly relations and understanding” among the different Jewish movements engaged in anti-fascist work. Harry Guralnick attended the meeting as an official delegate representing a Winnipeg society, and other participants cited his presence as proof that the Jewish Communists were willing to cooperate in the achievement of Jewish unity. Sheps wrote Caiserman again on 25 October: “We still have trouble with the League Against Fascism and Anti-Semitism. Cherniak insists we accept them and cooperate with them, and admit two of their people into our committee on refugees ... I am afraid that sooner or later we will have to fight them openly.” To augment their work in the league, in early 1938 the Communists had formed their own People’s Committee Against AntiSemitism and Fascism, with Dr Simon Gold of Montreal as president and Charles Rosen as secretary. Cherniak became its Winnipeg representative and would remain so until the signing of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty, or Hitler-Stalin Pact, in August 1939.64

or Birobidzhan

6 Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

The noted Hebraist and Russian-born maskil Reuben Brainin, though active mainly in the American icor, had early Canadian connections, and even after leaving for the United States, he continued to influence the proBirobidzhan movement in Canada. Born in Lyadi, Belarus, in 1862, he had lived in Smolensk, Moscow, and St Petersburg before leaving Russia. According to Nakhman Meisel, while still a youth, Brainin “tore himself away from the crowded little Jewish world to enter the open, bigger world.” Brainin was well known in Zionist circles before the First World War; at first disdainful of Yiddish, he began to see it as the language of the downtrodden Jewish masses. After spending some time in Berlin and Vienna, he came to North America in 1910, settling first in Montreal, where he edited the Yiddish newspaper Kanader Adler. Eventually he founded a short-lived paper, Der Veg, and became involved in trade union and Poale Zionist activities. Brainin helped found the Canadian Jewish People’s Alliance (Folks Farband fun Kanader Yidn), which would become the nucleus of the first Canadian Jewish Congress held in 1919. When he moved to New York in 1916, he was instrumental in working on behalf of an American Jewish Congress and for the Jewish Legion that fought in Palestine in 1918. Brainin had attended the first Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897 and had published a monograph on Herzl in 1919, but during the 1920s he became a writer for Der Tog and moved further left. He would soon abandon the organized Zionist movement, which he had begun to criticize as being elitist and as having lost its “Jewish spirit.”1 Brainin, then a vice-president of the Zionist Organization of America, visited both Palestine and the Soviet Union in 1926. Prior to his visit to Russia, Brainin had not been favourably disposed towards the Crimea project, but his conversations with Peter M. Smidovtich had changed his

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

133

mind: “Emphatically, the Jews owe great thanks to the Russian government for its strong support of the colonization work. There is no conflict between the colonization work in Russia and the development of Palestine. As a devoted Zionist I agree with the viewpoint that those who at this time oppose the Russian Jewish colonization commit a crime against the work in both countries.”2 Although Brainin had been “profoundly impressed and thrilled” by what he had seen in Palestine, during his travels in the Soviet Union his enthusiasm “knew no bounds”: he felt as if he were “on a new planet.”3 In articles cabled back to Der Tog, Brainin described the Soviet plans to settle Jews on the land as a salvation of the spirit of the Jewish people.4 At the conclusion of his trip, in a statement issued in Moscow, Brainin asserted that those Zionists who opposed Jewish colonization in the Soviet Union were “playing the stooge for British imperialism.” The Zionist leadership, who regarded Russian Jewry as “the reservoir for the Halutz movement to Eretz Israel,” manifested “a great deal of uneasiness” in response to Brainin’s remarks: “A free Russian Jewry did not fit in with the Zionist plan.” Weizmann and Nakhum Sokolow in particular were alarmed that Brainin, far from condemning the Soviets, “marveled at the generosity of the Soviet government” in aiding new Jewish agricultural settlements.”5 icor quickly took advantage of Brainin’s endorsement. He was asked by Ab. Epstein to attend a “mass meeting” on 26 December 1926 at the Central Opera House in New York to hear a report by Elias Wattenberg, who had just returned from the first gezerd congress, held in Moscow.6 icor published Brainin’s comments in its own literature. “I see in this back-tothe-soil movement a remoralization of the discouraged, idle trader of the small town,” he wrote. The efforts being made by the Russian government, in partnership with the Joint, were “the most constructive and permanent measure of relief ever attempted anywhere.” He related his own impressions: “I saw simple Jewish workers of the soil, happy to work and to earn their bread. An entirely different human material is being evolved here. A new Jewish life. It is only a beginning, but a healthy, normal one.” He contrasted this with the “dreary trading days of the city.” When he asked the colonists if they were afraid of pogroms, they “looked at me with amazement” and responded by speaking of their excellent relationship with “neighbouring Gentile peasants.” Brainin was certain that “a regenerated, healthy Jewry ha[d] emerged in the Jewish colonies of Russia.”7 Prior to its third national convention in Philadelphia at the end of December 1927, icor held informal gatherings to sound out potential supporters about “the new phase of colonization in Russia.” Brainin was invited

134

Jerusalem on the Amur

by Ab. Epstein to a meeting at the McAlpin Hotel in New York on 21 December. He agreed to be a speaker.8 In 1928 icor organized several fund-raising tours by Brainin. He and Moishe Katz spoke to a large gathering in Montreal on 8 April. Their visit was a success: the Arbayter Ring donated $300 to icor, while other organizations and firms donated a total of $245.9 By 6 May, when Brainin spoke in Springfield, Massachusetts, on “Jewish Life and Colonization in Soviet Russia,” the local icor and its supporters had collected $650 for a tractor destined for a Jewish village in Russia. In Chicago, Brainin was featured at a “Midnight Concert and Performance” on 30 June, together with noted attorney Clarence Darrow.10 In July, Brainin set off on a tour of Fall River, Rochester, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Detroit.11 He undertook a six-week tour in November and December 1928 that would take him to sixteen cities, including Winnipeg. A report of Brainin’s 9 December visit to Winnipeg, published under the headline “Reuben Brainin Makes Stirring Appeal for Support of Icor” in the 14 December issue of that city’s Jewish Post, demonstrated his influence in the Canadian Jewish world. Before a capacity audience at the Talmud Torah, Brainin “made a stirring plea” to Zionists to help in the colonization work, claiming that icor and Zionists had identical goals: to revive Jewish nationalism and to “restore the respect of the world for Jews as producers.” He told his audience that the work of the Joint and the work of icor complemented each other. Dr Benjamin Victor, who chaired the meeting, defined icor as a movement “in which all sections of the Jewish community could participate.” Brainin recounted his recent trips to Palestine and the Soviet Union; in both places, he found the work of Jewish colonization “simply amazing to me ... I can state with all the conviction at my command, that the Icor is not antagonistic to Zionism, that it is in fact an extension of the work being done in Palestine.” Yet, while most Jews supported the Zionist project, they remained less enthusiastic about the progress being made in Russia. Having seen how the Russian government “is actively assisting in this colonization work,” Brainin assured his listeners that Jews there were now “free and equal with all the other inhabitants. The Soviet Government is the only government in the world which officially campaigns against anti-semitism.” Brainin recounted a conversation with a Soviet commissar: “We have a high regard for the Jewish people, and would welcome them as a separate republic in our Union.” The colonization movement would strengthen the Jewish people, Brainin told his Winnipeg audience.12

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

135

Brainin’s sixteen-city tour was judged a success as, altogether, 6,000 people came to hear him and $4,800 collected. In St Louis, his “heartfelt words” left a deep impression on his audience; in Kansas City 500 people came out to hear him; in Omaha he spoke to a crowd of 200; in Sioux City a great reception awaited him; while in Los Angeles, where the tour concluded, he spoke at five meetings between 21 and 25 November. icor activists made each of these appearances a festive event. Mark Aberson, executive secretary of icor in Los Angeles, told Talmy that “all the branches fell in line” and provided “very enthusiastic support.” Over 700 people came to hear him at the first event, where “he kept the audience spellbound with his report on the Soviet Union and Icor work.” This was followed by meetings with the icor executive, a meeting with the Eastside branch, and then a luncheon that was attended by representatives of local Zionist organizations, the Federation of Jewish Charities, and the editor of the California Jewish Voice. “Our slogan was a tractor for Reuben Brainin,” wrote Aberson. Altogether over $1,500 was collected in cash and another $500 in pledges. Brainin also spoke in Ontario, California, where over $400 was collected, “a very significant sum for such a small community.” Brainin’s visit, concluded Aberson, “made for the icor numerous friends.”13 The tour had been so well received that icor organized another, twelvecity tour from late December 1928 to mid-January 1929. Pittsburgh, Memphis, Atlanta, Portsmouth, Norfolk, Richmond, and Wilmington were among the communities Brainin visited. The Norfolk icor branch, in announcing his visit to that city, stated: “No Jew who still retains even a drop of concern for the fate of our sisters and brothers on the other side of the ocean ought to miss the opportunity to come and hear what Reuben Brainin has to say [in his talk entitled] ‘The Future of the Jews in the Soviet-Union.’”14 Brainin felt that, regardless of their class or political orientation, Jews had become more interested in and sympathetic to the Jewish colonization efforts in the Soviet Union and that their feelings towards icor had become more positive. Thanks to the work of icor, the broad Jewish world had come to realize that to come to the aid of the Jewish colonization movement in the Soviet Union was now “the most important problem in Jewish life, and that this help must come from the broad masses and not just from individual philanthropists.” People were beginning to appreciate “the non-partisan nature of the icor, the idealism of its activists, the wide range of its tasks and causes, as well as the fact that its work in America had been fruitful, positive and

136

Jerusalem on the Amur

constructive.” Despite all the vicious accusations, lies, and slanders thrown at icor by its enemies, “it had not proved possible to blindfold the Jewish masses.” They could see for themselves the strong will exhibited by icor to help the Soviet Union “to abolish Jewish poverty, to provide the Jewish masses with a productive existence and autonomy.” Brainin was convinced by his visits to the cities on his tour that the icor members that he met “belonged everywhere to the more intelligent, idealistic, courageous workers.” Brainin insisted that, given its non-partisan nature, in icor people could work “hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, and in complete harmony.” His lectures attracted people of all political persuasions, workers and intellectuals, from the Orthodox to uncompromising leftists. There were Zionists, Poale Zionists, and supporters of the Joint. The debates were spirited, Brainin noted, and the question-andanswer periods allowed him, in a few places, to win listeners over to icor. While Communists did not control icor, they were, it had to be admitted, the most devoted workers in the movement: “No work is for them too hard or too minor. In those cities where there is not a single Communist in the ‘icor,’ the work is more difficult and without fervour.” As for those icor branches with Communist members, they worked in full harmony with comrades from other political parties, or with those who were unaffiliated, because they all shared one goal: to widen the possibilities for Jewish colonization and to attract ever more members to icor from all walks of life.15 Brainin reported on his tour to the plenum of the icor national executive held in New York on 20 January 1929. He found great enthusiasm in the country for icor and felt this was the opportune time to bring in so many new members that icor would become a mass organization. The new Birobidzhan project was a great undertaking and thus merited more work at a faster tempo, he said. The favourable receptions he received in many cities convinced him, he stated, that many non-political people would now get involved, along with Zionists and Reform Jews. He believed more money could have been raised had icor members not neglected many opportunities because they still did not know how to take advantage of the right “psychological moment.”16 Brainin was now an icor member and a fixture at its events. His yikhes (status) made his support valuable. In 1928, Moishe Backall, the vice-chair of icor in Chicago, sought Brainin’s assistance in persuading the organization to help establish a library in Birobidzhan. “You are certainly familiar with the great hardships faced by the first pioneers and settlers in Birobidzhan,” Backall wrote. “They must get accustomed to a new climate, to new circumstances, and to a new kind of life. Only their idealism and

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

137

their spirit of self-sacrifice will allow them to surmount the stones in their path.” After working all day they needed intellectual stimulation in the evening. “It is therefore very important that we in America should get to work to create a library for Birobidzhan ... A library with a great number of Yiddish books, and a smaller number in other languages, will certainly serve as a center for the pioneers and settlers in Birobidzhan to gather and will broaden the knowledge and learning of the builders of the Soviet Jewish Republic.” Vehicles to bring books to outlying communities would also be needed, wrote Backall. He hoped that fund-raising committees could be set up in Chicago and other cities for this purpose and was certain that such a campaign would help icor to gain members.17 But Brainin, as a classic fellow-traveller, had to be treated with great delicacy. In 1928, the Tog, to which Brainin contributed articles, expressed misgivings about the nature and management of icor, and Brainin broached the subject with Leon Talmy. Brainin was particularly upset at the large amounts the organization was spending on advertising in the Daily Worker. Talmy, to reassure Brainin, sent him copies of financial statements that had been certified by icor’s public accountants. He pointed to the fact that the overhead expenses of icor as a percentage of the cash sums raised were 29 percent. As well, he pointed out that “quite a number of the readers of the Daily Worker are actively interested in our work for the Jewish Colonization in Soviet Russia and many more of the readers of that paper are potential active supporters of our work. There is no doubt but that such advertising more than pays for itself in actual results.” Talmy also refuted claims that icor was a Communist organization: “You have been at our meetings and you know that out of 62 members of the Executive Committee, at least 38 have no party affiliations. Most of the members of the National Executive Committee are well known literary and public men, representing various trends of thought, and various social strata in the Jewish community and who are meeting on common ground in the work of our organization on behalf of the Jewish colonization in Soviet Russia.”18 Reassured, Brainin remained a member. In 1929, at age sixty-seven, Brainin travelled to South Africa to obtain support for the Jewish colonization in Birobidzhan, the Crimea, and Ukraine. Former Zionist confreres such as the poet Khaim Nakhman Bialik, now living in Tel Aviv, were shocked at his pro-Soviet views; Bialik denounced him as a traitor and falsifier worthy only of rejection and contempt. Brainin said he would devote his energies to “tearing down the web of lies about the Soviet Union” and demanded that Bialik retract his statement. The two met before a Zionist “court of honour” in Berlin in 1929.

138

Jerusalem on the Amur

Brainin told his Zionist accusers that “the future of the Jewish people is bound up with the existence of the Soviet Union” and added that “I shall be grateful to the Soviet government to my dying day.” They were not impressed: Bialik accused Brainin of remaining silent about mistreatment of Zionists in the ussr.19 Brainin considered himself the victim of a misunderstanding. He explained to Kalmen Marmor that he had been judged unfairly; he remained faithful to his primary goal, which was to see the Jewish masses become productive workers and agriculturalists. Herzl himself, Brainin remarked, was concerned with the future of the Jewish people, not just Erets Yisroel. Yet he, Brainin, was now being “insulted with all manner of epithets.” Supporting Jewish colonization efforts in the Soviet Union did not imply that he opposed colonization in Erets Yisroel, he told Marmor.20 Brainin visited the ussr a second time a year later and spoke to the fourth plenum of the central executive of the gezerd, held in Moscow on 12 and 13 July 1930. He said he was “overcome” by the “complete freedom and tolerance for criticism” at the gathering. So much progress had been made in the Soviet Union since his last visit in 1926, Brainin said. He was particularly impressed by the large effort the Soviet government was making to colonize Birobidzhan. The results gave the lie to those who claimed the project was just a “fairy tale [bobeh-mayses].” It would be beneficial if the Jewish youth outside the Soviet Union could be made enthusiastic about the “grandiose” project to create a Jewish entity in Birobidzhan, part of the Soviet Five-Year Plan, and help with the effort: “Here people want to build in 5 years that which others might not manage in 100 years.” The work proceeded at an amazing tempo, not a minute being wasted. Never before in Jewish history had a government provided such help to the Jewish people, he stated.21 Brainin still had his supporters in the Jewish community; as he turned seventy in 1932, his birthday was celebrated at Town Hall in New York. An interview published in the Canadian Jewish Review described him as “a dreamer who has suffered” yet “stood his ground despite the terrific attacks of his former colleagues in the Zionist Organization.” Brainin said that political Zionism had “shrunk to such narrow dimensions” that it now failed to “attract our youth to it.” It lacked the intellectual courage to face realities and was thus “at a standstill.”22 Pierre van Paassen defended the “lonely figure,” claiming that “hundreds of thousands of young Jews,” Brainin’s followers, were “struggling to free themselves of the narrow concepts of a petty nationalism.” Brainin was “a true cosmopolitan and idealist,” wrote van Paassen: “It is an outrageous

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

139

Reuben Brainin on a visit to Montreal in the 1930s. l. to r.: Israel Rabinovitch, journalist; Devora Kofsky Rosenfeld, Brainin’s secretary; Israel Medres, journalist; Reuben Brainin; writer Mordecai Ginsburg; and historian B.G. Sack (Jewish Public Library, Montreal – Photograph Collection)

calumny to say of Reuben Brainin that he has deserted the cause of the Jewish people as expressed in Zionism by recognizing the value of the Russian experiment.” A true visionary, “He has preceded millions to the still untrodden shore of a new world.”23 Moses Frank, the editor of Toronto’s Jewish Standard, tried to rationalize Brainin’s behaviour. He explained that Brainin, who had already, as a result of his experiences in Montreal, become “a somewhat disillusioned and embittered man,” was overly impressed when visiting Russia in 1926: “Brainin was carried away by the greatness and the daring of the Russian experiment, by its lofty human ideals, and he pleaded for a revision of the accepted Zionist attitude towards the Biro-Bidjan project.” Though he had not renounced Zionism, “a few hasty remarks here and there” were seized upon to condemn him, and Brainin “became an outlaw among Zionists and Hebraists,” his name no longer uttered, his books no longer reviewed

140

Jerusalem on the Amur

in the Hebrew press.24 Frank’s sympathy for Brainin did not extend to providing a blanket apology for the Soviet regime. “Grateful as we Jews are to the present regime in Russia for abolishing persecutions and for granting Biro-Bidjan to Jews as a national territory,” the Soviets, he reminded readers in an editorial, continued to oppose Judaism and Jewish culture. In Palestine, they “did not shrink from encouraging massacres” against the Jewish settlers and “extolled the heroism of the fascists and effendis who sought to destroy the collective farms of Jewish Palestine ... Millions of Jews, persecuted in Eastern Europe, knock at the gates of Palestine, and the Communists incite the Arabs to oppose their admission.”25 The treatment he had received from his former Zionist friends left Brainin hurt but defiant. In his greetings to the sixth national icor convention in New York in February 1935, he declared: “I personally have a lot to thank the icor for.” Having observed its work on behalf of a Jewish socialist republic in Birobidzhan, “[he] too threw [him]self into the battle and made an agitational tour across America on behalf of the same idea.” During the tour he had come into contact “with the most sympathetic elements in the Jewish workers movement.” He praised the leadership of icor, “which undertakes both the ideas and the practical work necessary for building up a Jewish socialist republic.”26 Brainin had now broken completely with the non-Communist left; before an audience of icor supporters, he “tried” Ab Cahan, long-time editor of the socialist Forverts in New York, for his “criminal” activities and “sins” against the Soviet Union. Brainin wrote that, in the ussr, he had met Orthodox rabbis who prayed to God to protect the Bolshevik government, which defended Jews against the anti-Semitic Black Hundreds and other counter-revolutionary anti-Semites. But Cahan would rather repeat lies against the Soviets, even if those lies led to the destruction of all the Jews. “Every single person should be embarrassed to pick up the Forverts,” Brainin told his listeners. Men like Cahan were “the enemies of freedom and justice.”27 David Rome would later call this period of Brainin’s life “confused” and “unfocused,” his falling out with the Zionist movement “a tragedy.” Brainin “took the bait of the enemy,” a “vague communist promise of a Zion in Russia.”28 On 7 May 1934, Mikhail Kalinin officially declared Birobidzhan the Jewish Autonomous Region. Brainin related an encounter with former friends, still anti-Soviet, who were dumbstruck by the news. For them, he said, it was “Tisha B’Av” (i.e., a day of mourning). They could only denigrate the wonderful news and try to make of little worth (“ash und bloteh”) the “great gift that the Soviet government has granted the Jews in the far east.” They called it a “catastrophe for the Jews.” But for the icor, which had helped

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

141

build Birobidzhan by contributing modern machinery and techniques, it was a great “yontev.”29 The Soviet Union “is the first country in modern history to give to the Jews, of its own free will, a portion of its land as an autonomous territory,” he wrote in the Jewish Standard: “If anyone had prophesied this twenty years ago he would have been declared insane.” The Soviet Union, said Brainin, “no longer has a Jewish problem. Its Jewish citizens enjoy all the rights and privileges of their non-Jewish fellows ... It is a happy sign that the national minorities of the Soviet Union have cordially and sincerely welcomed the decision of their Government to admit the Jews as a full- fledged entity in their country’s family of nations.” Yet the foes of the Soviet state criticized the project, claiming Birobidzhan was “a poor region with an unbearable climate – this despite the report of the non-partisan experts’ committee which, after studying the territory, found it rich in various natural resources and capable of absorbing and supporting the proposed immigration.” He could not understand why, “now that the miracle has come to pass,” and world Jewry “has been presented with a territory as large as Belgium and Holland combined,” the Jewish world, at such a time of danger, when “we stand surrounded by a hostile world” of fascists and anti-Semites, instead of receiving the Soviet decree as “a covenant of salvation,” has “belittled this historic document” and “views it with indifference and even hostility.” Brainin wrote that the Soviet government was serious about the Birobidzhan project: the budget for the new autonomous region for 1934 was 54 million rubles. Surely the Jews of Europe and America, who for years worried that assimilation in the Soviet Union would contribute to the annihilation of the Jewish community, should have felt “highly gratified at this decision” since, in Birobidzhan, “assimilation will be impossible” and Jewishness “will have a new lease on life.” Were Jews afraid to express gratitude lest they be classified as Communists? He insisted that Birobidzhan in no way competed with Palestine for settlers or funding. Indeed, Zionists should have been the first to recognize that the establishment of jar could serve to shame Britain into being as generous to Palestinian Jewry as the Soviets had been to their own Jewish population. In any case, “while we continue to bewail their fate,” the Jews in the Soviet Union “are marching proudly and vigorously toward their golden future.”30 At a rally held on 2 June in Madison Square Garden, New York, Brainin remarked: “I am persuaded, as a man and a Jew who believes in the final victory of social justice and in the foundation on which the Soviet Union is being built, that the Birobidzhan declaration is a world event of the greatest historical significance.” For the first time, a great power had of its own

142

Jerusalem on the Amur

volition given Jews an area to call their own. It was no coincidence that this had been done by a Communist state: “It is the logic of the whole construction of the Soviet Union, in which every nation has the right to its own territory, to its own language and culture.” Birobidzhan, he added, “now becomes the first fortress against the growing hordes of fascism, which infest the neighbouring countries.” Yet when he had first visited the Soviet Union eight years earlier and called upon world Jewry to support Jewish colonization efforts in the Crimea and in Ukraine, “my so-called friends, with whom I had worked for decades, called me a traitor.” Brainin asked every Jew to help in the task of building Birobidzhan.31 On 8 July, at a celebration in Philadelphia, Brainin remarked that Leninist ideology allowed those Jews who wished to pursue a collective destiny to create a socialist state of their own. Birobidzhan, declared Brainin, was a paradise (“gan-eden”) for those who were willing to roll up their sleeves and set to work building a new Jewish socialist community: “I do not doubt for a second, that Birobidzahn will provide a shining example to the whole world and will show what Jews can create when they are set free ... It must work, because when taking into account the new pioneering spirit of the Jewish youth in the Soviet Union, I have confidence in the outcome.”32 On the first anniversary of the 7 May declaration, Brainin remained certain that, whatever political storms might be occurring elsewhere in the world, the work of building Birobidzhan was proceeding: “Nothing stands in the way that would prevent Birobidzhan from turning into a large and bright chapter in the coming history of our people.”33 While the Birobidzhan pioneers building a socialist Jewish republic were taking full advantage of the principle of national self-determination, a cornerstone of Leninist policy, icor never failed to remind people that Jews had complete equality throughout the ussr. Jewish Communists, in line with the teachings of Marx, Lenin, and a host of lesser lights, considered anti-Semitism a function of class conflict and the occupational roles into which Jews had been channelled for centuries, an inevitable by-product of the ethnic competition that resulted from the antagonisms and exploitation inherent in a capitalist economy. Anti-Semitism could be eradicated only as part of a larger social revolution. Since the Soviet Union had undergone such a transformation, the very foundations that allowed anti-Semitism to flourish were being destroyed. “With every passing day it becomes clearer, that anti-Semitism is a direct product of the capitalist system,” declared Brainin. “It is enough to look at the capitalist countries and then to turn our gaze to the Soviet Union.”34

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

143

Brainin noted in 1938 that “the just treatment of nationalities under the Bolshevik regime is the highest joy for the Jews in the Soviet Union.” AntiSemitism was on the rise everywhere but in Russia; there, Jews lived in a land where anti-Semitism “was dealt its death blow” and was a criminal offence: “Fascism looks upon anti-Semitism as its strongest artillery, by means of which it seeks to destroy democracy.” It was a weapon used to discredit all political and economic opposition. “Every democratic government is called by the Fascists a ‘Jewish government.’” In the ussr, Jewish nationalism of the bourgeois and chauvinistic variety was unnecessary, but genuine Jewish national creativity would flourish: “The Jewish nation can exist only when it is not physically destroyed. Where the healthy large Jewish masses live, there will also Judaism live.” Jews in the ussr were more privileged than their brethren in the capitalist countries: “Soviet Jews voluntarily take a healthy interest in modern Jewish culture.” They could live both as Jews and as human beings, and “they are able to look to the future without dread.”35 The dying capitalist world could no longer ignore the symptoms of its own destruction; its forces were battling “with their last bit of strength against the triumphant spirit of Communism, which no one would be able to keep in check.” The fascist states in Europe were, said Brainin, “the last dying convulsions of a corpse.”36 On 14 April 1936, Brainin wrote a letter to the newly formed Englishlanguage icor branch in Montreal, which had been named in his honour:

The task of building Birobidzhan should be strengthened and aided by all who want to contribute. Those who have carried the burden of the Birobidzhan concept in the face of narrow-minded opposition, in the face of fanatical ideologies and in the face of the wildest calumnies – they need new strength if Birobidzhan is to truly become a Jewish republic. I have no doubt that history will validate the correctness of those who, despite opposition and hardships, became the shock-brigades of the Jewish settlement of Birobidzhan. You, as a new group, will encounter many difficulties. You will have a most arduous task in overcoming the obstacles placed in your way. It is a well-known fact that the Soviet Union stands for social justice and for eliminating all the evils that destructive capitalism has spread throughout the world. Because we are Jews, who believe in the true words of Jewish tradition and culture, we should be grateful and proud to become part of a country that carries the weight of a new and better world for all people.37

144

Jerusalem on the Amur

Brainin also insisted that Birobidzhan, as a Jewish territory to be occupied by a Jewish population, would be able to sustain a collective Jewish life. But “Birobidjan in no way competes with Palestine. Everyone who is honest with himself must acknowledge this fact.” There was no need to choose between Palestine and Birobidzhan. Why could Jews not have two socialist republics?38 icor, along with the iwo’s Jewish Section, the left-wing writers group Proletpen (Proletarisher Shrayber Farayn), the Workers Theater Group Artef (Arbayter Teater Farband), the Jewish Workers Musical Alliance, and the Jewish Workers’ University, held a “grand people’s celebration” in the Central Opera House, New York, on 23 May 1937, for Reuben Brainin on his seventy-fifth birthday. In addition to performances by several artists and singers, the program included speeches by Frayhayt editor Moissaye Olgin, B.Z. Goldberg, and Peretz Hirshbein.39 Brainin even received a letter of congratulations from H.M. Caiserman, general secretary of the Canadian Jewish Congress.40 Brainin’s friend A.B. (Archie) Bennett, a prominent Toronto communal worker and activist in the Canadian Jewish Congress, penned a tribute to Brainin in the Jewish Standard. Though Brainin was now ravaged by illness, Bennett wrote, he retained a “fresh and resilient” mind and a “vigorous militant intellect.” Thus, according to Bennett, Brainin’s enemies and ideological opponents still had reason to “hate him” and remained “unready to forgive his non-conformity.”41 Indeed, Brainin’s enemies continued to denounce him, and he was ostracized by many within the Jewish world. The Canadian Jewish Review asserted that the former Zionist “has given comfort and support to the Communists, the most bitter enemies of Jewish national aspirations.” His birthday was thus being celebrated “by members of a cult that in its very essence is antagonistic to everything for which he labored the greater part of his life.”42 In a letter to his friend Kalmen Marmor, written in June 1937, Brainin remarked that his interest in helping to organize the forthcoming World Yiddish Cultural Congress, at which the ykuf would be created, would no doubt result “in the Hebraists assaulting me with curses” at the very time when he was in the process of publishing his collected works in Hebrew.43 In December, he wrote to the Soviet Consulate in New York, asking whether the ussr would have any objection “to the distribution of a few hundred copies of the second volume of my Collected Works in the Soviet Union,” where they might be sent “particularly to Birobidjan and the Jewish farm settlements in the Ukraine and Crimea ... You are most probably acquainted with my personal attitude toward the ussr. As a matter of fact,

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

145

so strong and uncompromising has been my defense of the ussr that my Hebrew writings have been labelled Soviet propaganda.” He assured the consular official that “my work is entirely secular in character, and were it written in any language other than Hebrew there could not be the slightest question of its entry into the ussr.”44 Interviewed by Nailebn-New Life, Brainin, now a member of the national committee of icor, remained “firmly convinced that our pioneers in BiroBidjan will create new cultural values that will be altogether different from what is regarded in Jewish ghetto life as Jewish culture.” The “Grand Old Man of Hebrew Literature,” as the article referred to him, told interviewer Morton Deutsch that, although he had never totally turned his back on Hebrew, “Yiddish, which is spoken by the majority of our people, must be regarded by any realist as the language of Jewry” – and the Yiddish language had been saved in the Soviet Union. Brainin asserted again that one could support both Palestine, “provided it is based on social justice,” and Birobidzhan, since Palestine by itself “cannot effect a normalization of Jewish life in the Diaspora.” He criticized those Jewish leaders who, at a time when grave dangers were menacing Jews everywhere in the world, were rejecting “the generous hand extended to them by the Soviet Government. I have a feeling that in the not distant future many world Jewish, and Zionist, leaders will have a lot of repenting to do.” Brainin told Deutsch that Birobidzhan “stands out as one of the very Jewish undertakings” in which Jewish and universal ideals coincided. This was why Jewish youth were turning towards the Soviet Union, a “symbol of a new world,” and leaving behind a Zionist movement “holding fast to the chauvinistic and nationalistic mistakes of other peoples.”45 Charles Kuntz had been Brainin’s friend since both had been students at the University of Vienna from 1889 to 1893. Kuntz recalled that it was during the 1920s, when both of them were living in the United States, that Brainin had become increasingly sympathetic to the Soviet Union and finally joined icor. Brainin had seen first hand that the Jews in the Soviet Union were physically and mentally “rebuilding their national selfhood upon the solid foundation of socialism.” For this he was “crucified by the Zionists on a cross of lies and calumny” and shunned by the Jewish intelligentsia. Such abuse was unwarranted, according to Kuntz: Brainin had subordinated his Zionism and “embraced Sovietism” because he had realized that the Soviet Union’s national policy had solved the problem that Zionism had addressed.46 Brainin was also defended in Nailebn-New Life, which declared that he had become “the symbol [of] the struggle of the Jewish masses for a revolutionary solution of the national question.”47

146

Jerusalem on the Amur

Brainin spoke at a large gathering in Madison Square Garden on 21 November 1938, in response to the 9–10 November Kristallnacht pogroms in Germany. Jews, he exclaimed, should “pledge ourselves again to continue our battle against this plague that is spreading over Europe. We are the vanguard of democracy because the Jewish philosophy of life and our ancient traditions stamp us as the antithesis of everything that Fascism signifies.”48 Despite his defiant words, by the spring of 1939, Brainin, who had never recovered from the death of his wife Masha in 1934, was himself dying of a lengthy illness, probably Parkinson’s disease, which caused him to be paralysed for the last three years of his life. Others in the movement treated him delicately. Paul Novick, for example, wrote in March 1937 to request an article for the Frayhayt: “I hope you are healthy and that the few lines we would be happy to receive from you would not be too onerous a task.”49 One month later, Brainin told Ab. Epstein that he was too ill to attend a banquet celebrating the second anniversary of the magazine Nailebn-New Life and would, on the advice of his doctor, travel to the Laurentians for the summer.50 In early April 1938, Brainin wrote to Shloime Almazov that he was too sick to undertake a trip to Chicago later in the month to speak on behalf of icor.51 Almazov, in reply, expressed his gratitude to Brainin for attending a celebration held on 17 April 1938 at the Manhattan Opera House to mark the tenth anniversary of the original proclamation of Birobidzhan for Jewish settlement: “We wish you a lot, a lot of health,” wrote Almazov.52 In his greetings to Shloime Almazov on the fifth anniversary of Nailebn-New Life in 1939, Brainin explained that he could send only a short note, not a full-length article. Brainin praised the magazine as a “wake-up call for the Jewish masses”; he praised Almazov as an energetic editor whose broad understanding of politics enabled him to guide the Jewish masses forward to a new life. Nailebn-New Life demonstrated that the pioneering spirit of the Jewish people was still alive and ready to fight for the triumph of justice.53 Even though he was by now incapacitated, Brainin’s name proved useful: icor named various branches after him, including one in the Jamaica neighbourhood of Queens, New York.54 Brainin continued to defend icor and the ussr even after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. On 31 August 1939, he asserted by telephone from his summer residence in Val Morin, Quebec, that his belief in the organization remained unshaken: “In this sacred work I stand shoulder to shoulder with you, and I reject every attack hurled at you.” He was certain that icor could be depended upon to continue the “relentless fight against the dark fascist forces.” He told Almazov: “I refuse to surrender to an artificial hysteria which is trying to dominate Jewish life these days.” He hoped that “you,

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

147

my younger comrades-in-arms, will live to see the dawn of the day when the faith of those who believed in a better world will be vindicated.”55 The icor plenum that met at the Hotel McAlpin in New York on 15 October 1939 to mount a defence of the Hitler-Stalin Pact sent greetings to Brainin for his spirited opposition to the enemies of the Soviet Union and wished him good health and a long life.56 But this was not to be: Brainin died in New York on 30 November 1939. In its obituary the Montreal Daily Star made no mention of his Communist associations, instead highlighting his contributions to the world of Hebrew and Yiddish letters and his connections to Montreal, “which he considered his home, spending every summer here and in the Laurentians.”57 The New York Times noted that, due to his support of the Soviet Union and the Birobidzhan project, “he became a storm center in Jewish life and the object of intolerance among his own people. He lived the life of a virtual exile during the last decade, while working quietly in this city on an edition of his collected works and contributing to the Yiddish press.”58Nailebn-New Life eulogized him as a “fighter for truth, a leader of the Jewish people towards a brighter future and a devoted friend of the Soviet Union.” He had defended Soviet nationality policy “against any and all attacks of the reactionary Jewish press and of the Zionist circles.” His commitment “remained unshaken and did not waver in these dark times.” Because of this, Brainin had been “persecuted by Zionists and other Jewish reactionaries, and during the last decade, because of this persecution, he lived the life of a virtual exile,” stated the magazine. He was a “great idealist and fighter for human rights and justice.”59 Brainin’s body was brought back to Montreal for burial. According to one report, “tens of thousands of people came to his funeral, to pay last respects to their beloved spiritual leader.” There was such a crush of people inside the Talmud Torah, where the funeral took place, that eight people were injured. The mourners were awed, declared the Kanader Adler, by the fact that “the great spirit of Reuben Brainin will rest among us.” The Jewish community of Montreal “was in a state of deep grief and sadness.” Brainin’s death was described as “a great loss” to all Jews: “For as long as the Jewish people and the Hebrew language will live, the name Reuben Brainin will not be forgotten.”60 A memorial meeting for Brainin, held at the Hotel Diplomat in New York on 31 January 1940, included musical performances by the Frayhayt Gezang Farayn and the Frayhayt Mandolin Orkester. The 1,000 people in attendance resolved to raise $2,000 to send to Birobidzhan a number of typewriters and a bust of Brainin. Benjamin Schecter of Montreal, Brainin’s grandson, described for the New York audience “the great crowds that

148

Jerusalem on the Amur

thronged about the Talmud Torah Building in Montreal to get inside the hall where the funeral service was being held.” Canadian Jews were proud, stated Schecter, “that for over a quarter of a century Reuben Brainin was connected with Montreal by close ties, that he spent at least a portion of each year in Canada, and that finally he lies buried in their midst.” Schecter, too, said that when he had spoken to Brainin in Montreal the previous fall, “his faith in the morality and integrity of the Russian people was unshaken,” despite the controversy unleashed by the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and “his optimism regarding the destiny of millions of Russian Jews was undiminished.” With regard to Birobidzhan, Brainin “was willing to risk misunderstanding and unpopularity for the sake of speaking the truth as he saw it.” Shloime Almazov recalled Brainin’s presence at many icor events and then read aloud the “historic statement” in which Brainin reiterated his faith in the Soviet Union despite the attacks that followed the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Jacob Milch, a member of the icor national executive, remembered that Brainin had been one of the Jewish world’s foremost Hebraists and Zionists, a “Talmud Khokhem.” For most of his life Brainin had been a Jewish nationalist, not a Communist or even a socialist. But all that changed “when Birobidzhan appeared on the scene.” A light appeared in the east, and Brainin saw the way forward for himself and his Jewish spirit: “That light was the light of Bolshevism. Not that he became a Communist, but he had begun to see the way forward through Communism and his spirit moved in that direction.” The Soviet Union would bring “joy to all peoples, including his own.” Although well advanced in years, Brainin became a champion of the Birobidzhan project, the Soviet Union, and icor, even though “he knew full well the price he would have to pay.” But people like Brainin were not frightened by the probability of personal attacks. Even after August 1939, he continued to support the Soviet Union when many others had “scattered like frightened mice.” Brainin had become a “sacrifice [korbn]” for his people, concluded Milch, and “coming generations will include [Brainin] among the greatest of Jews [gedolim Yisrael].” Khaim Zhitlovsky, who was not present, sent a telegram mourning the loss of “the splendid writer, the sincere Socialist and the ardent fighter for the national resurrection of our Jewish people in a land of its own.”61 Milch, in May 1940, recalled how Brainin had been transformed by his belief that a “new world” and “new man” were being created in the Soviet Union: “the new Reuben Brainin” had emerged as if from an “explosion.”62 After Brainin’s death icor printed 100,000 postcards of the “historic statement” alongside his portrait as well as his collected speeches, under

Reuben Brainin: A Maskil for Birobidzhan

149

the title Umshterblekhe reyd: vegn birobidzhan un vegn der sovyetisher layzung fun der natsyonaler frage.63 At the first yortsayt (anniversary) of his death, an editorial in Nailebn-New Life spoke of “the great loss that we feel today even more than a year ago.” In the midst of the hysteria that had enveloped the Jewish street, we miss his sober, honest and bold word ... With his truth he could cut swaths off the pen bandits who are libelling the Soviet Union and all that is connected to the Soviet Union. How he loved the new Jewish life in the Soviet Union and the Jewish pioneering accomplishments in Biro-bidzhan ... We miss him in our struggle against our enemies; we miss him in our efforts to illustrate for the Jewish masses the meaning of the lives of the six and one half million Jews in the Soviet Union ... Honour the bright memory of the great thinker and courageous defender of the truth, the immortal Reuben Brainin!64 At the third yortsayt, Israel Ber Bailin remembered Brainin’s “great, beautiful spirit.” Even in the midst of the colossal war that the Soviet Union was fighting, Bailin proclaimed, “We have not forgotten you.” Bailin recalled that Brainin, with his “clearsightedness,” had stood his ground in the face of all the attacks on the Soviet Union. He had held the “hot coal of truth,” regardless of “how hot it burned.” With great foresight, Brainin had recognized a country “where truth went hand in hand with a peaceful and secure life.” Bailin suggested that Brainin would be amazed to hear that, even now, with the very fate of the Jewish people in the balance, with the United States itself at war, there still remained those who opposed the actions being taken to help the heroic fighters in their life and death struggle against the fascist enemy. Brainin had long ago taken their measure, these instruments of a dying world, who dared to call themselves “socialists” and “Jews!”65 A few years later, Almazov stated that Brainin had proved correct in asking Jews “not to smear the Soviet Union with mud.”66 In 1940 the Jewish Public Library in Montreal, which Brainin had been instrumental in founding decades earlier, dedicated a reading room in his memory. Montreal’s Yiddish intelligentsia eulogized him: Sholem Shtern recalled Brainin as “a man of great [and] pure spirit” who “longed for new, free worlds.” At Brainin’s funeral, the poet J.I. Segal had told Shtern that, with Brainin buried in Montreal, “the earth has become holy.” A Brainin memorial meeting was held by the Jewish Communists in Montreal in December 1940; Zishe Weinper, the Yiddish poet, essayist, and editor, general secretary of the ykuf, and a contributor to its journal Yidishe Kultur,

150

Jerusalem on the Amur

came from New York to be guest speaker.67 Shtern travelled to Toronto in February 1941 to speak at the Labour League, where he delivered a paper entitled “Reuben Brainin – Man and Poet.” Moishe Feldman reported that Shtern “brought joy” to the hundreds who came to hear him: “Not with a gun or a sword did Sholem Shtern conquer Toronto, but with the power of the living Yiddish word.” Like Brainin himself, wrote Feldman, Shtern was able to reach out to the progressive Jewish working masses.68 In 1949, Shtern wrote a piece reminding readers of the Vochenblat of the importance of Brainin’s life and work. He regretted that Brainin had not lived to see the realization of his dream – the rapid postwar development of Birobidzhan, which would soon become a “Jewish, socialist republic.”69 In 1950, more than a decade after his death, the Vochenblat’s English page stated that “the name of Reuben Brainin is already immortalized, and his position in the list of modern militant Jews secure.”70 His son Joseph also penned a tribute, in the American Communist monthly Jewish Life, stating that his father, a devoted Zionist earlier in his life who had always exhibited a “great love for the Jewish people everywhere,” had been the victim of “a worldwide smear campaign” by the “Zionist propaganda machine.” The 1949 national conference of Ambijan, held in New York on 10 and 11 December, agreed to celebrate the memory of Reuben Brainin with a memorial meeting at the New School for Social Research, which was held on 25 February 1950.71

the Second World War

7 The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

Given their uncritical defence of the Soviet Union, Canadian Jewish Communists were often forced into ludicrous positions when it became necessary to justify Stalin’s foreign policy shifts either in terms of Marxist revolutionary rhetoric or from the standpoint of Jewish interests. This was particularly true during the period between the signing of the GermanSoviet Non-Aggression Treaty of 23 August 1939, commonly known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or Hitler-Stalin Pact, and the Nazi invasion of the ussr on 22 June 1941.1 Some members had already begun to have misgivings even about the Birobidzhan project: J.B. Salsberg travelled to Soviet Russia in July 1939 to find out what he could concerning the fate of the Jewish Autonomous Region’s leadership, which had, in fact, been decimated by Stalin’s purges. In Moscow, Salsberg convinced Georgi Dimitrov, head of the Comintern, to set up a committee to look into the matter. Decades later, Salsberg told the writer Erna Paris that the report of the committee was “woolly and nebulous.” But at the time, he kept his own counsel.2 When Britain and France went to war with Germany in 1939, the Comintern, taking its cue from Stalin, instructed Communists throughout the world to oppose the conflict, which was described as “imperialist” in essence. From September 1939 until June 1941, Communists directed most of their venom at Great Britain and France rather than at Nazi Germany. Canada had joined Britain in the war effort, and the government viewed Communists as little more than de facto allies of Hitler. The Defence of Canada Regulations, passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, gave the government the authority to intern political dissidents without trial, to ban political organizations, to seize property, and to abridge freedom of the press. The cpc and many of its fronts were declared

152

Jerusalem on the Amur

illegal in May 1940; eventually 133 Communist officials would be interned under Section 21 of the Regulations.3 Others, such as Fred Rose and Sam Carr, fled to the United States. They would not return to Canada until after the Nazi invasion of the ussr. American Communist publications were again banned from entering Canada; the ban on the Morgn Frayhayt would not be lifted until April 1942. Der Kamf was shut down, to be succeeded in late October 1940 by a new publication, the Kanader Yidishe Vochenblat. In its inaugural issue, the paper admitted that, with Hitler the master of most of Europe by this time, many Jews had given in to feelings of desperation and helplessness. This was certainly true of those Jews on the left who, astounded by the Soviet rapprochement with Hitler, were sufficiently disillusioned to have abandoned the Jewish Communist movement.4 Meanwhile, those who chose to remain within the fold began to reassure themselves that, after all, the Communists had been in the forefront of the battle against fascism for decades, whereas others had been less militant, even appeasers. So why should such lukewarm anti-fascists have suddenly become more anxious to do battle than those who had always carried on anti-Nazi activities? Clearly, argued the Jewish Communists, it was best to place one’s trust in those who had always been proved right in the past. The pact was therefore praised as a brilliant move by Stalin, which would strengthen the Soviet Union and weaken Hitler. It was to be regarded not as a setback to the progressive movement but, rather, as an indication of the Soviet need to live in peace with its neighbours and, thereby, to guard with all its strength the peace of the world. Indeed, declared the Jewish Communists, the pact and the subsequent partition of Poland had been a blessing for Poland’s Jews. By sending troops into eastern Poland, the Soviets had not only stopped the march of Nazism eastward but had also liberated two million Jews. The Jews in these regions, who had suffered persecution, oppression, and pogroms under the Polish autocrats, would now be free to build, together with their neighbours, a new and healthy life. When the Soviets extended their rule into the Baltic states and Romanian Bessarabia and Bukhovina in the spring of 1940, more Jews were freed, according to the Communists, so that by the end of the year Stalin had liberated some 3.5 million Jews who had been living under the rule of fascist regimes. By checkmating Hitler, the Soviet Union was protecting all of these Jews from Nazi persecution. It was therefore in Jewish interests, argued the Communists, to oppose war with Hitler. A typical story in the Vochenblat in October 1940 related the “joy” expressed by Jews in Latvia as the downtrodden masses, “liberated” by the

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

153

Red Army a few months earlier, were proceeding to revolutionize every aspect of life in their new socialist Soviet republic. It described the “clanging of torn chains” now that “the Jewish masses have raised their heads and have joined in a fraternal union with the Latvian and Polish masses in their march on the road to ultimate freedom. The people have taken their fate into their own hands.” Jewish culture, literature, and poetry now flourished. “There is a song in every person’s voice,” rhapsodized the paper.5 Similar tales were published concerning other Jewish communities: Lvov (Lemberg), the formerly Polish city in what was now the western Ukraine, integrated into the ussr, had become a venue for Jewish creativity, a centre for playwrights, poets, and writers.6 Vilna, in Lithuania, was flourishing; many of its young writers were refugees from Nazi-occupied Poland and had been well received.7 Jewish authors had hailed the liberation of Western Belarus (White Russia) by the Red Army.8 A letter from the Warsaw writer Ber Mark, who had fled to Bialystok and become a journalist with the Bialystoker Shtern, spoke of the new Jewish newspapers that had sprung up in the liberated Soviet territories in cities such as Vilna and Kaunas (Kovno). “You can’t imagine how free life is here,” he wrote to the American writer and icor member Nakhman Meisel. “There is no Jew without a job. There is plenty to eat, the city is clean, the factories run day and night.”9 Famed Soviet Yiddish writers such as Itzik Fefer were touring cities in Bessarabia and Bukovina, including Czernowitz, Kishinev, and Lvov.10 The Soviets, it was claimed, were also supporting Jewish religious and cultural life. They were allowing matzos for Passover to be imported without duty in the newly liberated areas and were providing increased funding for the famed yivo Institute for historical research in Vilna, according to a letter received by Zishe Weinper from a friend in that city.11 Jewish refugees from Poland had received full constitutional rights; indeed, many were candidates running for election to the local Soviets.12 A letter received from Bialystok spoke of the “happiness and joy” with which the masses had welcomed the year 1941.13 The very week that Hitler attacked the ussr, the Vochenblat countered charges in the rival Forverts of a rise in anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union by noting that a Jew had been elected chair of the executive committee in Vilna.14 The Vochenblat also resumed printing articles about the heroic accomplishments of Jewish pioneers in Birobidzhan. Construction was proceeding at breakneck speed and future prospects were “excellent.” Everyone, whether young or old, was taking courses on agriculture and mechanics in order to learn “the most modern techniques of socialist agricultural methods.” It was hoped that the region would soon have its own full-fledged

154

Jerusalem on the Amur

medical and pedagogical training institutes to enable Birobidzhan youth to become doctors and teachers without having to leave the region for higher education. Birobidzhan anticipated an influx of 45,000 new settlers in 1941–42; to prepare for them, the authorities were laying the groundwork for construction of four new cities.15 Some 26 million rubles had been allocated to build new houses, factories, schools, hospitals, and clubs in 1941.16 The capital was now a “superb, beautiful” city of 40,000 people, with wide boulevards and parks. Birobidzhan had become a centre of coal mining, and there were now eighteen large collective farms. The region had more than 100 Yiddish elementary and secondary schools, and various institutions of higher learning.17 Among the major projects soon to be completed were a large cement factory, a thermo-electrical plant, and a knitting mill. With its good soil, clean water, and abundant minerals, the region had great agricultural and industrial potential.18 The Communist movement had now jettisoned the popular front politics of the late 1930s and resumed its earlier ultra-left-wing sectarianism. Even though the war had begun and Jews in Europe were trapped in Hitler’s inferno, the Vochenblat published negative stories concerning the Zionist yishuv in Palestine: it noted in late 1940, for example, that 25 percent of the Jews in Palestine were unemployed and suffering from demoralization.19 Domestic Zionist groups, as well, were targeted for criticism: a letter from “a former Zionist” in Montreal, published in May 1941, stated that it had been many years since even the Poale Zionists had put forward a socialist agenda.20 The social democrats, who were, of course, long-time enemies of the Communists, were accused of being in the camp of “Jews who don’t hate Nazism.”21 Oddly enough, the Jewish Communists gave few public signs of any anxiety concerning the possibility of a Nazi attack on the ussr. They were confident about the safety of the socialist homeland: a few short weeks before Hitler invaded Soviet Russia, the Vochenblat published an article about the superior weaponry of the Red Army, translated from a book written by “an internationally famous military expert.”22 When the ussr did come under attack on 22 June 1941, the Jewish Communists quickly dropped their anti-war stance and called on all Jews to give unqualified support to the Soviet Union. The Vochenblat argued that the Western allies were the real villains of the story: had the allies not spurned the Soviet Union before 1939, Stalin would not have been forced to come to terms with Germany.23 Indeed, according to the Jewish Communists, the 1939 pact had provided time for the ussr to mount a defence against Hitler and to foil those enemies who had sought to push it into a premature war.24 For Sholem Shtern, Hitler’s invasion gave the lie to those who

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

155

maintained that Stalin had become an ally of Nazi Germany. The Soviets had been preparing for this day, he wrote; intelligent and progressive people always understood that a socialist state could never actually befriend “that wild animal – Hitlerism.” All Jews would now stand with the ussr in its hour of need, declared Shtern: “Your victory is our hope, our faith!”25 Indeed, he castigated the bourgeois Jewish press – the Forverts, Tog, and Kanader Adler – for having expended more time and effort attacking the ussr than Hitler.26 The somewhat petulant tone of these articles suggested some degree of exasperation; clearly, many Jews were reluctant to forgive the Soviets for having signed the 1939 pact with Hitler and remained wary of Communist efforts to have them forgive and forget this seemingly inexplicable behaviour. Four days after the invasion began, the Vochenblat ran a banner headline: “‘We Will Wipe the Fascist Barbarians from the Earth’ Declare the Soviet Workers.” The tone was upbeat: the Red Army would soon “halt the march of the Nazi aggressor.” Hitler would meet the fate of Napoleon.27 In the first months of the Nazi-Soviet conflict, the Vochenblat printed front-page stories about Red Army victories and counter-offensives, though the reality was that the German armies were pushing deep into the ussr. Soviet defeats and retreats were minimized or seen as strategic withdrawals. The 26 February 1942 headline declared: “The Back-bone and the Spirit of the Nazi War-Machine Has Been Broken.”28 In what was either an example of wishful thinking or deliberate misinformation, the paper began printing stories that described a rising tide of revolutionary anti-fascist fervour in Nazi-occupied Europe and even in Germany itself. The hour of liberation for the Jews in occupied Europe would soon be at hand, declared the paper. It was confidently asserted that the Germans were receiving “death blows” on the eastern front and would soon be brought to account for their “horrific deeds” in occupied Poland and elsewhere.29 With the entry of the United States into the war in December 1941, the Vochenblat grew even more hopeful. Its editorial of 1 January 1942 argued that the Nazis had conquered most of Europe by deploying fifth columnists and collaborators who cultivated a climate of defeatism. The Soviet Union, in contrast, would prevail through superior military strength.30 The Soviet people were united, and “all its nationalities were as one nation.”31 The immense industrial might of the United States would now also become a factor in defeating the Axis aggressors, whose troops were rapidly becoming demoralized.32 In August 1941 the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (jafc), headed by prominent Soviet Jewish personalities, had been formed in Moscow to seek

156

Jerusalem on the Amur

aid from the Jews in the west;33 soon its appeals would become a regular feature in the Vochenblat.34 The future of the world and of the Jewish people now hung in the balance, editorialized the Vochenblat, and “we must do all we can for victory over bloody Hitlerism.”35 The Communists quickly went into action: the paper announced that a mass meeting would be held at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto on 8 July. One of the speakers would be the “world-famous Arctic explorer and scientist Vilhjalmur Stefansson.” Calls were made for Canada to establish diplomatic and trade relations with the ussr.36 A similar gathering was held in the Montreal Forum on 22 July.37 On 28 September B.Z. Goldberg addressed a large meeting in Montreal organized by the Quebec Committee for Allied Victory. Lazarus Phillips, a prominent lawyer and Liberal Party member, also spoke. Goldberg spoke in Toronto on 3 November on behalf of the Toronto Labour League and the ykuf, alongside Sol Shek, secretary of the league (and brother of Abraham).38 By early December the Labour League had raised over $5,000.39 The organization, unlike many other cp-led groups, had managed to survive the hiatus of 1939–41 almost undiminished.40 Now, as Morris Biderman, a member of the Labour League since 1937 and its president after 1942, would eventually recall in his autobiography, the league “benefited and became acceptable in the community” as “Toronto’s outspoken Jewish pro-Soviet organization.”41 In Winnipeg, a meeting was held at the home of Dr Benjamin Victor on 24 October to plan for ways to help the ussr. When the newly created Winnipeg Council for Allied Victory held its first big meeting on 9 November, Victor, as chair of the event, read out the appeal made by the jafc for help. Other speakers included lawyer Joe Zuken and Labl Basman, who had become secretary of the Jewish Committee for Medical Aid to the Soviet Union, an affiliate of the council. Monies collected would be sent to Russia via the Canadian Red Cross. This meeting, too, called on Canada to establish relations with Moscow and to release all “anti-fascist” prisoners interned under the Defence of Canada Regulations.42 Joe Zuken would be elected a Winnipeg school board trustee for Ward 3, where the overwhelming majority of Winnipeg Jews lived, in late November 1941:43 “For Zuken, being a Jew meant linking the struggles of the Jewish people with the global struggle for peace and justice.”44 Another meeting of the Winnipeg Council for Allied Victory was held on 17 November and was chaired by Laura Goodman Silverson, who hailed the heroism of the Red Army but insisted the council was non-partisan. “One organization after another,” including the cjc itself, had joined in the work, reported Basman. They were all following the example of the

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

157

progressive organizations and were working “with great enthusiasm” in a wonderful climate of cooperation. “To help win the war we must create complete unity among all the anti-fascist forces in Jewish life,” Basman insisted.45 Victor penned the foreword to a booklet of speeches given at the second jafc Congress, held in Moscow at the end of May 1942. The Soviet Jews, he wrote, were fighting with “Macabbean heroism.” Jews throughout the world were beginning to feel “a hope for the delivery of the Jewish people.” He called on Canadian Jews to answer the jafc’s plea for help, “so we can have a victory in 1942.”46 By mid-1942, over forty different Winnipeg Jewish organizations, responding to Khaim Zhitlovsky’s call to all Jews to help the Soviets, were involved in collecting clothing; 250 Jewish women volunteers were going door-to-door in order to canvas every Jewish home. A new office had been opened to accommodate all the packages being mailed in from elsewhere in the west.47 By July, ten tons of clothing, worth about $40,000, had been sent to the ussr. Virtually every Jewish family in Winnipeg had contributed something. Saskatoon had contributed over 900 kilograms worth, Calgary 680.48 In Hamilton, almost every Jewish club, landsmanshaft, synagogue, garment union, and women’s group participated in a city-wide gathering in February 1942 in support of the Soviet war effort; B’nai Brith, the Workmen’s Circle, and some Zionist movements were represented. The guest speaker was Rabbi Harry J. Stern of Montreal’s Temple Emanu-El. Stern called the war a conflict “between democracy and autocracy. It is a war for freedom and against slavery.”49 Michael Usiskin wrote to Joshua Gershman from Vancouver about the large amounts being raised in the city for the Soviet cause; by early February 1942 some $10,000 had been collected and “the campaign was reaching out to the widest possible strata of the local community.” Interest in the Soviet Union was so great, he added, that meeting halls were too small to handle the large crowds that were turning out to hear speakers such as Raymond Arthur Davies, a well-known Communist journalist of the period, whose speech on Soviet Asia had “dazzled his audience.”50 Smaller centres such as Windsor were raising considerable sums.51 Even the perpetually poor farmers of Edenbridge were trying to do their small part.52 Gordon Lunan, secretary of the Quebec Committee for Allied Victory, pointed to the eighty-five victory clubs that had raised more than $200,000 in the province. Jewish clubs in particular were raising large amounts: he congratulated one in Outremont that was doing tremendous work on behalf of Soviet relief.53 The Mount Royal Victory Club at its 10 May 1942 meeting raised $700, enough money to buy an ambulance. Speakers at

158

Jerusalem on the Amur

the meeting, which was chaired by Dr Simon Gold, included Moishe Meyerson of the cjc and Rabbi Stern. Although a Zionist, Meyerson praised the Soviet Union for its treatment of its Jewish population. Rabbi Stern, who had visited the ussr twice, spoke of the healthy life Soviet Jews were building and reported that “the Jewish question in the Soviet Union had been solved.”54 “Help the Red Cross!” screamed a Vochenblat editorial.55 By the end of 1941, with the United States in the war as well, mainstream Jewish organizations such as the cjc had joined the pro-Soviet effort, and notables such as Allan and Samuel Bronfman, president of the cjc, were also becoming involved. In Montreal, a mass rally of 12,000 people, organized by the Montreal Committee for Medical Aid to the Soviet Union, gathered in the Forum on 18 December. The meeting, which raised $20,000, was addressed by two prominent speakers: Joseph E. Davies was the former us ambassador to the ussr; his influential book, Mission to Moscow, had recently been published. The other speaker was Liberal mp Peter Bercovitch, the city’s only Jewish member of Parliament. Davies told his audience that “Stalin is a great man ... Everything he has done has been the result of his fervent idealism.” At the rally, Allan Bronfman called on Canadian Jews to raise $1 million for Soviet war relief. By year’s end $48,000 had been raised in Toronto and $10,000 in Winnipeg, where the cjc had joined with the Jewish pro-Soviet groups such as the Jewish People’s Committee in order to raise money.56 The Jewish People’s Committee, part of the Winnipeg Council for Allied Victory, held carnivals and bazaars to aid the civilian population of the Soviet Union; one 1943 event brought in $7,400. In 1944, the committee pledged to raise funds for the purchase of 150 hospital beds and other equipment for the Soviet Union. To publicize the effort, the Committee published a brochure that included greetings from Garnet Coulter, the mayor of Winnipeg, and Stuart Garson, the premier of Manitoba. A cheque for $2,200 was sent by Fred Donner, executive secretary of the Jewish People’s Committee, to the Department of National Defence in Ottawa, to be transmitted to Russia.57 In February 1945 the committee produced a souvenir book with hand-written greetings from prominent Jewish citizens to the Soviet Union, which was building “a bright future for a free world.”58 Labl Basman, in March 1971, would recall his wartime work on behalf of the ussr in Winnipeg, stating that he, Dr Victor, and Fred Donner had helped organize “the greatest united Jewish people’s front.”59 Such gatherings, with their resolutions calling for solidarity with the ussr and Jewish unity at home, would become commonplace for the

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

159

duration of the war. Everywhere Jews lived, bazaars, meetings, concerts, and other events rallied people to the Soviet cause. No matter how much was collected, however, Communist activists such as Sholem Shtern berated the donors for not giving even more. Jews in Canada should bear in mind that the Jews in the war zones were their kith and kin and that Soviet citizens were sacrificing their lives to defeat Hitler. Enthusiasm, Shtern declared, was not enough, and more action was needed: “Send help now, yes now, for they cannot wait.”60 The various Communist-dominated organizations and unions urged their members to join Victory Campaign committees and to buy Victory Bonds; by February 1942 the Labour League had sold $10,000 worth.61 In Montreal, at a conference held on 15 November 1942, the Jewish community created an umbrella organization, the Montreal Jewish Section of the Canadian Aid to Russia Fund, chaired by the prominent Montreal lawyer and communal activist Louis Fitch, himself a non-Communist. The executive secretary was Irving J. Myers and the treasurer Sh. Lapitsky, both of whom would, a few years later, assume positions of prominence in the Canadian Birobidjan Committee. A coalition of ten synagogues, thirtythree cultural organizations and landsmanshaften, twenty-seven women’s and youth groups, six labour unions, and thirty Victory Clubs, the Montreal Jewish Section had raised $88,000 for the Allied cause by February 1943. The largest single donation, of $13,000, was contributed by the Communist-led Jewish Assistance and Social Organization, or Yidisher Hilfs Farayn. The executive committee of the Montreal Jewish Section noted that “every appeal at parties, weddings, bar-mitzvahs and social affairs has been answered generously.” Businesspeople “have done excellent work,” making appeals at societies, meetings, and social functions. The campaign was even endorsed by Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Cohen, president of the Montreal Council of Orthodox Rabbis and the founder of the Va’ad Ha’ir, the Jewish Community Council of Montreal. Allan Bronfman, who now co-chaired the Quebec Division of the national Canadian Aid to Russia Fund, lauded the work of the Jewish Section: they “have by their zeal, their enthusiasm and their hard work given an example of public spirited humanitarianism of which we may all be proud.” Rabbi Stern, honorary chair of the Jewish Section, rejoiced at the enthusiasm with which the Jews of Montreal had responded “to the call of their brethren” in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, he declared, had become the symbol of universal freedom. The ussr had “abolished racial and religious animosities and is on the road to the abolition of political and economic injustices,” stated Marcus M. Sperber, another prominent Montreal lawyer and

160

Jerusalem on the Amur

vice-president of the Jewish Section: “We have much to learn from her.” According to Milton Klein, another Montreal attorney (and a future Liberal mp), who was the honorary secretary of the Jewish Section, “Jewry waits, with breath abated, for the day, not too far distant, when the Red steam roller will crash through the walls of Warsaw’s Ghetto to liberate hundreds of thousands of wretched souls, broken in body, but strong in the conviction that rescue is near.”62 Fitch told Montreal Jews that they had an obligation to provide help to Russia “generously [mit a brayte hant]” and not begrudgingly. He directed them to put aside any disagreements they might have with the Soviets and respond to the jafc’s call for aid “in light of the requirements demanded by the present situation.” Jews owed the Soviet Union a vote of gratitude for having admitted tens of thousands of Jews who had fled the Nazis, for having eliminated anti-Semitism, and for having made Soviet Jews the equals of all the other peoples in the country. Fitch was hopeful that the Soviets would help solve the problems of the Jewish people in the postwar settlement “with a realistic acknowledgement of our national and minority rights.” They would, he was certain, provide guidance to other states on how to create conditions of harmony among peoples of different races and nationalities.63 Charles Rosen noted that the first Jews who had responded to the jafc plea to help the Red Army had been “the Jews of Erets Yisroel.” Now Canadian Jews throughout the land had thrown themselves into the campaign “on behalf of our Soviet allies.” Montreal Jewry had given so generously, explained Rosen, because they were aware that the Soviets had borne the brunt of the fighting against Hitler. Montreal Jews also saw this as an occasion to develop closer ties with Soviet Jewry not just for the duration of the war but also for the postwar period. The situation of the Jews, Rosen noted, would be one of the most important issues to be dealt with after the war, and the Soviet Union, which had solved its own Jewish question and was home to 4 million Jews, “will certainly help us and see to it that the Jewish people will receive just treatment.”64 Israel Rabinovitch, editor of the Kanader Adler, was pleased that the campaign had unified all segments of the community, from “extreme conservative to extreme radical.” This was worth even more than the monies collected, he remarked. True, the Communists who had now become part of the combined efforts of Montreal Jewry had gained in prestige and might, as a result, make gains in the community. But, asked Rabinovitch, who could deny them this new-found acceptance, when it was the heroic Red Army that was fighting the Nazi “murderers and cannibals,” the

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

161

greatest enemy the Jewish people had ever faced? After all, declared Rabinovitch, if it came to a choice of living under Communism or seeing a Nazi victory in the war, no Jew, even the most anti-Communist, could prefer the latter.65 The Soviet Union was engaged in saving the world “from this band of murderers and bandits,” wrote the paper’s owner, Hershel Wolofsky. He was hopeful that a postwar peace conference might put an end to Jewish suffering. Wolofsky assured the Jewish committee for Russian relief that the resources of his two newspapers, the Kanader Adler and the Jewish Chronicle, would be put at their disposal.66 In Montreal, by 1 April 1943, the Montreal Committee for Medical Aid to the Soviet Union, also chaired by Fitch, had raised more than $6,000 on behalf of Soviet war relief.67 When the fifth plenary session of the cjc was held in Montreal from 10 to 12 January 1942, the issue of Jewish unity in the fight against Hitler was hotly debated. Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath of Toronto continued to uphold the position that it was incumbent upon Canadian Jews to demonstrate their feelings of gratitude to the Soviet Union, “even if we disagree with Bolshevism.” The cjc delegates passed resolutions of support for the beleaguered peoples of the Soviet Union and for Russian Jewry. The delegates hoped that the Soviet Jews would now again become “a part of klal yisroel.”68 In Montreal and Toronto the cjc was never officially part of the proSoviet Jewish committees that were formed under the direction of the Communists. Even in Winnipeg there were limits to cjc involvement: A.H. Aronovitch, president of the Western Division of the cjc, and Alex Freeman, chair of the Winnipeg Jewish Council, had been invited to take part in a pro-Soviet rally scheduled in the city for 8 November 1942, organized by the Salute to the Soviet Union Committee. Louis Rosenberg, then executive director of the Western Division of the cjc, informed Margaret Chunn, the secretary of the committee, that, though “as Canadians and as Jews we have greeted with admiration and sympathy the brave and magnificent fight put up by Russia and its citizens of all origins against the Nazi invaders,” the organization’s constitution did not permit it to take part in meetings sponsored by “a political body.”69 But as the war continued and more and more reports of Nazi genocide filtered out of Europe, the mainstream Jewish organizations became more willing to cooperate with Communists in the work of relief groups. A.B. (Archie) Bennett, president of the cjc Central Division (later Ontario Region) in Toronto, declared his approval of the work of the relief efforts of the Jewish Communist groups.70 By 1945, Gershman, Lipshitz, and Salsberg would all serve as officers of Congress.71

162

Jerusalem on the Amur

Liberty Temple School staff, Winnipeg, 1930 (Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, #jm4297)

While icor had become dormant with the onset of war, the ykuf gained strength. icor activists such as Labl Basman and Dr Victor in Winnipeg and Herman Abramovitch in Toronto transferred their political energies into ykuf work. Dr Victor had become chair of the Winnipeg ykuf, and by early 1941 there were three ykuf reading circles in Winnipeg. Much of this proSoviet cultural ferment had occurred as a result of the arrival in Winnipeg, in 1940, of Basman, the new principal of the Sholem Aleichem School, formerly the Liberty Temple School. Founded in 1921, the school had become a pro-Soviet institution, separated from the Arbayter Ring, and changed its name in 1932. Basman had taught at the school for two years after coming to Canada in 1928, and now once again brought “fire and dynamism [and] energetic liveliness” to the institution, while he “inspired others to work above and beyond their strength,” remarked Boris Noznitsky, the vice-chair of the school committee.72 On 28 and 29 March 1941, Dr Rose Bronstein visited Winnipeg and gave two lectures to ykuf assemblies. The Communist writer Zishe Weinper came to the city for a number of speaking engagements in April.73 In 1941, Sholem Shtern applauded the high literary standards of the ykuf journal

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

163

Yidishe Kultur. With its articles on history and science, “Yidishe Kultur binds us to other countries,” wrote Shtern: “It brings to our attention life in the Soviet Union, including the work of its Jewish writers.”74 In late 1941, the ykuf branches in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Vancouver were organized into a unified Canadian organization, with a central committee in Toronto, under the direction of Moishe Feldman and Rose Bronstein, who became, respectively, the national chair and national secretary.75 In January 1942, the ykuf held its first major Canadian conference in Montreal. Bronstein spoke of the responsibilities facing the organization. Nakhman Meisel, literary critic and editor of Yidishe Kultur, travelled from New York to lecture on the novelists “Sholem Asch and David Bergelson.” Kanader Adler staff writer Israel Medres, on behalf of the Montreal Association of Yiddish Writers, called for Jewish unity in order to overcome the enemy and to fight for a new and more just world after the war. The conference banquet, presided over by Abraham Nisnevitz, chair of the Toronto ykuf, and B. Rubinstein, chair of the Montreal ykuf, was attended by some 250 members. Before disbanding, the delegates called upon Canada to do its utmost to help the war effort and sent a resolution to that effect to Prime Minister Mackenzie King.76 Following the conference, Moishe Feldman urged the ykuf to build on its success and broaden its activities across Canada by recruiting new members and subscribers to Yidishe Kultur. Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg were already centres of Jewish culture and intellectual activity, with schools, libraries, and other cultural centres. But their writers and intellectuals needed a larger readership, something that more ykuf reading circles could provide. The ykuf should become a resource centre for cultural activities and penetrate Jewish landsmanshaften and organizations by arranging lectures, readings, plays, and choral and musical concerts for their members. The members of the ykuf reading circles should become spokespeople for progressive Jewish culture; it was particularly important that they get involved with work in the Jewish schools: “The ykuf contains the soul, the dynamic strength, of our people. Let us carry this dynamic momentum into our own work.”77 How very Jewish were Feldman’s dreams: even in the midst of a horrific world war, he continued to hope for a rebirth of Jewish life through the medium of cultural events such as conferences and in the pages of scholarly journals. The ykuf continued to grow: Winnipeg alone had six reading circles by February 1942 and a seventh, a women’s group, was organized in May. Rosa Victor, Benjamin’s spouse, became president of the women’s ykuf;

164

Jerusalem on the Amur

Frumkeh Backallinsky was the vice-president.78 On 30 May the Winnipeg branches celebrated the fourth anniversary of the ykuf, along with Dr Benjamin Aaron Victor’s fiftieth birthday; Labl Basman penned a tribute to the doctor in the 4 June Vochenblat. “Dr. B.A. Victor,” wrote Basman, “must be counted as being one of the most important workers in the progressive Jewish cultural movement in Winnipeg, and in particular the ykuf. Dr. Victor has always stood in the forefront of every cultural-social movement that has been progressive and in the interests of the masses,” and he “has earned great respect and affection from hundreds of close friends and comrades among the various strata in the Jewish and non-Jewish ethnic groups in the city, apart from the Jewish people’s organizations.” When he became an advocate for the new Birobidzhan project, the hope that he felt “for a new shining chapter in Jewish history, the building of which American Jews could participate in as partners,” was tempered by the “bitterness” of being subjected to lies and slanders: “Then in 1936 came the realization of his life’s dream – to travel to the Soviet Union and see for himself her growth, and to visit the new Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan.” In the course of a few months Dr Victor and his wife visited every important centre in the Soviet Union and all the Jewish colonies in Birobidzhan, seeing with their own eyes “how a new way of life was being built and how everyone there was ready to sacrifice themselves to defend that life.” Victor returned “refreshed and full of hope and faith, ready to defend the Soviet Union against all of her detractors and those enemies who wished her ill.” When the ussr signed the 1939 non-aggression treaty with Germany, Victor recognized, “with the aid of a deep Marxist analysis,” that the pact was a result of the appeasement policies of the Western countries. Victor “stood fast” while so many others in the Jewish community turned against Russia, “even though it cost him, personally and financially.” The invasion of the ussr inspired Victor with renewed energy and the desire to do everything in his power to help the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, concluded Basman, Victor was now chairing the Jewish People’s Committee.79 In Montreal, a reorganized ykuf elected Shtern as chair, Frances Silver as secretary, and Shifre Krishtalka as finance secretary. Communist activist Michael Buhay spoke about the war effort on 1 March.80 The ykuf held a citywide conference on 8 March, during which it was resolved that the Jewish people were a worldwide nation and that the language of this people was Yiddish. Participants pledged to combat assimilationism and to help the progressive movement work towards a world of social justice.81 On 5

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

165

Zishe Weinper, New York ykuf, and Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 1940s (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

June, the Montreal ykuf organized a large celebration for Kalmen Marmor, the well-known New York Yiddish pedagogue, Frayhayt journalist, essayist and scholar, who was active in both the ykuf and icor.82 Nakhman Meisel was pleased with the progress of the Canadian ykuf and the publicity it was garnering in the Yiddish press.83 The organization was responsible for bringing Yiddish writers and personalities, including Weinper, Lipshitz, and Salsberg, to smaller communities.84 March was declared “ykuf Month” by the Labour League, and fourteen lectures were presented by ykuf members. Individual branches, such as the Reuben Brainin and Zishe Weinper reading circles, were very active; the Weinper group “combined cultural work with the active fight against Nazism and fascism” by raising money for Soviet war relief. In Vancouver, the ykuf met to discuss articles in Yidishe Kultur and raised money for the war effort.85 The honorary president of the ykuf, Khaim Zhitlovsky, was already the grand old man of socialist Yidishkayt; during the war years, he became a Communist icon as well. When Hitler invaded the ussr, Zhitlovsky insisted that, for Jews, this war was literally “a matter of life and death”; therefore, all Jews, no matter what their political sympathies, must support the Soviets “with all their heart.”86 Zhitlovsky’s seventy-fifth birthday in the autumn of 1941 was celebrated by ykuf branches across the country. Zhitlovsky, who lived in Croton-on Hudson, New York, visited Canada in April 1942, and a new ykuf men’s club was named in his honour in Winnipeg. Sholem Shtern, in one laudatory profile, recounted Zhitlovsky’s struggle, on behalf of Yiddish language and culture, against assimilationists on both left and right, and against Zionist Hebraists: “In Yiddish [Zhitlovsky] sees that great progressive strength which will enable it to bring into being a new era in

166

Jerusalem on the Amur

Jewish life.” Yiddish would enable the Jewish masses to “reach to the top of the ladder” and become the “drivers and leaders of their own cultural life.” Shtern linked Zhitlovsky’s advocacy of progressive Yiddish-language schools to the building of a Jewish Birobidzhan, with its Yiddish-language schools, technical institutes and seminaries, and, in the near future, a university that was to operate in Yiddish. There, unlike in the capitalist countries, Jews had national and linguistic rights as well as civil rights. Shtern was particularly impressed that, during the two years after August 1939 when most pro-Communist groups found themselves “excommunicated,” Zhitlovsky had refused to abandon the progressive movement.87 Yehudith Stein reported on Zhitlovsky’s visit to Montreal and said that Zhitlovsky told his audience that he supported the Soviet Union, whose armies were fighting for the principle of socialism, “which originated with the prophets of ancient Israel.” Since the Soviets embodied the Jewish ideals of social justice and equality among nations, declared Zhitlovsky, it was incumbent on Jews to unite with them in this battle.88 In the spring of 1943, Zhitlovsky decided to move temporarily to California and to undertake a cross-Canada lecture tour on his way there. He was scheduled to speak in Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver before arriving in Los Angeles on 15 May, but he died of a heart attack in Calgary on 6 May.89 In the Vochenblat, Labl Basman reported on Zhitlovsky’s last visit to Winnipeg, where his two appearances were attended by some 1,300 people. Zhitlovsky “provided the progressive Jewish community with a clear and outstanding analysis ... of these catastrophic times.” He was also the guest of honour at a reception held at the home of Dr Victor on 24 April. Zhitlovsky stressed that support for the Soviet Union was imperative; the ussr needed to emerge from the war strengthened and with a prominent role in any postwar settlement. The Soviet Union was the centre of world progress and heralded the genesis of a new revolutionary era. And Jews would benefit greatly since this would mean the end of anti-Semitism and the solution of the Jewish question, copying the Soviet model. The two greatest Jewish communities in the world, the American and Soviet ones, needed to work together to accomplish this goal. In the same issue, Louis Pearlman of Calgary, who was cultural chair of the I.L. Peretz School, described Zhitlovsky’s “last days in Calgary.” Zhitlovsky arrived in Calgary from Winnipeg on 28 April in good spirits and was scheduled to give six lectures over a two-week period. About 100 people turned out for his first lecture on 30 April, in the Peretz School, entitled “Socialism and Religion.” He spoke again on 2 May to 150 people,

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

167

Reception for Dr Khaim Zhitlovsky (with beard) at the home of Dr Benjamin Victor, Winnipeg, 24 April 1943 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

delivering a lecture entitled “The Spiritual Battle of the Jewish People for Its Survival.” His third lecture, on 4 May, dealt with Judaism and Christianity and was also well received. A day later he fell ill and was taken to the hospital, where he died. Pearlman accompanied Zhitlovsky’s body back to New York and attended his funeral there.90 Zhitlovsky’s sudden death, reported the Vochenblat, “hit us like a thunderbolt.” Memorial meetings were held across the country; the one in Montreal on 23 May featured B.Z. Goldberg as guest speaker.91 Though unable to attend the Toronto meeting held at the Victory Theatre on 23 May, A.B. Bennett expressed “our profound sense of loss at the passing away of the distinguished thinker and leader.”92 A pamphlet advertising the meeting said that, on this last trip to Canada, Zhitlovsky had found the Canadian Jewish community “united on the issue of the war” and on the inspirational role of the Soviets. Zhitlovsky, it concluded, “had lived long enough to perceive the fruits of Marxist socialism” as “they blossomed in the groves of Biro-Bidjan.”93 The Vochenblat editorialized that Zhitlovsky had worked tirelessly on behalf of a progressive world of social justice in which people would

168

Jerusalem on the Amur

be happy and free: “He fought heroically against the reactionary forces who wanted to keep our people in darkness and servitude.”94 Sholem Shtern called him “our great teacher and leader of our people” and declared, “Great is our loss.”95 The Vochenblat’s English-language back page noted that Zhiltovsky had been the honorary president of icor in the United States.96 The Vochenblat also reprinted Zhitlovsky’s greetings to Birobidzhan, on its fifteenth anniversary, which he had released on 25 April: “Our Jewish people now has two countries in which a new Jewish life is being built, a normal life,” where Jews will live in Jewish towns and Jewish cities. These “two countries are Birobidzhan and Erets Yisroel.” They ought not to be seen as antagonistic alternatives; in both, Jews would flourish. It was true, Zhitlovsky wrote, that there were far fewer Jews in Birobidzhan than in the Yishuv, but then, Birobidzhan was only fifteen years old, whereas the modern Zionist settlement of Erets Yisroel began as far back as 1882. In 1897, the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were no greater a percentage of the total population in that country than were Jews in Birobidzhan today: “Every Jewish accomplishment in both countries gives us courage in the struggle for our survival, elevates the prestige of our people in the eyes of the nonJewish world, and strengthens our desire for the complete national liberation of our people, with the complete rights and strengths of membership in the fraternal family of nations. May the Jewish nation of Birobidzhan have long life and mature in freedom!”97 Zhitlovsky had been an icon of the Yiddishist movement, particularly in western Canada, and he had inspired the founding of a strong secular Yiddish school system in the country. Winnipeg, which he had visited frequently over the years, was “a Zhitlovsky fortress”; he also had a strong following in Calgary.98 Israel Medres remarked that Zhitlovsky had not died “in a strange land [in der fremd]”; after all, Canada’s secular Jewish institutions had been inspired by him.99 Joe Zuken remembered Zhitlovsky as a “towering figure,” a philosopher and teacher who believed that a synthesis of Marxism and Yiddish culture could create a social movement that would both sustain the soul and advance human equality. There was no contradiction, in Zhitlovsky’s view, between being a Jew and “having a world outlook.”100 No wonder that the attention given by the Vochenblat to Zhitlovsky’s death far overshadowed the journal’s brief account of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto.101 The negative attitude towards Zionism that had prevailed among Communists prior to 1941 had now been replaced by attacks on the Palestinian Arab leadership. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

169

fled to Berlin and sought Hitler’s help in 1941, was now regarded as a profascist “quisling” who was misleading his own people.102 News of prominent Zionists who supported the aid-to-Russia movement now appeared on the front pages of the Vochenblat.103 The leadership of the Va’ad Le’umi, the Yishuv’s internal administration in Palestine, had sent a letter of support to the ussr and its Red Army and had asked to meet with the Palestinian Arab leaders in order to forge a common front on behalf of the Allies; these developments were greeted warmly by Canadian Jewish Communists. An editorial in the 19 March 1942 Vochenblat noted that, as Stalin himself had declared, the Soviet people “know nothing of national hatred, national oppression, and national inequality. They are brought up in an atmosphere of national brotherhood, cooperation and mutual aid.” The newspaper hoped that the Soviet example would provide inspiration for the Arabs and Jews of Palestine.104 By mid-1942, the Vochenblat could use the term “Erets Yisroel” in its columns.105 But Birobidzhan remained front and centre in the Jewish universe created by the Communists. While the world’s attention was drawn to the war, the Jews of Birobidzhan had been busy developing their land, taming the rivers, building bridges, and growing grains to feed the Red Army, noted Gina Medem. They proved wrong all the sceptics who, a decade earlier, cautioned against settling a far-off region on the border with Japaneseoccupied Manchuria. Today, Birobidzhan was defending the Soviet Union against the Japanese militarists, Medem asserted. As well, the pelts of deer and fur-bearing animals insulated Soviet troops fighting against the Finns in the Arctic and were used in the uniforms worn by Soviet pilots. Along with the other peoples of the far east, the Jews of Birobidzhan would drive back the Nazi murderers and, victorious, “find themselves in the fields of White Russia and Poland.”106 The 28 of March would forever remain one of the most historical and important dates “in the whole history of the Jewish people,” editorialized the Vochenblat on Birobidzhan’s anniversary a year later: “Birobidzhan was the most noble manifestation of the correct and equitable nationality policy ... that the Soviet Union accepted and carried out since the very first day of her existence.” One of the first acts of the Soviet government had been to declare anti-Semitism a state crime: “Today the existence of Birobidzhan as a Jewish autonomous territory is guaranteed by the Soviet constitution, just as it guarantees the right of every Jew to liberty, equality, to work, to housing, and to a better and happier life.” Birobidzhan and the Soviet Union remained “the brightest portal of hope.” On the occasion of Birobidzhan’s fifteenth anniversary, concluded the paper, “we bless those

170

Jerusalem on the Amur

who proclaimed equality among peoples as a principle.” In the postwar world, predicted the Vochenblat, Birobidzhan “will grow and blossom and will forever remain a symbol of hope for the Jewish people and a symbol of the recognition of the correct and equitable nationality policy of the Soviet Union.”107 The occasion was celebrated in Montreal on 7 May at a reception and concert, with guest speaker B.Z. Goldberg, organized by the ykuf. More than 500 people turned out to thank the Soviet Union for having solved the Jewish question; many others were turned away.108 “The Jewish culture of the Soviet Union is the culture of a productive people of blacksmiths and locksmiths, of construction workers and machinists, of livestock breeders and tractor operators, miners and pilots, railway engineers and sailors,” wrote Nakhman Meisel. Jews were the equals of all other Soviet citizens: “they don’t have to change their names in order to take their rightful place in society.” Meisel hoped that others would replicate the socialist experiment after the war: “In a world of social justice and national freedom, Jews too will live in liberty and equality.” In the meantime, they were showing their mettle “as partisans, Red Army soldiers, tank drivers, and pilots, commanders and generals.”109 Sam Carr, in a Mayday message, reassured the “Jewish masses” that they need not lose faith in the Soviet Union but, rather, should celebrate the special significance of this 1 May 1943.110 Even as late as the spring of 1942, there seemed to be little apprehension among Canadian Jewish Communists, or indeed among the Jewish community as a whole, that the mass genocide of 6 million Jews was imminent. Many Jews, including Communists, did not yet realize the full scope of Hitler’s program of systematic mass murder.111 An article sent to the paper in March 1942 via the jafc stated that “friendship between Jews and Poles was being forged in the bitter battle against the Nazis” and that the masses of Poland “draw ever closer in their fight against the German occupiers.” The Poles and the Jews of Poland “know that the hour of reckoning is near.”112 By June 1942, the first anniversary of the Soviet-Nazi war, the Vochenblat was confidently predicting that the Allies might prove victorious before the year was out.113 Khaim Zhitlovsky, speaking in Montreal on 27 April 1942, asked, “What will Jews be bringing to a peace conference?” Meisel wrote of the already ongoing debates concerning how, at the conclusion of the war, “the Jewish people can secure their economic and cultural future.” He castigated those anti-Soviet Jewish writers who feared that, if the Soviets were allowed to retain their June 1941 boundaries, some 6 to 7 million Jews would come under their sovereignty and would of necessity be forced to assimilate.

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

171

Meisel complained that these anti-Soviet polemics were “interfering” with the Allied war effort – yet, all the while, Meisel himself seemed nearly oblivious to what was actually occurring in Nazi-occupied Europe.114 It was not until Soviet accounts began to circulate concerning Nazi atrocities that Jewish Communists in Canada began to comprehend the tragedy that was unfolding. The Vochenblat had begun carrying reports of the systemic mass murder of tens of thousands of Jews by ss firing squads in the conquered Soviet territories.115 A headline on the front page of the 30 July 1942 issue read “Virtually All Jews in Vitebsk, Grodno and other NaziOccupied Cities Murdered. Gestapo Carries Out Terrible Pogrom in Warsaw.” Other stories began to provide details of mass murders and the opening of death camps such as Auschwitz.116 By October 1943, Sam Lipshitz was citing reports that “four million of our sisters and brothers in Europe have perished at the hands of the bloody Hitlerites” and that “fascism has set itself the task of completely destroying the entire Jewish people.” He spoke of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto earlier in the year and of the thousands being murdered in Treblinka and other death camps.117 Yet the paper’s emphasis remained on the great advances that the Soviets, including the Jewish population, were making in their war against Hitler. Attention was focused on the war itself – in particular the role of the Soviet Union. Many stories described the heroic role played by Soviet Jews in the defence of the socialist fatherland, fighting in the Red Army or as partisans behind enemy lines. Examples of individual heroism were prominently publicized.118 Gina Medem wrote of Soviet victories in the Jewish collective settlements of the Crimea. Entire pages were devoted to articles with titles such as “Soviet Jews Enlist with Joy in the Red Army” and “The Social Rebirth of the Jews in the Soviet Union,” with the obligatory references to “nation building” in Birobidzhan.119 Another theme emerged as the war dragged on: the Soviets, declared the Communists, were saving Jews from falling into Nazi clutches. The Vochenblat began to run jafc articles asserting that millions of Jews had been moved out of harm’s way into the central Asian republics. Shakhno Epstein, jafc secretary, described how some fifty prominent literary figures, including David Bergelson and Rachel Korn, had been evacuated to “warm and safe Uzbekistan” and were now in the capital, Tashkent. The Moscow Yiddish State Theatre, with its famed director, the actor Shloime Mikhoels, was also relocated to Tashkent, while the Kiev Yiddish Vaudeville Theatre was moved from the Ukraine to Samarkand, also in Uzbekistan. Itzik Fefer and David Hofshtein were in Ufa, in the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (now Bashkortostan). Many other

172

Jerusalem on the Amur

writers had ended up in Alma-Ata (now Almaty), in Kazakhstan.120 Epstein had been a prominent American Jewish Communist and a major figure in icor in the United States before he left that country for the Soviet Union in the 1930s, and so he had great credibility. Had any other country been as “noble” as the Soviets had been, in saving 1 million Jewish lives, wrote A. Zvihiler, “we would be shouting it from the rooftops [volt men dokh ibergekert veltn].”121 Meanwhile, conferences were being organized in Canadian cities to deal with the “holy work” of helping Jewish refugees once the war came to an end.122 The Jewish Communists sponsored a “United Jewish People’s Relief Conference for War Sufferers” in Toronto. The 175 delegates, sent by Jewish societies, organizations, and labour unions, met on 3 May 1942. The $2,000 they raised was earmarked for Jews under Hitler’s rule in Europe and those who had fled to the ussr. The conference participants apparently did not address the question of how they might assist in rescuing those Jews trapped in Nazi ghettos.123 Indeed, Gershon Pomerantz, a prominent communal activist and secretary of the conference, noted that Canadian Jews seemed to have become inured to reports of the suffering and deaths of thousands of Jews in Hitler’s Europe: “Something is not right with us ... We do little but sigh and wring our hands.”124 A Vochenblat editorial in July 1942 asked, “why are we keeping silent?” After all, declared the newspaper, Canadian Jews did not stand alone in the battle against fascism but were part of a mighty coalition: “This means we are no longer powerless. But what we are – especially in Canada – is leaderless.” The Soviets and, in particular, the jafc had warned the Nazis that they would be made to pay for their crimes. Why then were Canadian Jewish leaders silent? Why did they practise the old and discredited behind-the-scenes accommodationism (sha-sha politik) rather than mobilize Canadian Jews to pressure the government?125 Pomerantz drew upon Jewish nationalist and religious discourse in his attempts to energize the community. In an article entitled “Moscow and Jerusalem Call Out to Us – Let Us Not Keep Silent!” he alluded to the destruction of the two Temples in biblical Israel: “From Jerusalem, from the very heart of Erets Yisroel, comes a message, a short message: ‘There will not be a third Holocaust [khurben]!’” Pomerantz declared that the Jewish yishuv in Erets Yisroel, consisting of more than half a million Jews, “will not surrender its land without a stubborn struggle. The Jewish heart trembles at the thought of the possibility that the Hitler bandits should be able to arrive at the doors of Erets Yisroel.” The Jews in Palestine called on world Jewry to be as ready to do battle as they themselves were.

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

173

“From Moscow, from the very heart of the Soviet Union, where Jewish lives are not at the mercy of every bloodhound; where the Jew is free and has the rights of citizenship and full equality, to live and enjoy the blessings of the earth, of the sun, of the day; where the Jew stands tall and the names of Jewish sons and daughters are recognized by history as heroes,” continued Pomerantz, comes the declaration that there will be no new Jewish Holocaust, that “we will take revenge for those who shed Jewish blood.” Why then, asked Pomerantz, was the response in Canada so tepid? “Have we no sense of fraternity, a close brotherly tie with the Jews in Erets Yisroel? Can it really be stated that although we are children of one nation, yet we remain wrapped in silence and do not answer [their] call?” What could be more tragic than the news now emanating from Vilna and other Lithuanian towns, where “our own relatives, our brothers and sisters” have been brutally murdered in ways not mentioned even in Biblical curses (toykhekhe)? “What could be more painful than to remind ourselves, that sixty thousand Jews, Jews, our Jews, Jews like me, like you, like my father, your mother, my children, your children, were taken away in trucks and – the sun shone and the butcher knife [khalef] slaughtered.” Why were Jews not running through the streets mourning, saying kaddish and tearing their garments (krieh)? Pomerantz accused the cjc of abdicating its responsibilities. Why were they not mobilizing the community, organizing mass marches on Ottawa, letting the Canadian government know that Canadian Jews are citizens and that, as citizens, they matter? “Just what is the Canadian Jewish Congress waiting for? Now, from Jerusalem there comes a wail, from Tel Aviv a trembling, from millions of Jews in the Soviet Union a call: our people is in danger of annihilation ... The Jewish world is in flames. Jerusalem lives in dread. Millions of Soviet Jews are in battle, in struggle; Jews in the ghettos, in mourning; so we will not keep silent!” Pomerantz pleaded with Canadian Jews “not [to] abandon them on the sacrificial altar [mizbeyekh].”126 Gershon Pomerantz understood that the Nazis had destroyed the two thousand-year Jewish civilization of Europe. Although the Red Army was marching on Poland and sealing Hitler’s fate, the Nazi “war against the Jews” had been a victorious one. During the four years of war, “We kept consoling ourselves: surely the news couldn’t be true.” He again reprimanded his Canadian coreligionists for their quiescence and warned them that the European survivors would question their inactivity in the face of mass murder: “Furthermore: we ought to remember full well who the liberator is. We should not forget for one minute that it is the Red People’s Army that is arriving in our Jewish cities and towns. We ought to remember well

174

Jerusalem on the Amur

that it is these armies that have, in the last 25 years, extinguished the hatred of Jews” and “have displayed on their banners: equality and liberty for all.” The Red Army does not bring fear in its wake, Pomerantz asserted; Jews will open their doors and gates to it.127 Pomerantz exemplified the feelings of those in the Jewish community, from all walks of life and political perspectives, who saw in the Soviets the only chance to save what little was left of European Jewry. Even Labour Zionists and Arbayter Ring activists cast aside their antipathy towards the ussr. As Ben Lappin, then a cjc officer, noted in later years, “The summer of 1943 was no time to cast aspersions on the Soviet Union.”128 This widespread conviction provided the Canadian Jewish Communists with an unprecedented, if historically short-lived, series of electoral victories in the closing years of the Second World War. The stage was set with the visit of two illustrious Soviet Jewish emissaries to the Canadian Jewish community in September of 1943. The Vochenblat had already run many stories about the jafc, in particular regarding its leading members, the actor Shloime Mikhoels and the poet Itzik Fefer.129 When these two Soviet envoys, accompanied by the American Yiddish novelist Sholem Asch, visited Canada as part of a tour that included the Jewish communities of Britain, Mexico, and the United States, they were greeted at mass meetings of 25,000 people each in Montreal and Toronto, in a demonstration of “friendship and solidarity.”130 Both the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith held receptions for Mikhoels and Fefer in Montreal; Samuel Bronfman himself was on hand to greet them. In his speech, Fefer said that Hitler had begun to realize that Jews were able to give as well as to receive blows. “Hitler was strongly mistaken about Russian Jewry,” added Mikhoels: “It never occurred to him that Jews would fight back.” Louis Fitch and Charles Rosen were among the speakers at the mass rally held in the Forum. The Soviet delegation also visited the Reuben Brainin memorial in the Shaar Hashomayim cemetery. In Toronto, they were welcomed by A.B. Bennett, president of the Central Division of the Canadian Jewish Congress.131 Fefer told a crowd at Maple Leaf Gardens roaring with approval that Stalin himself had seen the two emissaries off and had wished them good luck, while Mikhoels once again “spoke as witness to the Holocaust.”132 Benjamin and Rosa Victor had travelled from Winnipeg to Montreal to attend various functions for Mikhoels and Fefer; they then accompanied the Soviet guests to Ottawa, where the two Russian Jews recorded an address for cbc Radio that was broadcast nationwide. Benjamin Victor introduced them in Yiddish “on behalf of all Canadian Jewish citizens

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

175

Itzik Fefer and Shloime Mikhoels in Montreal, September 1943 (Jewish Public Library Archives, Montreal – Samuel Lapitsky Fonds)

engaged in the fight against fascism.” Mikhoels told his listeners that 4 million Jews had already been murdered in Europe. The Red Army had been the only effective force that stood in the way of the genocide, and hence it was imperative for every Jew to support the Soviets.133 The theme of the visit by Mikhoels and Fefer, as related by the Jewish Communists, was upbeat rather than somber, the narrative line that of Allied unity in the fight to destroy fascism. The efforts made by the Communists to become part of the political mainstream had been proving quite successful: the Toronto Daily Star, for instance, editorialized that, whatever their political behaviour had been prior to June 1941, “right now the members and sympathizers of the Communist party are zealous and anxious for the successful prosecution of the war.” Opposition to the Communist Party only played into the hands of pro-fascist opponents of the war.134 Gershman told the paper: “I intend to do everything in my power to help rally Canadian Jews to an even greater support of the government’s total war effort.” He observed that “it is an

176

Jerusalem on the Amur

Dinner held for Itzik Fefer and Shloime Mikhoels in Montreal, 7 September 1943 (Jewish Public Library Archives, Montreal – Samuel Lapitsky Fonds)

established fact that wherever the Communists have been persecuted, fifth columnists have had an open road.”135 The Vochenblat emphasized that Canadian, American, and British political leaders were now asking citizens to consider the ussr an ally and support its fight against the Axis enemy. The Communists were of course in the forefront of such activities: they organized a “Salute to the Soviet Union” on the first anniversary of the invasion; 14,000 people crowded into Toronto’s Varsity Stadium on 22 June 1942 to hear pro-Soviet speeches. “Toronto had never seen such a demonstration,” enthused Herman Abramovitch.136 Harry Price reported on a similar salute in Hamilton. Stalin was applauded and the “Internationale” sung. “Today the Red flag with its golden hammer and sickle fluttered [and] was officially saluted by the city government and military personnel,” he wrote with wonderment.137 In March 1943, Paul Novick, editor of the Frayhayt, visited Montreal and Toronto to help celebrate the twenty-first anniversary of the

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

177

At Toronto City Hall, 8 September 1943. l. to r.: novelist Sholem Asch; A.B. Bennett, Canadian Jewish Congress; Canadian government official; Itzik Fefer (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

American paper, and he received a rousing reception in both cities.138 On 22 June 1943, the second anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Russia, the National Council for Canadian-Soviet Friendship was launched at a “Salute to Our Russian Ally” held in Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens, attended by 17,000 people and chaired by Prime Minister Mackenzie King himself. The leading speaker was Joseph E. Davies.139 Communists were becoming ever more accepted in the community; no longer ostracized and often lionized. Though the Communist Party had been banned in 1940 under the wartime Defence of Canada regulations, it re-emerged in 1943 as the Labor-Progressive Party (lpp).140 With the Soviets having turned the tide at Stalingrad, beginning their rollback of the

178

Jerusalem on the Amur

German armies, the lpp would ride the pro-Soviet wave to electoral victories in heavily Jewish constituencies. Particularly in Montreal, fears of domestic anti-Semitism meshed with concern over the fate of the Jews of Europe. In December 1942, a wellknown Communist, Michael Buhay, was elected to the Montreal city council as one of three councillors from District 5, whose municipal boundaries to a large extent coincided with the federal riding of Cartier, where the majority of Montreal’s Jews lived. Buhay was born in London, England, in 1890 and came to Canada in 1909. He and his sister, Becky Buhay, became charter members of the Canadian Communist Party in 1920. Michael had run as the Communist candidate for the federal Parliament in the Cartier riding in 1922 and 1926. He was the first editor of Der Kamf, from 1924 to 1926, and had visited the ussr in 1928.141 The Communists now set their sights on a bigger prize. The city’s predominantly Jewish neighbourhoods, all within the federal riding of Cartier, would go the polls in August 1943 in a by-election made necessary by the death in 1942 of their Liberal mp, Peter Bercovitch. The 18,000 Jewish electors in Cartier constituted almost half the total number of voters and had made the riding a Liberal stronghold: both Bercovitch and his predecessor, Sam Jacobs, had been Jewish Liberals. The Communists selected as their candidate in the by-election the long-time Communist leader and pamphleteer Fred Rose. Rose was already well regarded for his work in exposing fascism in Canada and had written articles and pamphlets on the subject. He had run as a candidate in the Cartier riding in 1935, winning 16 percent of the vote.142 Rose had been arrested and interned in September 1942 under the Defence of Canada regulations but had been released after signing a memo agreeing to support the war effort. Prominent Communists such as the historian Stanley Ryerson supported Rose’s candidacy and spoke at mass rallies on his behalf.143 The Vochenblat gave special prominence to stories that were likely to help Rose’s campaign. A good example is the English section of the issue for 29 July 1943, which was published just days before the vote. On the front page appeared an article by Ilya Ehrenburg, entitled “The Murder of the Jewish People,” which described in detail the mass murders carried out by the Nazis in occupied areas of Belarus and Ukraine. A second story reported that Jewish vacationers had been attacked by anti-Semitic gangs at a beach near Montreal. A picture of Fred Rose, the lpp candidate, appeared alongside these stories.144 Michael Buhay, in a profile of the candidate, emphasized that Rose was an energetic advocate for workers and a proud Jew.145

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

179

The Jewish community of Cartier “have duties and obligations to the tortured Jews of Europe,” declared Max Bailey, another prominent Montreal Jewish Communist. A Jew should definitely represent the riding, but, he added, in an allusion to the Liberal candidate, Lazarus Phillips, the representative of Montreal’s Jewish establishment, the new mp need not be “a rich Jewish lawyer with connections in the multi-millionaire world.” Jewish voters “will not be terrorized into voting for the Liberal machine candidate.” Rose’s campaign literature described him as “A Friend of the ussr” and a supporter of “Soviet-Canadian Unity,” who would promote friendship and trade “with the great country which is our northern neighbor.” On the other hand, Lazarus and the ccf candidate, David Lewis, were, according to the Communists, “champions of anti-Sovietism.”146 The Rose campaign printed the four-page “Letter from a Hero’s Mother,” written by Fina Nelson, a woman whose son, a flight lieutenant, had been killed over the English Channel. According to Nelson, Rose had cried out against appeasement and “fought the crime of Munich that made Hitler strong. Where were the others then? Where was the voice of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Lewis then?”147 Rose’s platform called for a “quick victory over Hitler,” opposition to anti-Semitism, and Soviet-Canadian friendship, alongside such standard left-wing domestic items as slum clearance, a minimum wage, and postwar jobs.148 On 9 August, Rose, with 5,789 votes, narrowly edged out the FrenchCanadian nationalist candidate, Paul Massé, who received 5,639 votes running for the anti-war Bloc Populaire Canadien. Rose received few French-Canadian votes, while Massé got almost no Jewish votes. Phillips came in third, with 4,180 votes. The future leader of the New Democratic Party, David Lewis, finished fourth, with 3,313 votes.149 The riding, though largely working-class, was almost entirely polarized along ethnic lines, and the Liberals found themselves squeezed out by two “flanking” parties that had come to represent, in the minds of voters, the aspirations of two hostile communities with diametrically opposed attitudes towards the war. Each of these could “outbid” a classical brokerage party that was trying to aggregate votes across ethnic lines.150 Sam Carr, who a few months earlier had written a book detailing Nazi crimes of genocide uncovered by the advancing Soviet armies in Europe, castigated Lewis for splitting the working-class vote. He also warned that the Bloc’s support had demonstrated the continuing danger of pro-Hitlerite fascism among the French-Canadian population in Quebec. The province, he stated, remained “a fertile field for fascist anti-war propaganda.”151

Election poster, in English and Yiddish, for Fred Rose, Montreal, July, 1943 (Canadian Jewish Congress National Archives and Reference Centre)

The Jewish Communists in the Second World War

181

Indeed, editorialized the Vochenblat, “Fred Rose’s Election Has Saved Cartier from a Fascist.”152 While in Quebec Jews had to contend with the “reactionary, isolationist and pro-fascist elements” in the “bitterly antisemitic” Bloc, and while the Nazis had wiped out millions of Jews in Europe, in the Soviet Union anti-Semitism “has not only been outlawed, it has actually disappeared,” declared Sam Lipshitz. Fred Rose would work to outlaw anti-Semitism and racism in Canada as well.153 Israel Medres, who had begun contributing pieces to the Vochenblat, remarked that, “when we speak of organized anti-Semitism in Canada, we have mainly in mind the province of Quebec.” The article described the many “fifth columnists” harboured by the anti-war Bloc.154 Following his election, Rose played a prominent role in the Jewish Communists’ pro-war efforts.155 He also continued to battle against right-wing anti-Semites in Quebec. The coming defeat of Hitler by “the glorious Red Army” would be “the funeral march” of those who still hoped that antiSemitism and fascism might survive in some form in Canada after the war, he told a rally held at Baron Byng High School on 12 April 1944.156 In a speech to the House of Commons on 4 July, Rose called for an inquiry into anti-Semitism in Quebec.157 When the Jewish Assistance and Social Organization (Yidisher Hilfs Farayn) in Montreal called a “mass meeting” for 21 January 1945, to celebrate the liberation of Warsaw by Soviet troops, speakers included Rose; Israel Medres, chair of the Communistdominated Farband fun Rusishe Yidn; and Max Bailey, president of the Yidisher Hilfs Farayn.158 Thanks to his work as an mp, and the reflected glory of the Red Army’s triumph over Hitler, Rose would retain his seat in the 11 June 1945 federal election, nearly doubling his vote, to beat a Liberal, Samuel Schwisberg, who ran second, and Massé. “Fred Rose knows Cartier. He knows the people and the countries from which they come,” stated one of his election pamphlets. “Let us re-elect the courageous fighter, the defender of the Jewish people, as our representative,” proclaimed another.159 The ccf did not contest the seat; clearly it realized that it was competing with the lpp mainly for the Jewish vote and would not come out the winner against Rose. The pro-Soviet sentiment that had swept the Jewish community, casting the ussr in the role of saviour of the Jewish people, had enabled the lpp to mobilize a mass base of support. The Communists were also able to tap into the insecurity of Montreal Jews, who feared hostility and anti-Semitism on the part of so many French Canadians, ranging from intellectuals to street thugs. In the 8 August 1944 Quebec provincial election, Michael Buhay of the lpp ran a respectable second to the Liberal candidate, Maurice Hartt, in

182

Jerusalem on the Amur

the largely Jewish St Louis riding, winning 6,512 votes to Hartt’s 9,439. The Communists called for Jews to vote lpp in order to defeat the “dark dreams” of the Bloc Populaire and of Duplessis’ Union Nationale.160 As a municipal councillor Buhay had introduced a resolution in March 1943 calling for the Montreal city council to formally protest Hitler’s genocidal policies towards the Jews of Europe. Buhay’s resolution failed. In contrast, the Toronto City Council passed a similar motion unanimously.161 In Ontario, J.B. Salsberg had been elected a Toronto alderman for Ward 4 in 1937 but lost the seat in 1939 when Jewish support declined after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. He regained the seat at the beginning of 1943 and later that year became a member of the provincial parliament, winning the predominantly Jewish constituency of St Andrew in August 1943; he would be re-elected in June 1945 with a comfortable majority and again in 1948 and 1951. (Bellwoods, a neighbouring riding with many Jewish voters, also elected a Communist, A.A. MacLeod.) Salsberg had narrowly lost in St Andrew in the 1937 provincial election. Aldermen such as Norman Freed, Sam Carr’s uncle, elected to the Toronto city council from Ward 4 in 1944 despite having been interned between 1940 and 1942, also provided the lpp with a visible profile in the Jewish community.162 In the 1945 federal election, Tim Buck and Sam Carr, though losing to Liberals, both received substantial support in Toronto-Trinity and Toronto-Spadina, seats with large Jewish populations, while in Winnipeg Joe Zuken ran second in Winnipeg North to a candidate of the ccf. The Communists were certainly making their presence felt in the Jewish community. They seemed to be on the side of the angels. But it would prove to be a false dawn: a decade later, the movement would find itself in ruins.

adian Birobidjan Committee

8 The Postwar Period and the Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

At the end of 1944, the Jewish Communists organized the United Jewish People’s Order to supersede the Labour League in Toronto and similar front organizations elsewhere in the country. In the 1940s, some 30 percent of the cpc membership in Toronto was Jewish, according to Sam Lipshitz. In Montreal, related Harry Binder, then a leading Quebec Communist, the figure may have been as high as 70 percent.1 The formation of the United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo) was to some extent an acknowledgment that the Jewish movement was a legitimate yet separate component of the Canadian Communist world. The ujpo also gained recognition within the larger Jewish community: the organization was admitted without difficulty as a member in good standing to the Canadian Jewish Congress. The ujpo’s leadership included well-known Jewish Communists and pro-Soviet fellow travellers. The national secretary, Morris Biderman, had been a member of the cpc since 1927, manager of Der Kamf between 1937 and 1939, a member of the Labour League since 1937, and its president after 1942. Dr Sam Sniderman of Hamilton was the national president. Others in the leadership were Sam Lipshitz, Benjamin Victor, Sol Shek, Charles Starkman, Sholem Shtern, Paul Kirzner, Mary Harris, J.B. Salsberg, Alfred Rosenberg, Abraham Nisnevitz, Joseph Zuken, Sam Carr, Fred Rose, and A.B. (Archie) Bennett. With its network of schools, cultural centres, choirs, and camps, the ujpo hoped to become a major presence in the Canadian Jewish community, with branches in most major Canadian cities. It sponsored fund-raising dinners that included guests such as Toronto alderman Nathan Phillips, a future mayor of Toronto, and Abraham Feinberg, rabbi of Toronto’s then pre-eminent synagogue, the Reform denomination Holy Blossom Temple.2 By January 1948, the ujpo counted 1,368 members in Toronto alone. The Vochenblat became its de facto

184

Jerusalem on the Amur

ujpo’s Camp Naivelt, Brampton, Ontario, 1946 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

organ: in 1945, J.B. Salsberg was president, Joshua Gershman general secretary, and Harry Guralnick executive secretary of the Canadian Jewish Weekly Association, the paper’s publisher. Abe Arnold, in later years a wellregarded president of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society, was the editor of the English section of the Vochenblat from mid-1947 to 1948, when he moved to Vancouver.3 The lpp had formed the National Jewish Committee during the war. When the committee met in Toronto in January 1945, Gershman, the national organizer, described the pro-Soviet work to be undertaken in the postwar period. At a national conference held that September, the National Jewish Committee called on the Canadian government to allow the entry of Jewish survivors and refugees; it was hoped this position would garner still greater support among Canadian Jews.4 At a meeting in March 1946, the committee decided “that at every mass meeting and through all other mediums, we shall stress the urgent need for a broad movement to force the Canadian government to allow a substantial portion of Jewish and other anti-fascist refugees and war victims into Canada.”5 Like its American counter-part, the Canadian equivalent of Ambijan would become very active after the Second World War. With the war drawing to a close, the American Birobidjan Committee had held its first

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

185

national conference in New York on 25 and 26 November 1944. The conference was attended by 403 delegates from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, along with a further 1,000 guests. Of these, fourteen were Canadians, including two officers of the Central Division of the Canadian Jewish Congress: A.B. Bennett, its president, and Ethel Ostry, its executive director. Tribute was paid to the Soviets, who had opened their doors to some 1.8 million Jews escaping Hitler. The conference pledged to raise $1 million to support Jewish refugees in Stalingrad and Birobidzhan and to accelerate the industrial and cultural development of the Jewish Autonomous Region. In particular, Ambijan agreed to redouble its efforts to resettle 3,500 Jewish orphans in Birobidzhan. Prominent guests and speakers included the Soviet ambassador to Washington, Andrei Gromyko, who thanked Ambijan for the help it was rendering to the ussr and Birobidzhan in particular. Louis Fitch addressed a session of the conference, as did Torontonian Raymond Arthur Davies. Fitch was one of the founders of the Canadian Jewish Congress and had fought a number of high-profile court cases in Quebec on behalf of the Jewish community. At the time a member of the national committee of the National Council for Canadian-Soviet Friendship, he told the conference that the ussr had become a model for the solution of the nationalities problem: No empire or commonwealth has extended to its constituents and individual minorities so wide a freedom of action or so much independence as has the ussr. This is the work primarily of Marshal Stalin whose name today evokes the gratitude and admiration of the whole civilized world. The solution of this problem in Russia has been the greatest political contribution to political science in the last one hundred years. We must all, irrespective of our approach to Russia, recognize with deep gratitude what the Russian people have done for our people since Hitlerism dominated Europe. We Jews do not always forgive our enemies. We Jews never forget our friends. Davies had travelled to the ussr in October 1943 and was stationed in Moscow as a correspondent for Saturday Night and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (as well as the Vochenblat); he also reported back to the Kanader Adler. In August 1944, he had sent back a first-person account from the newly liberated Majdanek death camp. He described to the conference the work of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the newly liberated areas of the Soviet Union. He also spoke of Birobidzhan and said that there

186

Jerusalem on the Amur

would be large-scale postwar construction in the region: “The aspiration to have a Jewish Republic within the Soviet Union has grown much stronger and that aspiration will be fulfilled ... The war has strengthened Jewish national sentiment and greater emphasis is being laid on the further rebuilding of the Jewish Autonomous Region and its development into a Jewish Autonomous Republic.” J.M. Budish, chair of Ambijan’s administrative committee and its executive vice-president, announced that Ambijan would be consolidated on a “continental basis” by establishing separate organizations in every country on the continent. Vilhjalmur and Evelyn Stefansson hosted a public dinner, and Vilhjalmur was selected as one of Ambijan’s vice-presidents. Three Canadians were appointed to committees: S. Medres and L. Ostrovsky to the Resolutions Committee and N. Resnick, a Montreal cantor who owned a leather goods factory, to the Nominating Committee (Fitch and Medres were also elected as vice-chairs of the National Committee). The Canadian delegation pledged that, upon its return to Montreal and Toronto, it would arrange for the formal establishment of Ambijan in Canada and recommend to other bodies, in particular fraternal groups, that they provide support.6 Raymond Arthur Davies had become an important figure in the new proSoviet Jewish movement as the war drew to a close. He had published articles praising the ussr in periodicals such as Soviet Russia Today, organ of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, asserting, for example, that “in Russia the human spirit is moving towards heights of untrammelled development.” Davies was active in the National Council for CanadianSoviet Friendship, and in 1944 the cp’s publishing house, Progress Books, had published his book Canada and Russia: Friends and Neighbours. He also wrote for Communist publications, including Today: An Anglo-Jewish Monthly, launched in November 1944 by Canadian Jewish Communists to gain additional support from younger, non-immigrant, middle-class Jews. He created the World News Service, a Communist wire service agency, with himself as managing editor and A.J. Arnold as associate editor.7 In November 1944, prior to his appearance at the Ambijan conference in New York, Davies had undertaken a strenuous two-month speaking tour across the country, sponsored by the Canadian Jewish Congress. He visited Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Cornwall, Windsor, Sudbury, St Catharines, Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Calgary, and Regina. On 13 November, Davies spoke to a capacity house of 2,200 at Massey Hall in Toronto and the following day to an overflow audience of more than 1,400 at the Monument National Theatre in Montreal. On 15

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

187

November, he was at a luncheon for fifty-three Montreal Jewish community leaders at the Mount Royal Hotel. His talk in London, Ontario, on 23 November was, according to Ethel Ostry, “an excellent meeting” that attracted 300 people. Posters publicizing his talk called him “An eye-witness From Lublin Death Chambers.” In St Catharines, some 400 to 500 people, including the mayor and members of city council, heard, according to a local rabbi, “a skilful, tactful, and highly interesting report, which left no one in the audience unmoved.”8 While in the Soviet Union, Davies had reported back to the cjc. Saul Hayes, the national executive director of Congress, wrote to Ethel Ostry describing the “inestimable value” of Davies’ work on behalf of Congress, both “as liaison in several important assignments” in Europe and on his speaking tour. In a letter to Hayes, Davies afterwards spoke of having “done so much work in Russia and Poland” for the Canadian Jewish Congress.9 Davies again travelled to Europe at the end of the war, visiting Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the ussr.10 Things had obviously been patched up with the cjc for, following his return, he undertook another cross-country tour, again under the auspices of the Canadian Jewish Congress, speaking in Winnipeg, Regina, Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Edmonton, and Calgary. Davies lectured at a “mass meeting” in the Jewish Community Building in Calgary on 23 January 1946 and spoke the next evening in a church hall at a meeting organized by the Calgary Council for Canadian Soviet Friendship, the local branch of the National Council. Prominent Calgary lawyer Abraham I. Shumiatcher, first vice-president of the Calgary Branch of the cjc (and at the time also a member of the Calgary Council for Canadian Soviet Friendship), and Louis Pearlman of the I.L. Peretz School, organized the lecture at the Jewish centre.11 Pro-Soviet feelings extended to Jewish communities across Canada. Though by now the entire world had learned of the death camps, the Communists still seemed oblivious to the fact that the Holocaust had brought down the curtain on the Ashkenazic Yiddish civilization of eastern Europe. Since the region was now under Soviet control, the Communists felt duty-bound to emphasize the “positive” aspects of the life that awaited postwar east European Jewry. The newspaper’s stories were optimistic in tone: the fascist powers had been defeated and, despite their horrendous losses, the Jewish people could now once again resume their role in helping to bring into being a new, more progressive world.12 Nathan Cohen, who would go on to become a major literary critic and television personality in Canada, admonished one Vochenblat reader who had complained that Canadian Jews were still not sufficiently outraged at the murder of 6

188

Jerusalem on the Amur

million Jews; Cohen argued that, while the “incalculable cruelty” of the Nazi mass murders should be fully reported, “it is equally important that we should stress the rehabilitation of European Jewry [and] the healthy and constructive life of Jews in other countries.”13 On 4 July 1946, a mob in the Polish city of Kielce killed forty-two Jews and wounded fifty. The pogrom triggered a massive outflow of approximately 100,000 of the remaining Jewish survivors in Poland. Yet the Vochenblat ran an article a few months later praising the fact that some 1,000 of these Jews, following their “hysterical flight,” had returned to Poland and were “beginning to readjust themselves to post-war conditions.”14 Shloime Almazov proved more realistic than his Canadian comrades. Following the war, he had left the leadership of the American icor and devoted himself to chronicling the tremendous losses suffered by European Jewry. He informed Joshua Gershman in October 1946 that he had scheduled appearances in Vancouver on 24 November, in Edmonton on 27 November, in Calgary on 29 November, and in Winnipeg on 1 December. He was depending on the Jewish press and friendly Jewish organizations in Canada for publicity in advance of his arrival.15 Almazov was returning to Winnipeg for the first time in twenty-six years. “I have so many sweet memories of the city but I also have so many bitter experiences here,” he said. He visited the cemetery where a sister was buried and heard of dear friends who had died; in his mind, they blended in with the 6 million Jewish dead in Europe. At a large meeting in Winnipeg, Almazov asserted that the catastrophe that had come upon the Jewish people following this recently ended war was much greater than the pogroms and horrors that had followed the First World War. He mentioned only in passing the help provided to Jews by the Soviet Union and others; his emphasis was on the heroism of Jewish partisans and ghetto fighters. The meeting ended with the recitation of the ghetto hymn the “Partizaner Leid.”16 Now that Nazi Germany had been defeated, Jewish Communists were again hopeful that the construction of Birobidzhan might recommence. On 28 June 1945, the Vochenblat published an article, datelined New York, announcing the creation by Ambijan of an “Einstein Fund” to resettle in Birobidzhan 30,000 Jewish war orphans from Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. Ambijan had already helped resettle 3,500 children. Budish stated that, since these children did not speak Russian, they would have difficulties integrating in the western regions of the ussr; however, in Birobidzhan they would be raised in a Yiddish-speaking milieu, and Ambijan would be sending them weekly transports of clothing, medicine and other necessities.17 Abraham Jenofsky, the national secretary of icor in

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

189

the United States, complained that not enough was being done for Birobidzhan in Canada.18 Many Canadian landsmanshaften and fraternal groups urged Canadian Jews to show their support for Ambijan’s work.19 During the second half of 1945 Canadian supporters of Ambijan made efforts to develop a Canadian-wide organization to support this work and organized the Birobidjan Appeal to Aid Jewish War Orphans in the ussr. On 4 October 1945, Gershman wrote to Dr Victor in Winnipeg, advising him that “we have resolved to organize in Canada a movement for Birobidzhan” that would not be content merely to collect “pennies and dimes”; rather, it would undertake to send major items to Birobidzhan. For instance, Winnipeg might buy an electricity-producing station for a children’s home in Birobidzhan at a cost of $20,000. As well, the new movement would undertake to create friendship between Canada and the Soviet Union, and between Canadian and Soviet Jews. Remarked Gershman, “we must make certain not to leave the impression that Birobidzhan is in competition with Palestine.” He pointed out that, in the United States, many organizations representing bourgeois Jews were donating equal amounts to Birobidzhan and Palestine: “That means, that we too should be able to convince those Jews who donate money for Palestine, to give money for Birobidzhan as well.” Gershman told Victor that Ambijan would help to organize the new group.20 In Montreal, a local Birobidjan committee had already been formed in 1936 to send a “people’s delegation” to Birobidzhan, but it had ceased operations when that project failed. It was not surprising, then, that Ambijan had the support of many active members of the Jewish community in Montreal, including Max Bailey, president of the Montreal ujpo and a future city councillor; J. Aronoff; George Erlick; Samuel Pesner; Joseph Yass; Shloime (Sol) Temkin, a wealthy fur dealer and head of the Russian Farband in Montreal; Sh. Lapitsky, owner of “Federal 5–10–15c to $1.00 Stores”; S. Krakower; Alfred Rosenberg, a prominent member of the lpp and Fred Rose’s brother; and S. Koch, who had been on the National Executive Committee of icor as early as 1928. In Toronto, A.B. Bennett, Henry Nathanson, and Gershman promised their support for the formation of a Canadian Birobidjan committee. On 19–20 November 1945, Budish attended a dinner at the exclusive Montefiore Club in Montreal. The sixty people in attendance, representatives of various Jewish organizations, agreed to form a provisional Canadian Birobidjan committee with national headquarters at 226 Hospital Street, Montreal. Budish returned to Montreal on 17 February 1946 as a guest speaker when the committee held its first city-wide conference at the Jewish

190

Jerusalem on the Amur

People’s School (Folks Shule). Over 200 delegates, including mp Fred Rose, Irving J. Myers, Israel Medres, and Lapitsky, attended the conference, presided over by Max Bailey and Joseph Yass. Organizations represented included the ujpo, the Russian Farband, the Romanian Farband, the Polish Farband, and many landsmanshaften and unions. The Peretz, People’s and Winchevsky schools all sent representatives, as did the Knights of Pythias and even the Va’ad ha-rabonim, the rabbinical group. Budish reported on recent developments in Birobidzhan and on the activities of the American Birobidjan Committee on behalf of the war orphans. He reminded the participants that the Jews of Birobidzhan were at that moment the only ones in the world that exercised sovereignty. He described the economic potential of the region. Budish read a telegram from Soviet president Kalinin, in which the latter expressed the hope that Birobidzhan would grow rapidly. Budish appealed to the Jews of Canada “to share in this broad movement.” The delegates also heard a message from Albert Einstein, a long-time supporter of Ambijan, and from Dr Victor, who would become chair of the Winnipeg Birobidjan Committee. Einstein praised the organizers for providing “the kind of aid that will be of lasting value for the recovery of our people from the unprecedented catastrophe which has befallen us.” Erlick submitted a proposal to the conference to raise $200,000 to equip a Jewish vocational institute in Birobidzhan with a machine shop, and shoe making, woodworking, printing, electrical, radio, and chemical departments. The institute would also have an infirmary, dental clinic, bakery, gymnasium, and library. The delegates recommended that a national Birobidjan committee be established as soon as possible so that Jews throughout the country might participate in “this constructive humanitarian undertaking.” The delegates also resolved to urge other organizations to which they each belonged to promote participation in the work being undertaken on behalf of Birobidzhan. “I would like to see in Birobidzhan a monument from Canadian Jewry and I think that your plan will create such a monument,” declared Fred Rose.21 The national conference of Ambijan was scheduled to meet at Hunter College in New York on 9–10 March 1946. In anticipation of the conference, the Vochenblat ran a front-page article in Yiddish and a back-page article in English, praising the American icor and Ambijan for having shipped to Birobidzhan half a million dollars worth of machinery, textiles, shoes, vitamins, a newspaper printing machine, and electrical equipment in 1945. The Vochenblat also noted that “35,000 Red Army men from the Jewish Autonomous Region had fought on the battlefields.”22

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

191

B.Z. Goldberg of Der Tog visited the Soviet Union in the first months of 1946 as a guest of the jafc. He cabled to the 669 delegates and 1,500 friends at the Ambijan conference the news that the Soviet Union had embarked on its first postwar Five-Year Plan. As part of the reconstruction effort, Birobidzhan, “the only place in the world where Jews have already achieved statehood,” would grow into a great state, eventually becoming a Jewish Republic.23 Altogether, seventeen delegates from four cities in Canada attended the conference at Hunter College, which united icor and Ambijan in the United States. “We have become a united movement on an international basis,” said J.M. Budish, in announcing the presence of the Canadian contingent. “Canada has established a Birobidjan Committee, and the American Birobidjan Committee has stimulated their organization.” One of the Canadians at the conference was Sam Lipshitz, who furnished an account of the status of the Jews in Europe. Lipshitz had visited Poland after the war, together with H.M. Caiserman, on behalf of the cjc. They left in mid-November 1945 and met up with a larger delegation sponsored by the Joint, which included B.Z. Goldberg. Lipshitz had in fact suggested the fact-finding mission to Congress. Describing the “new democracy” in Poland, where he and Caiserman had spent seven weeks, Lipshitz spoke of “the new spirit of democracy there, of equal rights for all minorities, and of the determination of the Government there to fight to the utmost against anti-Semitism.” Having heroically withstood the Nazi occupation, the Jews of Poland were now prepared to rebuild their lives. Lipshitz described the new Yiddish-language schools and libraries that had reopened in cities that had been centres of Jewish life before the war. He spoke of literary and cultural events, of writers who were again producing literary works. The Polish Jews want “understanding, moral support, and sincere collaboration,” he added. And what of fears that Poland had come under Soviet rule? Lipshitz responded, “I will tell you what Soviet influence there is in Poland: the fight against anti-Semitism, the fight for full equality for all national minorities – that is Soviet influence on the Jewish and non-Jewish population of Poland!” A number of Canadians were again elected to committees: Alfred Rosenberg of Montreal to the Resolutions Committee, and Louis Fitch and S. Medres to the National Committee.24 Meanwhile, Gershman wrote to Joe Zuken that “we shall strengthen the Montreal Birobidjan Committee and plan together with the Jewish People’s Committee of Winnipeg and the various Russian-Ukrainian Farbands in the east, a national conference for the official inauguration of a Canadian Birobidjan Committee.” Gershman suggested Charles Rosen as

192

Jerusalem on the Amur

Rabbi Abraham Bick addressing Canadian Birobidjan Committee conference, Montreal, 26 May 1946 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

national director and Winnipeg ujpo activist Louie (Vasil) Guberman as organizer for Winnipeg and points west.25 The formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee (sometimes referred to as the Canada Birobidjan Committee) was now almost complete. The Communists began a Dominion-wide fund-raising campaign to help in the building of Birobidzhan and, in particular, to raise money for the resettlement of 1,000 orphans there. The Vochenblat observed that many Jewish organizations throughout the land were ready to “join in the work.” In early May, the 106-member Toronto Jewish Folk Choir, under the direction of Emil Gartner, gave a performance at Massey Hall, Toronto, of the oratorio “Biro Bidjan,” which was, in the words of Sam Carr, “a rhapsody of gratitude by Jacob Schaefer to the Jewish Autonomous Region of the Soviet Union.” The Birobidjan Committee held its first Dominion-wide conference on 26 May 1946 at the B’nai Jacob Shul on Fairmount Street in Montreal. The following day, a “mass meeting” and concert took place at the Folks Shule on Waverly Street. The Montreal Jewish Folk Choir, accom-

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

193

Joshua Gershman addressing Canadian Birobidjan Committee conference, Montreal, 26 May 1946 (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

panied by a mandolin orchestra, sang Birobidzhaner songs and the cantata “Der mogen dovid bagrist dem roytn shtern [The Shield of David Salutes the Red Star].” The two keynote speakers were Dr B A. Victor of Winnipeg and Rabbi Abraham J. Bick of the Warsaw Center, New York, president of the Union of American Jews of Ukrainian Descent and a member of Ambijan’s National Committee. Rabbi Bick, who had visited the ussr in 1929 and 1935, was lauded for his “splendid and insightful” speech. Irving J. Myers praised Montreal for being the first community to engage in pro-Birobidzhan work once the war had ended. Montreal activists had sent a transport of clothing for 3,500 orphans and had also been involved in many other activities, he stated. Dr Victor gave a speech in which he drew on his personal experiences in Birobidzhan, which he had visited in 1936. Gershman, national organizer for the National Jewish Committee of the lpp, also spoke; he underscored the great significance of the new organization. Many people engaged in a discussion of future plans for the

194

Jerusalem on the Amur

committee, including Sol Shek, Alfred Rosenberg, Abraham Gampel, Charles Rosen, Rosa Victor, and Dr Rose Bronstein. A message of greetings from the Soviet embassy was read out, praising the committee for its efforts. The president of the Russian-Ukrainian Jewish Farband of Toronto, N. Gold, sent a message informing the convention that his organization was confident it could raise $50,000. The 125 delegates from across the country, representing fifty-two organizations, pledged to raise another $150,000. The convention also passed a resolution calling on all the democracies to open their doors to Jews wishing to emigrate from Europe. Samuel Pesner of Montreal was elected as honorary chairman, George Erlick as executive chairman, and Irving J. Myers as executive director. Other directors included Rabbi Harry J. Stern, Louis Fitch, and the lawyer Bernard S. Mergler. The meeting issued a manifesto describing the tragic conditions in which European Jews found themselves following the Holocaust; yet, even now, the door to the democratic countries remained closed to them. “In the present gloomy circumstances in which our people find themselves,” stated the manifesto, “the Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan shines like a bright beam. The history of Birobidzhan is the history of the triumph of national liberty and equality over anti-Semitism and racial hatred.” The manifesto contrasted the circumstances of Jews in tsarist times to the cultural, economic, political, and social equality Jews had achieved after the revolution. In the new ussr, Jews could participate in every aspect of agricultural and industrial work. In addition to living as equals with all other Soviet citizens, after 1928 they had the opportunity to become a nation like all other nationalities. In Birobidzhan, they would “build their own country.” Birobidzhan was in a “glowing condition,” with “full selfgoverning autonomy.” “We do not see a conflict between Biro-Bidzhan and Palestine,” declared the manifesto: There is room for [both] Zionists and non-Zionists in the aid work on behalf of Biro-Bidzhan. Just as all Jews are interested in helping with the construction of Palestine, and in aiding those Jews who wish to settle there, so too should the work on behalf of Biro-Bidzhan and the Soviet solution of the Jewish question be evaluated by all Jews, without regard to party affiliation. Biro-Bidzhan is proof that the desire of winning full equality for all Jews is not a futile one. Biro-Bidzhan gives strength to those who hope for a future more free and secure.

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

195

Birobidzhan had now taken the initiative to resettle thousands of Jewish war orphans, children who had fled into the Soviet Union ahead of Hitler’s advances: “It will be imperative, though, to obtain help from the Jews of America and Canada in order to carry out this urgent work.” The manifesto urged all Jewish organizations to help set up aid committees for Birobidzhan, and it pleaded with them to not be misled by anti-Soviet groups.26 Today published, in its June 1946 issue, an article by J.M. Budish on the future of Birobidzhan. Budish explained that the gulf between the legal and actual status of national minorities in most countries had never been bridged but was, in fact, growing, “with the only exception of the ussr” Due to its adherence to socialist principles of equality, the country had surpassed all others in the field of national minority policies. Anti-Semitism and all other forms of racial or national hatred had been outlawed. One result was that no other army “could boast of greater unity or more effective co-operation” than the multinational Soviet army representing “the 180 peoples of the ussr.” The Soviet policy also “signified the total elimination of the Jewish ghetto, both in its geographical and moral conception.” Jews enjoyed full equality everywhere in the country. Why then was a Jewish region established in Birobidzhan? To allow Jews to overcome the “many obstacles which have been left as a sad heritage from the period of national oppression under the Czarist regime.” After the revolution, Jewish life had to be rebuilt “on productive foundations.” The “economic conquest of the virgin Far East,” which was to the ussr “what the Golden West was in the second half of the 19th century to the United States,” facilitated the accomplishment of this purpose. Birobidzhan, while only a small part of the Far East, “is by no means an insignificant territory,” explained Budish. It “contributed greatly towards the rebuilding of Jewish life on new productive foundations.” Above all, the development of Birobidzhan made it possible for Soviet Jews “to acquire the attributes of a nation, giving them a state-unit of their own,” thus allowing them to enjoy equal rights not only as individuals but also collectively as a people. Budish concluded by noting that Birobidzhan “has also extended a helping hand to Jewish refugees from other lands” and that arrangements were being made for thousands of refugee war orphans to be resettled there.27 The Vochenblat was again publishing articles on the progress being made in the Jewish region. In October it ran a feature on “Waldheim,” the collective farm founded in 1928. This small rural settlement of 120 families had grown into a bustling community “with broad streets and comfortable homes, a school and high school, library, kindergarten, hospital and radio

196

Jerusalem on the Amur

station.” Waldheim was linked to the City of Birobidzhan by an excellent highway. Indeed, the article explained, the Jewish Autonomous Region as a whole now had twenty railway stations and was a link on the main Moscow to Vladivostok railway line. Other railway lines were under construction. Meanwhile, Waldheim was anticipating the arrival of thirty new families. All would find work and comfortable accommodations.28 Throughout Canadian Jewish communities, meetings were held and money was raised to help war orphans and refugees in Birobidzhan. B.Z. Goldberg spoke in Toronto on 1 December 1946 and in Montreal a day later on behalf of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee and the RussianUkrainian Farband. Irving J. Myers told Dr Victor that the Canadian Birobidjan Committee wanted to raise $50,000 to ship vehicles and medical supplies to Birobidzhan. Gershman suggested to Victor that the movement broaden its aims beyond aid to orphans to support the overall goal of transforming Birobidzhan into a full-fledged Soviet republic.29 Meanwhile, in October the Ambijan Bulletin noted that “the recently founded dominion-wide organization is developing activities on a national scale and is eager to co-operate with our organization.”30 In Winnipeg, Elia Trepel, president of the Professional and Businessmen’s Group, assured Fred Donner, executive secretary of the Winnipeg Birobidjan Committee, in a letter dated 19 February 1947, that the committee’s effort to raise $50,000 to rehabilitate war orphans was “of the utmost importance.” A day earlier, a successful fund-raising dinner had been held at the Marlborough Hotel. Victor chastized Jewish progressives for having “seriously neglected our obligation to the Jewish settlement.” It was important that all Canadian Jews help “to settle Jewish orphans in a Jewish land ... so that they build the first and only Jewish republic – where our very essence of culture and language will find itself.” The work “can also contribute much to friendship between the Canadian people and the peoples of the Soviet Union.” The committee sponsored a carnival and bazaar at the Hebrew Free School on 1 and 2 March 1947. The Winnipeg ykuf sent greetings “to our sisters and brothers, the builders of the future Jewish Soviet Republic in BiroBidzhan.” The local ujpo, landsmanshaften, the lpp, and garment unions were also working for Birobidzhan relief.31 Toronto was the site of the second national conference of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee on 8 and 9 March 1947. On 20 April a mass meeting held at the Metro Theatre heard Max Levin, chair of the American Birobidjan Committee’s National Board of Directors; he also addressed a gathering of local businesspeople and professionals. The Toronto branch of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee was engaged in a campaign to raise

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

197

$10,000 on behalf of Jewish orphans and immigrants to Birobidzhan. Joseph Morgenstern, chair of the Ambijan Committee of Cleveland and a prominent figure in Ambijan, travelled to Detroit in April to help organize an Ambijan Committee there – but on 24 April addressed the already existing one across the river in Windsor. The Windsor branch of the ujpo reported in 1947 that it had succeeded in persuading the Windsor Jewish Community Council to donate $2,500 to the Canadian Birobidjan Committee. The ujpo sponsored western Canadian lecture tours by B.Z. Goldberg and Rabbi Abraham J. Bick. Bick was so well received, stated the Calgary branch, “it was too bad that he could only be with us for two days. When will you send him here again?” Morris Biderman noted that Bick’s lectures out west “attracted wide audiences.” “Ever since the Canadian Biro-Bidjan Committee was organized, all the branches and sections of the Order have taken an active interest in the work of the Committee,” national secretary Morris Biderman told the second national convention of the ujpo in Montreal, which was held between 20 and 22 June 1947: “The Order last year made a considerable contribution to the financial campaign of the committee. We regard the financial campaign as not only a question of providing concrete help to the Jews of Biro-Bidjan but as a means of binding the friendship of the Jews of Canada and the Jews of the Soviet Union. It brings closer the day when world Jewish unity will be attained.” The growing region “is a guarantee for the growth and development of Jewish culture and places the quest of a Jewish republic as a genuine likelihood in the near future.” Biderman charged the official Jewish relief organizations with discriminating against the Soviet Union and driving a wedge between western and Soviet Jewish communities. The convention resolved “to give our full moral and financial help to the Jews of Biro-Bidjan and to the new immigrants who help to hasten the day when the Jewish Autonomous Region will be transformed into a Soviet Jewish Republic.”32 Abraham Nisnevitz noted that 1947 was the year of Birobidzhan’s “bar mitzvah” and wished it “many years of good fortune!” Birobidzhan was becoming a new Jewish nation living in fraternal partnership with the other peoples of the Soviet Union and “building its own, new, free and healthy Jewish life.” The Jews there had had “contributed heroically in the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis.” Thousands of refugees from war-torn areas were now moving to the region. Soviet Jews were a free people “among equal, free and brave peoples.” Birobidzhan demonstrated that national equality could be achieved in a socialist system. The Soviet Union had fulfilled the dream of the Jewish prophets: “Nation shall not lift sword against nation.”33

198

Jerusalem on the Amur

Luncheon of Birobidzhan activists in Toronto, 2 June 1947, l. to r.: Max Bailey, Montreal; Dr Rose Bronstein, Toronto; A.B. Rosenberg, Montreal; Joshua Gershman, Toronto; Harry Guralnick, Toronto; Joseph Zuken, Winnipeg; Berel Silverberg, Montreal; and Paul Phillips (Archives of Ontario, f1412, Joshua Gershman Collection)

During 1947 the Birobidjan Committee sent transports of clothing, medicine, trucks, and tractors to jar. Thousands of Canadian Jews had donated to the cause “with love and joy, in the knowledge that their gifts would lighten the burden of those building the Jewish autonomous region, and would help resettle Jewish refugees and Jewish orphans.” The national executive of the committee met in Montreal on 1 February 1948 in order to intensify its work; Abe Zailig of Winnipeg and Dr Rose Bronstein of Toronto reported on activities in those cities. Great efforts would be made to attract new members to local Birobidjan committees, announced Alfred Rosenberg and Irving J. Myers. Plans were made to celebrate, by means of mass meetings and the collection of funds, the forthcoming twentieth anniversary of Birobidzhan as a Jewish area of settlement. The committee also resolved to counter the increasingly anti-Soviet tone of the non-Communist Jewish press, which was spreading “lies” about Birobidzhan and claiming that the project was a failure.34 The Vochenblat on 5 February ran a story, with accompanying illustration, about the dispatch to Birobidzhan of sixty-seven crates of goods; the funds to purchase these had been raised by local Birobidjan committees in

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

199

Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Windsor, and the Niagara District.35 In a letter received from Budish, the committee was informed that Jews from the Crimea and the Kherson (Gherson) District of Ukraine were being settled in the Birobidzhan collectives in Waldheim, Emes, Naylebn, and other communities. He also explained that, although an additional 3,000 Ukrainian Jewish families had declared themselves ready to move to Birobidzhan, only 700 were in a position to leave immediately, due to a shortage of supplies, machinery, and housing in jar. He requested more aid from the Canadian Birobidjan Committee.36 In Toronto, the local Birobidjan Committee called a conference for 21 March to organize the twentieth anniversary celebrations. Gershman and Dr Rose Bronstein, a member of the national executive of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee and secretary of the Toronto committee, spoke of the committee’s forthcoming plans to publicize its progress.37 Dr Bronstein wrote a piece for the English-language Canadian Jewish Weekly page of the Vochenblat entitled “On the 20th Anniversary of Birobidjan,” in which she described the extensive programs planned to celebrate the occasion. She provided a summary of the region’s history and its Jewish character: “Birobidjan is today a growing, thriving community. It has become an industrial centre in every sense of the word. Agriculture, growing by leaps and bounds is highly mechanized and Birobidjan is one of the most productive areas in the far east.” These facts exposed the falsehood of antiSemitic assertions “that Jews cannot be productive on the land.” Bronstein described the numerous schools, libraries, technical institutions, theatres, cinemas, clubs, reading circles, and “six newspapers.” As well, since “the health of the Birobidjan population is guarded jealously,” there were thirtyone clinics, fifty first-aid stations, and fourteen hospitals. Children were growing up “as strong, healthy and cultured citizens.” Birobidzhan, Bronstein took pains to emphasize, was “the centre of [Soviet] Jewishness, the very heart of their developing nation, from which the Jewish population of the ussr will draw its lifeblood – a healthy rich productive lifeblood.” She reminded her readers that, while it was understandable that they were “justly” concerned with the future of the “Yishuv ... of Eretz Yisroel,” they ought not to neglect “their brothers and sisters of Birobidjan and the Soviet Union.” Canadian Jews, she wrote, “should be anxious and willing to extend a helping hand, to give of our brotherly love and send a fraternal gift. We owe it to them.” She also contrasted the life of Jews in Western countries, where anti-Semitism was again on the rise, to that in the ussr: “It is comforting to know that the Jewish Yishuv in the Soviet Union, in Birobidjan, is forever free from that evil, that they are

200

Jerusalem on the Amur

constantly surrounded by friendly neighbourly people united in the common work of building socialism. It is good to remember that they have become healthy productive citizens and are building a national Jewish state, national in form and socialist in content. It is good to think of their progress and development and may they serve as a guiding light to us.”38 Alfred Rosenberg, too, reprised the history of the Jewish Autonomous Region in an article published in the Vochenblat. Rosenberg noted that Soviet Jews already had full rights in jar and that all economic doors were open to them: “There were no reasons for Jews to leave their places of residence to seek new homes. The fear of segregation and discrimination has since the revolution been abolished.” Rosenberg explained that the founding of a Jewish regional entity was based on the nationality policy of the Soviet Union, which granted equal rights to all, including the right to selfdetermination. Following the war, immigration to Birobidzhan, sponsored by the Soviet government, had increased. Rosenberg concluded by pointing to the aid the Soviet government was providing the embattled Jews in Eretz Israel, noting that this too was reason for Jews in Canada to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Birobidzhan. The celebrations and continued aid would demonstrate “our friendship towards the Soviet Jews.”39 Gina Medem penned a piece for the Vochenblat reminiscing about her visits to the “beloved fatherland” of Soviet Jews, Birobidzhan.40 The Vochenblat also reprinted stories culled from the Birobidzhaner Shtern, the Moscow Aynikayt (the organ of the jafc), and other Soviet Jewish papers attesting to the “immense cultural and industrial achievements” being made in the Jewish Autonomous Region. These stories provided copious statistics, as was always the case when the Soviet media reported on Birobidzhan. Plants were operating at full strength, and quotas were not only being met but were being exceeded both in the field and in the factory. At the “Waldheim” kholkhoz, where fifty tons of cabbage per hectare had been produced in 1947, members of the collective promised to do even better on behalf of their “beloved homeland” in 1948. A clothing factory had over-fulfilled its 1947 quota by 122 percent. A worker at a metallurgy plant announced that he would try to fulfill his share of his factory’s quota in the fourth Five-Year Plan (which had begun in 1946) in half the allotted time. There were many such uplifting tales throughout the region, declared the Shtern. More than 20,000 Jews had come to Birobidzhan in the previous two and one-half years and were being fully integrated into the life of the region.41 Indeed, stated Grigory Zhitz, the editor of the Moscow Aynikayt, the success of the Birobidzhan project attested to the correctness of the Leninist-Stalinist policy on nationality issues and had demonstrated,

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

201

from its inception, the amity between the peoples of the Soviet Union. The Jewish settlers were warmly greeted by the indigenous inhabitants of the region, who had cooperated with the Jews in building a socialist society in this far eastern region of the ussr. The non-Jewish inhabitants treated them as lovingly “as brothers and sisters.”42 Cultural life was flourishing. Various Jewish Soviet writers, including Khaim Melamed and “Der Nister” (Pinkhes Kahanovitch), had visited Birobidzhan, and the region was developing its own literary community. Aaron Vergelis (in later years the editor of the journal Sovyetish Haymland) had just published a book of poems, Birobidhzan Generation.43 The artistic director of the Yiddish Theatre, named in honour of Lazar Kaganovitch, one of Stalin’s closest political collaborators, announced plans to stage nine new productions in their new season, including new works by Itzik Fefer and Peretz Markish as well as classics by Abraham Goldfaden and Sholem Aleichem. The company was also contemplating touring various cities in Siberia, the Volga region, and even Ukraine, “to demonstrate the cultural achievements of the Jewish Autonomous Region and to acquaint the theatrical community of the new attainments reached by the Soviet theatre.”44 The same socialist revolution that had eliminated national oppression had made it possible for Jews to develop their national culture. With the postwar influx of new settlers, the further flowering of Yiddish culture had assumed even greater importance: among the proposals being discussed, reported the Vochenblat, were plans for a new university and technical institute and a centre for Yiddish-language film production.45 During the 1941–45 period, Communist attitudes towards Zionism had become less hostile, though the Vochenblat still advocated an independent Palestine in which Arabs and Jews would co-exist; it continued, for example, to publish stories describing the cooperation between the Arab and Jewish workers who rejected the nationalistic chauvinism both of the feudalistic Arab and of the Zionist Jewish leaders.46 Yet internal documents written by the lpp’s Jewish leadership show that the Communist attitude towards a Jewish homeland in Palestine had begun to change. Already in April and in September 1945, the National Jewish Committee had recommended support for the right of the Jewish population in Palestine to selfgovernment. This, it declared, would help, rather than hinder, the economic and political progress of all of the Semitic peoples in the Middle East. Soon afterwards, Gershman wrote a thirteen-page report entitled “The Attitude of the Communists to the Erets Yisroel Problem,” explaining that the party’s position on Palestine had altered “due to the tremendous changes in the political world.” (It is interesting that he now used the term

202

Jerusalem on the Amur

Erets Yisroel, or Land of Israel.) In the aftermath of the allied victory over fascism, Jewish aspirations in Erets Yisroel were not to be slighted. The Jewish people in Erets Yisroel were living under colonial rule and, in the spirit of the postwar world, were entitled to self-determination and the full status of a modern nation. Gershman pointed out that, even in the Soviet Union, where Jews had full rights, they nonetheless had been granted Birobidzhan in order to become a full nationality. In Palestine, as well, the yishuv had now met the conditions for full nationhood. In this document, Gershman, by pointing to the precedent of Soviet policy in regard to Birobidzhan, was making a Marxist, rather than a Zionist, case for legitimizing a Jewish state in Palestine. Gershman quoted statements made by the American and British Communist parties and by the jafc in Moscow in support of Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jewish aspirations to achieve statehood. In his conclusion, however, Gershman remarked that, although the Jewish yishuv had earned the right to nationhood in Palestine, “the final solution to the Jewish question will come about only through socialism.”47 Indeed, as early as 24 March 1945 Fred Rose had said, in a speech in the House of Commons, that he hoped “the Arab leaders will understand that mass migration of Jewish people into Palestine is essential and is not a menace to a prosperous future of the Arab people.” A Jewish state would be “a constructive factor in the development of the Near East.”48 In a letter to Gershman dated 5 November 1945 Joe Zuken reported that Rose had spoken that autumn at a Zionist mass meeting in Winnipeg, where “his talk made a good impression on those responsible for arranging the meeting and on the audience generally.” Zuken also mentioned that Tim Buck had spoken to a Jewish meeting in Winnipeg on 14 October denouncing the 1939 British “White Paper,” which limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. Rabbi Abraham Bick was to visit Winnipeg on 14 December under the auspices of the ujpo; he, too, would discuss the similarities between Jewish settlement in Palestine and in Birobidzhan.49 In December 1945, the National Jewish Committee released its “Theses on the Question of Palestine,” which declared that the struggle of the Jewish community in Palestine was “primarily a fight for the liberation of Palestine from Colonial domination” and thus “an integral part of the general struggle of peoples of the near East and all other colonial peoples” against British and American imperialism. The document admitted that the “tactical errors” made by the Communists in the past, in particular when they supported the Palestinian pogroms against Jews in 1929, “were a result of our wrong approach to the Jewish community in Palestine.” While Communists continued to view Zionism as reactionary, they were willing to work

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

203

together “with the progressive elements in the Zionist movement,” especially now that the Jewish community in Palestine had assumed “the characteristics of a modern nation”: it had a territory, an economy, a language, and historical traditions. (These were among the attributes Stalin, regarded as the major Marxist-Leninist expert on the “national question,” had deemed necessary for nationhood.) The Jewish community in Palestine had also developed an anti-imperialist industrial working class. Still, the Communists hoped that Arabs and Jews would continue to work together in the struggle against British colonialism.50 In March 1946, Gershman wrote to Joe Zuken explaining that, at the 1–2 March meeting of the National Jewish Committee, it had been resolved that Jewish Communists should “sharply criticize those leaders of the Zionist movement who are advocating ... the slogan of ‘Exodus of Europe.’” Still, “we are also to be very careful not to be instrumental in doing any harm to the achieved unity of Canadian Jewry. This means that we are not coming out with an open fight against the Zionist movement as such.”51 In 1947–48, the attitude of the Canadian Communists towards Zionism underwent a further shift, made necessary by the Soviet Union’s decision to support a Jewish state in Palestine. Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet representative at the United Nations, made an impassioned speech on behalf of Jewish statehood at a special session of the world organization on 14 May 1947, stating that the war had demonstrated “that not one state of Western Europe has been in a position to give proper help to the Jewish people and to defend its interests, or even its existence, against the violence that was directed against it from the Hitlerites and their Allies.” This explained “the aspiration of the Jews for the creation of a state of their own.” On 29 November 1947, the Soviets and their east European allies voted in support of un General Assembly Resolution 181 to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states.52 In order to clarify the new Soviet line, Morris Biderman was sent, at the end of 1947, on a six-week voyage across western Canada. Biderman emphasized that the Soviet position had not been “a reversal from a proArab to a pro-Jewish role”; rather, it was “based on the consistent Soviet policy on the national question and the self-determination of minorities” as practised in the ussr itself: “This policy, as applied to the Palestine question, is obviously neither pro-Jewish nor pro-Arab, but pro-democratic.”53 The Canadian Birobidjan Committee itself supported the un resolution calling for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state.54 Gershman declared in February 1948 that the yishuv in Erets Yisroel was entitled to “the most complete moral, financial and political help.”55 His

204

Jerusalem on the Amur

comments were echoed by the national executive of the ujpo, which, at a special session, called on Canadian Jews to provide support for the Jewish community in Palestine.56 “The Jewish Nation Must and Can Be Saved!” screamed a front-page headline in the Vochenblat of 8 April: “The Canadian Jewish community must not remain silent in this critical time! Quick and drastic action is needed!”57 A front-page editorial in the English section of the Vochenblat of 13 May 1948 proclaimed: “Salute the Jewish State and the Jewish Army.”58Alongside it ran a piece by the Soviet ambassador to the United States entitled “Birobidjan Living Example of Soviet Attitude to Jewish People’s Rights.”59 The paper’s Yiddish pages were devoted almost exclusively to the two Jewish states – the new one, about to be proclaimed in Tel Aviv, and the old one in the ussr, now twenty years old. “Great are the accomplishments of 20 years of Jewish nationhood in Biro-Bidzhan,” declared a Birobidzhan deputy to the Supreme Soviet, Aleksander Bakhmutsky, in an article reprinted in the Vochenblat, as he saluted the “builders of Biro-Bidzhan.” Bakhmutsky summarized the history of Jewish accomplishments over the previous two decades and announced that the future would be an even more glorious one. All things were possible, he noted, under the wise guidance of the Communist Party, which was working to broaden and deepen its political work with the Jewish masses and, in so doing, challenging them to construct a fully socialist society in the region.60 Alfred Rosenberg took note of “two historic dates in the evolution of Biro-Bidzhan”: 28 March 1928, when the Soviet government proclaimed Birobidzhan a site for Jewish colonization, and 7 May 1934, when Birobidzhan attained the status of an autonomous region. The Soviet Union had thus helped to make a reality of “an age-old Jewish dream, that of obtaining a sovereign state.” Jewish settlement had slowed during the war years, while the entire energies of the Soviet people were devoted to defeating Nazi Germany. Many Jews were mobilized and left the region, while those who had remained prepared for a possible Japanese incursion. However, once Hitlerism was vanquished, there had been renewed in-migration and new economic development. Jewish teachers, doctors, architects, engineers, technicians, and other professionals had answered the call made by the government of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (of which jar was a unit) in April 1946 to move to the region. Since the end of the war, the Soviet Jews had thrown themselves “with the greatest enthusiasm” into the task of building their socialist republic in Birobidzhan, wrote Rosenberg. So many Jews were coming to Birobidzhan that they were outstripping the number of new houses, factories, and other necessities. The

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

205

new residents were excited by the prospect of building a Jewish nation. Soviet Jews thanked “the great leader Stalin for his fatherly concern” as they realized “their beautiful desires and aspirations. “One may ask: why should the creation of Jewish nationhood in the Soviet Union concern us Jews in America? Biro-Bidzhan was never intended to solve the problems of Jews in other countries. And does not the designation of Biro-Bidzhan [as a Jewish state] provide ... competition for the construction of a Jewish nation in Erets Yisroel?” No, answered Rosenberg: “We of the Birobidjan Committee think that it is the desire of the Jews of America to help their brethren in the Soviet Union realize their long-standing dream.” In the process of building their republic, argued Rosenberg, Soviet Jews would create a new Jewish culture, from whose example “we can learn, in our own struggle for equality and national rights.” In no way was Birobidzhan a competitor to Erets Yisroel. “Indeed, with the growth of democracy and freedom in the east European countries, it is now possible to solve the Jewish problem on an entirely new basis. The establishment of a Jewish state in Erets Yisroel is one aspect of the determination to solve the problem of the Jews overseas and is in compliance with the national feelings and interests of the Jewish masses in other parts of the world. No sincere Jew can see a contradiction between Biro-bidzhan and Erets Yisroel. Their aims lie in the same direction, though they are taking different paths and under differing conditions. Both however deserve our fullest aid and cooperation,” Rosenberg concluded.61 A large ad from the Canadian Birobidjan Committee sent “the warmest greetings to our sisters and brothers in the Soviet Union” and to the pioneers in the Jewish Autonomous Region: “We have followed developments in Birobidzhan with great interest and we are heartened by every achievement. We are especially gratified to hear the news about the thousands of Jews moving from all parts of the Soviet Union to Birobidzhan to help organize and construct the future Jewish republic. Together with the foundation of a Jewish nation in Erets Yisroel, this is of the greatest historical significance in the history of the Jewish people.” The committee called on all Canadian Jews to take part in the twentieth-anniversary celebrations and announced that large meetings would be held in Toronto on 15 May, in Montreal on 19 May, and in Winnipeg on 23 May.62 A bilingual English-Yiddish pamphlet issued in advance of the Montreal celebration described the “flourishing” region, which, with its “temperate climate,” was “richly endowed with natural resources.” Birobidzhan was said to enjoy “full self-government in all local affairs including courts, local taxation, economic planning and all cultural activities.” Yiddish was the

206

Jerusalem on the Amur

official language, and soon there would be a “full-fledged Yiddish State University.” The City of Birobidzhan had a “modern railroad station, excellent highways, paved tree-lined, electrically lighted streets.” There were also factories, industrial plants, shops and stores, libraries, schools, hotels, newspapers, and a hospital. The pamphlet mentioned various other communities, including Birokan, Londoko, Khingan, Kuldur, and Stalinsk and assured readers that the territory “is now on its way to become a Jewish Republic.” In the same pamphlet, the Canadian Birobidjan Committee described itself as a “non-profit membership corporation” devoted to “the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the lives of the evacuee and refugee Jews from the war ravaged regions of the ussr, and primarily of the Jewish war orphans.” The committee noted that, in the fall of 1947, it had sent a large shipment of medical supplies, trucks, tractors, and sewing equipment to the region to help build industry and agriculture: “The only obstacle for a more rapid settlement of Birobidjan is the lack of marginal supplies, machinery and equipment to enable the Region to provide housing facilities and productive employment for all Jews from the war ravaged regions who are eager and registered to go to Birobidjan.” The committee appealed to all Canadian Jews to help it provide these essential supplies and equipment. The pamphlet emphasized that support for jar would in no way militate against the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East: “The warm support given by the Soviet Delegation to the un decision to establish an independent Jewish state in Palestine shows conclusively that there is no competition between Birobidjan and Palestine. On the contrary, the Jewish statehood in Birobidjan encourages and stimulates the implementation of the un decision in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine.”63 The 20 May issue of the Vochenblat reproduced on its front page the text of the Soviet government’s recognition of the new State of Israel, which had been proclaimed a few days earlier, while an editorial castigated Canada for its failure to do so.64 The ujpo and the Jewish pro-Soviet movement were organizing demonstrations and calling upon the Western democracies to grant Israel recognition and to help the new state defend itself against Arab invasion. By now the cause of Birobidzhan had become integrated with support for Holocaust survivors, for Israel, and for the “new democracies.” When J.B. Salsberg addressed a Jewish conference in Winnipeg on 2 May, he asked those in attendance to raise $3,500 on behalf of an orphanage in France, a trade school for youths in Poland, a children’s home in Belgium, a lending bank for trades people and workers in Tel

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

207

Aviv, and a school for mechanical trades in Birobidzhan.65 Salsberg went on to defeat Tory candidate Nathan Phillips (a future mayor of Toronto) in his St Andrew riding in the Ontario provincial election held that June. On 15 May 1948 – indeed, at the very moment that the yishuv declared itself a sovereign state – Toronto’s Birobidjan Committee celebrated the twentieth anniversary of Birobidjan’s designation as a site for Jewish settlement. The guest speaker was Max Levin, chair of the administrative committee of Ambijan in the United States. A meeting attended by over 1,000 people was held in Montreal four days later. The chief speakers at this gathering were Professor John Somerville of Hunter College, New York, a specialist in Soviet philosophy, who assured the audience at Montreal High School that “fears about Russian territorial expansion come from a lack of historical knowledge rather than reality”; and Rabbi Abraham J. Bick, who argued that there was no contradiction between support for the new Jewish state of Israel and the Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan. On 28 November 1948, the Council of Jewish Progressive Organizations, headed by Joshua Gershman, held a rally and concert at the Toronto ujpo Centre at 83 Christie Street to observe the first anniversary of the un plan partitioning Palestine. Dr Bronstein chaired the meeting, which included speeches by Sam Lipshitz and Tim Buck. “The new democracies of Eastern Europe under the leadership of the Soviet Union have played a very great role, in contributing to the victory of the Yishuv and the Jewish State,” asserted a pamphlet announcing the event.66 The Canadian Birobidjan Committee enjoyed close ties with Ambijan in the United States. Indeed, an fbi informant in the United States told an agent that the Canadian committee “is working under the guidance of the United States National Committee of the Ambijan.”67 Ambijan’s annual national dinner, held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on 11 November 1947, was attended by “representatives from the Dominionwide Birobidjan Committee of Canada.”68 Ambijan invited its Canadian counterpart to send delegates to the annual meeting of the National Committee of Ambijan, held at the Hotel Commodore on 20 and 21 November 1948. “It would be invaluable for us to have the opportunity to discuss issues with the participation of members of the Canada Birobidjan Committee,” Abraham Jenofsky, now the executive secretary of Ambijan, wrote to Gershman.69 When the National Committee of Ambijan met in New York, to prepare to help jar in its extensive postwar rehabilitation campaign, Canada was represented by two delegates, with Alfred Rosenberg reporting on the activities of the Canadian committee.70 In his report to the delegates, J.M. Budish mentioned that the Canadian Birobidjan

208

Jerusalem on the Amur

Committee had made “a substantial shipment to Birobidjan through the agency of our organization. This year they had impressive celebrations of the anniversary of Birobidjan, in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg and I am sure they will continue their efforts and cooperation with us.”71 The Vochenblat published a report on 24 February 1949 announcing that Ambijan had two weeks earlier sent a transport of $65,463 worth of goods to the Soviet Union, destined for new settlers in Birobidzhan as well as for an orphans’ home in Stalingrad and a hospital in Minsk. The transport for Birobidzhan, worth $53,604, consisted of twenty-two crates of clothing, shoes, and two trucks for transporting building materials. An earlier shipment, worth, $29,107, consisted of a tractor, a trailer, and machinery for excavation; Ambijan had also sent sixty-one cases of incubators for a chicken farm, worth $9,446.72 Evidently, however, there were at least a few people who wondered aloud whether these materials did actually arrive at their intended destinations. In his letter of 1 November 1948, Jenofsky had reassured Gershman that the Soviets had carefully documented the arrival of all the goods sent to Birobidzhan both by the Canadian committee and by Ambijan. He admitted that “it would be even better if we were to receive confirmation and receipts directly from Birobidzhan,” but he asserted that he had received an article by the Soviet writer Khaim Melamed that described in detail the goods sent from North America to Birobidzhan, “so we would be able to demonstrate quite convincingly that they are arriving to the places to which we have sent them.”73 Given their bedrock premise, that the ussr was a socialist state in which the cpsu exercised democratic power on behalf of a free working class and peasantry, it was unlikely that believers such as Gershman and Jenofsky would question anything they were told by the Soviets. The 1949 national conference of Ambijan, held in New York on 10 and 11 December, heard greetings from the Toronto Birobidjan Committee: “May your deliberations bring forth fruit in the struggles as outlined in the Call to the Conference, so that we may live in a world of peace, freedom and equality for all mankind.” It was signed by Dr Bronstein. Gershman wished the conference “best success for the good of the Jewish people.”74 But this was not to be. Already in early 1949 disquieting reports about Soviet anti-Semitism were circulating in the general and Jewish press, putting the Communists on the defensive. On 9 January 1949, the English page of the Vochenblat printed an article about a report on Birobidzhan by Itzik Fefer, which “exposes” the charges being made “disparagingly” about the region. Fefer

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

209

claimed that, once the number of Jews in Birobidzhan reached 100,000, it would graduate from autonomous region to autonomous republic. Postwar immigration “has exceeded all expectations,” so that day was not far off. Fefer listed, in the obligatory style of such articles, the numbers of new factories, theatres, and libraries being built. It was all part of “the renaissance of all aspects of Jewish cultural life in the Soviet Union in the post-war years.” Fefer hoped that all Jews would be impressed by the “solicitude for the Jewish people in the Soviet Union.” He concluded thus: “In what other country ... does the government assign colossal sums for Jewish theatres, libraries, newspapers and other cultural institutions, for the settlement and rehabilitation of the Jewish masses?”75 How ironic that the same page carried a story mocking those “Cold Warriors” who claimed that there now existed an “Iron Curtain” behind which was “an impenetrable world from which no authoritative news can be obtained.”76 For, in fact, Fefer did not write the article that appeared under his name in the Vochenblat. As historians now know, he was by this time actually under arrest and being tortured in the notorious Lublyanka prison on charges of being a “nationalist” and a “Zionist.” He would be shot by the nkvd in 1952. Birobidzhan was trotted out by others, too, as proof that “Anti-Semitism has literally been eliminated in the ussr” and that “the new Soviet generation does not know what race hatred is.” Jewish life “was blooming ... growing and expanding. Within the reasonably near future ... we may expect to hear that the region has become a full-fledged member republic of the ussr, with the same status as the Ukraine or Georgia or any of the other member states.”77 The Jewish Communists could also still play the pro-Israel card. After all, had not the Soviets proved themselves the best friends of the Jewish people by fighting for a Jewish state in Palestine at a time when the United States and Britain were determined to prevent such a state from being established? The ussr and the “people’s democracies” remained “in the vanguard of the fight for a secure and free state of Israel,” asserted Joshua Gershman, and Communists were waging “the most constructive struggle of all on Israel’s behalf ... The people’s democracies, inspired by the example of the Soviet Union, have done all in their power to make Israel secure.”78 Soon even these appeals to the Jewish community would become untenable as Soviet attitudes towards Israel began to shift. Rabbi Bick had already signalled the beginning of this change in a speech entitled “Israel between East and West,” delivered in early January 1949 at the Morris Winchevsky

210

Jerusalem on the Amur

Cultural Centre in Montreal.79 Still, in May 1949, a “mass meeting” and concert was held at the same venue to celebrate both the fifteenth anniversary of the proclamation of Birobidzhan as a Jewish autonomous region and the first year of Israel’s existence. The guest speaker was William Mandel, a regular contributor to the American publication Soviet Russia Today, organ of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. The program also included music and songs about Birobidzhan and Israel by the Montreal Jewish Folk Choir.80 Abraham Nisnevitz published a piece in honour of Birobidzhan’s fifteenth anniversary of “statehood” in which he also defended the ussr from the mounting attacks by its enemies. The project was of historical importance not just to Jews all over the world but also to all small nationalities in that it was a “bright example” of “how the question of national minorities can be solved.” The ussr had not just limited itself to idealistic declarations, noted Nisnevitz, but had provided extensive aid to the Jews building a Jewish sovereign entity in Birobidzhan. Thousands of new immigrants were now arriving in the region, and the fraternal aid provided by all the peoples of the country would soon enable Birobidzhan to take its place as a republic the equal of all the others. It was a country of “great possibilities and great expectations.” Jews were not, Nisnevitz took pains to emphasize, leaving European Russia and central Asia, where they had been treated “like sisters and brothers” during the war. No – they were going to Birobidzhan in order to build a mighty Soviet Jewish culture. Furthermore, Nisnevitz reminded his readers, because the Soviet Union was the friend of all peoples who had been victimized, and gave assistance to all “oppressed and enslaved peoples,” it had also provided aid to enable Jews to establish Israel. The beneficence of the Soviet Union during the war was being ignored by those caught up in the anti-Soviet lies and provocations that were now being spread by its enemies, who wished to “wipe the Soviet Union off the face of the earth.”81 All well-meaning Jews ought to reject such a “scurrilous campaign,” added the Vochenblat in an English-language editorial. No intelligent person should be deceived “by so palpable a lie.” The Soviet Union had been “the first country anywhere to make its Jewish citizens members of the community with total equality in every respect.” Birobidzan, which was “undergoing a profound transformation and productive change,” was itself a “striking refutation” of such baseless charges: “There today we see the free Jew in all his glory, a Jew who, through socialist advancement, is progressing side by side with the other inhabitants of the ussr, to that better world which yesterday was a dream, and now an inspiring reality.”82

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

211

In November 1949, the Jewish Communists duly celebrated the thirtysecond anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, and Birobidzhan was, as usual, included in the list of reasons why the Jewish people owed the Soviet Union such a debt of gratitude.83 Aaron Maxwell pointed out in the 10 November Vochenblat that the Soviet Union had been “the first state in the world to make its Jewish citizens equal members of society.” Since Stalin had given every national group “the opportunity to reach full expression as a member nation” of the ussr, the Soviet Union had also established Birobidzhan, “where Yiddish is the official language, and where a Jewish life is in full swing. With this step, the Soviet Union recognized the legitimate national aspirations of its Jewish population, and provided the means to have those aspirations realized.”84 The national executive of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee placed an ad in the same issue, in which it sent greetings to the Soviet Union, and “in particular to the Jews, who live and work in equality with all of its peoples, free from prejudice and discrimination; who know not of anti-Semitism and racial hatred, and who are building the Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan. It is our holiest wish that a situation of friendship and cooperation become possible between our country and the Soviet Union.”85 The Montreal branch declared that the Canadian Jewish working class and masses were cognizant of the great steps the Soviet Union had taken to solve the Jewish question in its territory: “Great is their acknowledgement and gratitude to the Soviet Union for being the first and only country in the world that had declared anti-Semitism a criminal offence.” And now the people’s democracies of eastern Europe had followed suit. The committee was proud of the role the ussr played in the creation of Israel. It closed by stating that it was very pleased to read about the continuing accomplishments of the Jews in Birobidzhan, “and we wish for them even greater achievements.”86 Dr Rose Bronstein, in a personal message, sent her “blessings” to the “Soviet Jews and all of the Soviet nations.”87 As the second half of the twentieth century dawned, the Vochenblat could still editorialize, in its “Balance Sheet” of the previous half century, that among the greatest achievements of the previous fifty years had been the outlawing of anti-Semitism in the ussr and the creation of two Jewish states, Birobidzhan and Israel.88 Joshua Gershman was typical of most Jewish Communists at the time in maintaining that anyone who read Article 123 of the Soviet Constitution, which made discrimination a severely punishable crime, “would grasp at once the absurdity of the allegation of ‘anti-Semitism’ in the ussr.”89 For further proof, one need look no further than to the “hundreds” of Jews who had just won Stalin prizes –

212

Jerusalem on the Amur

including, Rabbi Abraham Bick noted, a major author in Birobidzhan.90 The Vochenblat printed another laudatory article on Soviet Jewry and Birobidzhan, on the occasion of its sixteenth birthday, by Ambijan’s Abraham Jenofsky.91 By its development of Jewish statehood in Birobidzhan and its support of Israel, the Soviet Union had shown itself to be “the best friend of the Jews,” declared the Vochenblat. Rabbi Bick spoke at the Toronto Birobidjan Committee’s celebrations of the “two historic dates,” the sixteenth anniversary of Birobidzhan and the second anniversary of Israel, in Toronto on 14 May 1950. The Toronto Jewish Folks Choir provided music.92 An article on the history and current state of the Birobidzhan Yiddish National Theatre appeared in the Vochenblat in October 1950.93 In another piece published just one month later, Jenofsky attacked those in the Yiddish press who dismissed the laudatory accounts of Birobidzhan as mere fictions and who charged that Jewish cultural life in the region was actually very limited. On the contrary, declared Jenofsky, the Jewish population had been on the rise. Approximately 30,000 new migrants had arrived since the Second World War, many coming from Poland and the Baltic States. The Jewish Autonomous Region, he concluded, continued to make rapid cultural and economic progress.94 The “vast transformation” of Soviet Jewry, together with the development of Birobidzhan as a centre of Jewish life, added Aaron Maxwell, had led to “a form of Jewish life completely unknown to Jews in capitalist countries.”95 So, despite the setbacks suffered by the Canadian Communist movement after 1945, with the onset of the Cold War and the sensational disclosure of domestic Communist complicity in Soviet espionage in the country, the Jewish Communist groups at first managed to retain much of their following within the community. The Soviet Union had, according to the Communists, fathered one Jewish state, Birobidzhan, which was celebrating its second decade, and had been midwife, by its support of the yishuv in the United Nations, to the birth of a second Jewish state, Israel. The new Eastern European “people’s democracies” had provided the military arms that had enabled the Jewish state to fend off the invading Arab armies. All of this had followed upon the Soviet role in defeating Hitler and liberating the remnant of European Jewry, and, by establishing socialist governments in Eastern European nations such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, presumably putting an end to the underlying economic and social causes of the anti-Semitism and reaction that had been rife in that region for centuries. In the postwar period the Vochenblat ran stories about the reconstruction of Jewish life in the “new socialist democracies,” high-

The Formation of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee

213

lighting the “new life” the survivors were now creating in an environment free of Judaophobia. Jewish life was “blossoming” and Jews were now an “integral part of the emerging socialist society.”96 The ussr and its allies, it was believed, would now foster and protect the individual and national rights of Jews, within the socialist bloc’s own borders (which included Birobidzhan) as well as in Israel. Small wonder that the Jewish Communists could confidently bask in the reflected glory of this great union of socialist republics. And this helps explain why they retained their support, particularly in Montreal. In the spring of 1947, the Cartier seat came open following the arrest of incumbent Fred Rose for espionage a year earlier. The riding at the time comprised some 18,000 French Canadians, 16,000 Jews, 2,000 Anglo-Saxons, and 4,000 people of other ancestries. Michael Buhay had now replaced Rose as standard-bearer for the lpp. Maurice Hartt jumped into the federal arena on behalf of the Liberals, while Paul Massé again ran for the Bloc Populaire. Though Buhay’s proposal to open Canada’s doors to the victims of Hitler still languishing in displaced persons camps resonated with many voters, Hartt won the by-election with 9,493 votes, followed by Massé with 6,739 and Buhay with 6,419.97 Considering that, elsewhere in Canada, Cold War politics had almost completely marginalized Communists, this was no mean feat. In December 1947, another stalwart of the Jewish Communist movement, Max Bailey, won election to the Montreal city council from the heavily Jewish District 5, situated within the federal Cartier riding, following Buhay’s death in August, and opened his constituency office on Park Ave.98 In the federal election of June 1949, the lpp candidate Harry Binder, Montreal organizer for the party, ran second behind Hartt in Cartier; elsewhere in the country, Communists fared far worse. As late as June 1950, in a by-election held in the riding following the death of Hartt, Binder again ran second to the Liberal’s Leon Crestohl, with 3,913 votes against 9,701. (The Conservatives received 2,833 votes, the ccf 1,473.)99 Binder managed to win election to the Montreal city council from District 5 in December 1950, succeeding Bailey, and served for two years.100 One of the stalwarts of the Jewish Communist movement in Winnipeg, Dr B.A. Victor, died in June 1950. News of his death, wrote Zuken, “brought deep sorrow to all parts of the Jewish community.” He had played a leading role in icor and the Canadian Birobidjan Committee, and, ever since the October Revolution, he had been a proponent of friendship with the Soviet Union. His death was a great loss for the Jewish community in

214

Jerusalem on the Amur

Canada and for the “progressive forces in the country.”101 Dr Victor “healed people not just with medicine but also with his inner warmth and love of the common folk,” eulogized Labl Basman. His 1936 trip to the ussr, including a visit to Birobidzhan, had been “the most beautiful realization of a life’s dream.” He had seen the country where Jews “had straightened their backs and had begun to create their own sovereign existence in a socialist community. Let us recall again his animated greeting from the Soviet Union and Birobidzhan back then.” A lifelong socialist, Dr Victor discounted all of the “fables [bobeh-mayses]” being spread about the Soviet Union and Birobidzhan. He had felt for himself the “spirited reconstruction taking place in the whole country. ‘The country is full of cultural and educational institutions,’ he told us. ‘Jewish life is secure. The government had placed its spotlight on Birobidzhan, a new chapter in the history of Jewish life in the Soviet Union.’” This was the essence of Dr Victor’s declaration, “which he sent with a deep certainty of belief,” recalled Basman. At the time of the 1939 non-aggression treaty, Dr Victor had stood fast against those Jewish leaders who “had lost their heads” and “in their blind hatred” had denounced the Soviet Union: “‘It is hard to stand up to the storm, but the truth is the truth,’ he had stated.” However, after the war, “he had lived to see the liberation and progress of millions of enslaved peoples from the imperialist yoke and their march forward towards socialism,” remarked Basman: “He had also lived to see the Jewish people on the threshold of a new epoch in our history, with the fight for a self-governing Israel and for a new Jewish life in a socialist community.”102 However, though Victor would not live to realize it, the pro-Soviet Jewish Communist movement would soon enter into a period of rapid decline.

9 Conclusion: The Cold War and the End of a Dream

So enthralled were the Canadian Jewish Communists with Soviet Russia in the immediate postwar period that the Vochenblat could print an article, on the occasion of Stalin’s seventieth birthday in December 1949, with the headline, “Peoples of World Hail Stalin’s Genius.” According to the newspaper, “The love in which Stalin is held by the Soviet peoples, and by working peoples and free men the world over is genuine and sincere. It signifies respect and admiration for his achievements” and “is a testament of reverence for a man who held firm to the principles of Marxism-Leninism and who applied them with inventive genius—in such a way as to show and teach the world the superiority of the Socialist state over all other kinds of society.”1 There were as yet few hints of the repression Stalin was about to visit upon the Jews of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc countries, nor were there any indications that Moscow would soon become the main diplomatic, political, and military backer of the Arab states in their ongoing conflict with Israel. No one – certainly no Jewish Communist – could as yet conceive that the Soviet Union itself would soon become a centre of virulent anti-Semitism. The death of Shloime Mikhoels in January 1948 had brought forth an outpouring of grief among the Jewish Communists. Messages of condolence were sent to the jafc by the Vochenblat editorial board, the ujpo, the National Jewish Committee of the lpp, the Canadian Birobidjan Committee, the ykuf, and many local organizations. A memorial meeting attended by a very large crowd was held at the ujpo Centre in Toronto on 1 February. Speakers included Sam Lipshitz, now the national secretary of the National Jewish Committee of the lpp; Morris Biderman, national secretary of the ujpo; Labl Basman, now principal of the Morris Winchevsky School in

216

Jerusalem on the Amur

Toronto; A.B. Bennett of the cjc; Gershon Pomerantz, the prominent Yiddish journalist and communal worker; and Leslie Morris, editor of the Communist Party’s organ, the Canadian Tribune. In Montreal, a 15 February memorial organized by the ujpo and the Birobidjan Committee attracted 400 people. Speakers at the memorial included the poets Melekh Ravitch and Sholem Shtern, Councillor Max Bailey, and Irving J. Myers, who recounted Mikhoels’ life and times, including his 1943 visit to Montreal together with Itzik Fefer. Ravitch declared that Mikhoels’ trip had been a seminal event in the life of North American Jews; Shtern suggested that Mikhoels was a product of the Soviet revolution. This “great Jewish artist and fighter ... was the prototype of a new type of Jew,” declared Myers. The Birobidjan Committee in Winnipeg held a Mikhoels memorial on 29 February with Sam Lipshitz, who was in the city as part of a western tour, as guest speaker. Lipshitz asked the Jewish community to honour the memory of this “radiant personality” who had worked long and hard to bring Soviet Jews closer together to their compatriots in Canada and the United States. Joe Zuken, now chair of the Winnipeg Jewish Committee of the lpp, paid tribute to “Mikhoels, the Jew, Mikhoels the mentsh, Mikhoels the anti-fascist fighter,” while Dr Victor recalled his own meetings with Mikhoels in 1943, when the Soviet artist, unable to visit Winnipeg in person, produced a recording of his Ottawa speech to send to the Jewish community. Muni Taub spoke about the present division of the world into two camps, one reactionary and the other progressive. Taub called upon Jews to tie their future to the camp of progress by doing battle against reaction, anti-Semitism, imperialism, and “new Treblinkas.” We now know that Mikhoels was killed by the Soviet secret police on the orders of Stalin; his murder was disguised as a traffic accident. The Jewish Communists in later years claimed that they were unaware of the true facts of Mikhoels’ execution until after Stalin’s death. But why then did the Vochenblat of 22 January 1948, in reporting the story, make no mention whatsoever of the way in which Mikhoels died? Why did not a single one of the many notices printed in the paper on 29 January give readers any details concerning his death? Sholem Shtern’s eulogy, in which he reminded readers of the historic visit to Canada, stated only that Mikhoels “died suddenly” and “fell while on duty!” Mikhoels, Shtern remarked, was “A casualty of the struggle against all of our enemies,” a great man “who fell [while we are in the midst] of reconstructing our war-ravaged life.” None of the eulogies mentioned how he died. Is it possible that Shtern and the others knew more than they indicated and perhaps, by omission, were sending a signal that something was wrong with the official story?2

Conclusion

217

Those still unaware that there had been a major ideological shift were enlightened by an article, translated from Russian into Yiddish, that appeared in the Vochenblat on 28 April 1949. Entitled “Why Cosmopolitanism Is Being Fought in the Soviet Union,” this article sent the signal that all manifestations of Jewish “bourgeois nationalism” were now to be rooted out.3 The “dark years” of Soviet Jewry had begun in earnest.4 After 1950, the Vochenblat published far fewer stories about Soviet Jewish life. Sam Lipshitz’s article commemorating the twenty-seventh anniversary of the death of Lenin, which appeared in the Vochenblat in January 1951, made no mention of Lenin’s position on Soviet Jews.5 It is even more significant that, in May 1951, the seventeenth anniversary of Birobidzhan’s elevation to a Jewish Autonomous Region went completely unnoticed. One of the few references to Birobidzhan appeared in the issue of 18 October 1951: the Soviet Jewish journalist David Zaslavsky, a contributor to Pravda, was quoted as telling a visiting Canadian trade union delegation composed of Communists and fellow-travellers (including Morris Biderman’s brother and sister-in-law), that reports published in the Forverts and elsewhere, to the effect that jar had been “abandoned,” were a fabrication. The region was developing culturally and economically, he declared.6 As in the United States, though, the Canadian organization began to collapse with the intensification of the Cold War. There was an element of fear in the Canadian Jewish community: following the disclosure in September 1945 by Igor Gouzenko, a clerk in the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, of a Soviet spy ring operating in Canada during the war, a royal commission on espionage was struck in early February 1946, headed by two Supreme Court justices, Robert Taschereau and R.L. Kellock. Ten days later, the rcmp detained thirteen people, who were held without charges and were not allowed to see their families or have access to lawyers; the detainees were forced to testify against themselves.7 Following the publication of several of the commission’s interim reports in March 1946, Fred Rose, Sam Carr, and other Jewish Communists were charged with various crimes. Rose was convicted of espionage in June and was sentenced to six years in jail. His Cartier seat was declared vacant by a unanimous vote of the House of Commons on 30 January 1947; Prime Minister Mackenzie King himself introduced the resolution.8 Carr had fled to the United States after Rose’s arrest but was caught by the fbi in 1949 and deported to Canada; charged with passport violations, he served six years in prison.9 Only the most committed of Communists “remained willing to defend an ideology that the Canadian state was clearly prepared to fight and vilify with all means at its disposal.”10 The Fred Rose Defence Committee was

218

Jerusalem on the Amur

formed in Montreal in 1946, after Rose had been refused bail while appealing his verdict, with Alex Gauld as chair and Michael Buhay as secretarytreasurer.11 But even handing out its literature proved dangerous work: a McGill University student distributing a pamphlet entitled “The Defence of Fred Rose,” which included a petition requesting the release of Rose on bail, was arrested by the anti-Communist squad of the Montreal police on charges of seditious libel and was himself refused bail. The printing plant where the pamphlets were printed was raided and several thousands of the circulars were seized, along with the plates. Private homes were also searched and literature seized.12 Given this climate of opinion, even people on the fringes of the movement saw their livelihoods threatened and their mobility circumscribed.13 When Sam Lipshitz returned from a Yiddish cultural conference in Poland in 1949, and went on a speaking tour and solicited contributions for the Vochenblat, he was told by a shopkeeper in Edmonton, “a very loyal supporter for many years,” to leave his shop immediately. Lipshitz was told by another merchant that the rcmp “had come into a number of stores and warned them about me.”14 Biderman wrote Gershman about disarray in the Winnipeg ujpo, where “the situation is getting not better but worse,” with much infighting, animosity, and pressures from without.15 To use a popular phrase, those engaged in pro-Soviet activities now faced a “chilling climate.” On 27 January 1950, the “anti-subversive” squad of Maurice Duplessis’ Quebec provincial police, using the Quebec “Padlock Law,” shut down the Morris Winchevsky Cultural Centre at 5101 Esplanade Avenue, which had opened in November 1947, and the Morris Winchevsky School at 30 Villeneuve Street; several truckloads of materials were seized.16 On 20 March 1952, the offices of the Yidisher Hilfs Farayn on Waverly Street were raided and closed.17 The Communist movement organized a national campaign against the Padlock Law, and Morris Biderman made an impassioned plea to a special committee of the Canadian Senate mandated to consider ways to protect human rights under Canadian law. Biderman called for a bill of rights that would secure freedom of speech, the press, association, and assembly for every Canadian. Without such protection, he added, “no organization, no minority grouping, no individual is safe from autocratic and despotic repressions by men and parties whose interests and prejudices are served by these means.” His efforts were to no avail: the Supreme Court of Canada did not strike down the law until 1957.18 In June 1950 the Korean War began, and the Communists found themselves accused of supporting Canada’s enemies. In the November 1951

Conclusion

219

Ontario provincial election, J.B. Salsberg hung on to his seat, although the other lpp member of the legislature, A.A. MacLeod, was defeated.19 By the time the Canadian Jewish Congress met at its ninth plenary session in October of 1951, the ujpo had been expelled from the organization.20 Former allies such as A.B. Bennett had already broken with the Communists; he was denounced as a wealthy plutocrat who had adopted “anti-people’s policies.”21 In October 1950, the famed Montreal Yiddish writer Melekh Ravitch wrote to the editors of the Vochenblat, asking how it was possible that a Yiddish paper did not ask “where are the Yiddish writers from Russia, whom we haven’t heard from for two years now? I don’t have any more words to protest your silence!” Gershman’s reply accused the poet of spreading slander and “wild lies” that were misleading the Jewish masses. He added that Jewish life in Birobidzhan was “all the greater than before.”22 Yet in April 1951 Gershman wrote to Dr Rose Bronstein, secretary of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee, informing her that he had returned from a tour in which he had addressed a number of gatherings regarding the work of the committee and had canvassed individual members. They had all “expressed the opinion that a decision to discontinue the further activities of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee would be quite in order.” Therefore, Gershman told Bronstein, “because of the changed situation, there is really no further need for continuing the relief and educational activities of our committee.”23 Gershman was being disingenuous, of course. After 1948, Stalin’s ussr had become increasingly xenophobic. As the Soviets began systematically to obliterate Jewish culture and abandon even the pretence of a future Jewish republic in Birobidzhan, they found the pro-Birobidzhan organizations had become more of a hindrance than a help. The jafc was disbanded in 1948 and not a single Yiddish publication was produced in the ussr between then and 1959. Jews had become, in Stalin’s eyes, an unreliable and alien group. As a result, Jews disappeared from important political, diplomatic, and military positions. Many were dismissed under various pretexts. The number of Jews in the Supreme Soviet had also declined precipitously by 1950. The last Jewish schools in the country were shut down that year, and no Jewish schools were in operation in Birobidzhan after 1948. Israel was increasingly described as an American “colony” and as a satellite of Western imperialism, especially after it sided with the United States in the Korean War. The negative Soviet attitude towards its Jewish population would become more apparent when the country began to provide ideological, military, and economic support to Israel’s Arab neighbours.

220

Jerusalem on the Amur

J.B Salsberg (centre) at a candidates’ meeting, Ontario provincial election, November 1951. His wife Dora is on the left (Ontario Jewish Archives, no. 2004–5 28)

But much worse was to come. Most of the high-profile Soviet Jewish intellectuals who had been involved with Western Jewish movements would, in the last years of Stalin’s rule, be executed following show trials in which they were accused of plotting on behalf of “Zionism” and “imperialism.” In 1952, Stalin decided to put fifteen former jafc leaders on trial; included were the renowned Yiddish writers and intellectuals Peretz Markish, Leyb Kvitko, David Hofshtein, Itsik Fefer, and David Bergelson. They were all falsely charged with a range of capital offences, from treason and espionage to bourgeois nationalism, in order to create a connection to us imperialism. Among the accused were former American icor activists Elias Wattenberg and Leon Talmy; both had immigrated to the ussr in the early 1930s and had become members of the jafc during the war. Their years in the United States had made them vulnerable to charges of espionage. Along with Wattenberg’s wife Chaika Ostrovskaya, a translator for the jafc, they were executed on 12 August 1952.24 That same year, fourteen Communist leaders were arrested for treason and espionage in Czechoslovakia, including the deputy premier and secretary of the Communist Party, Rudolph Slansky. The situation was exacerbated by anti-Semitic propaganda: eleven of the fourteen arrested were

Conclusion

221

Jewish; they were accused of being Titoist and Zionist agents in a conspiracy organized by an Anglo-American network. Of the eleven eventually executed, eight were Jewish. Similar show trials took place in East Germany, Hungary, Romania, and other Soviet satellite states.25 The slightest deviation from the Soviet pattern was declared treasonable, and tens of thousands of people were sent to slave labour camps. Foreign and international Jewish welfare agencies were expelled. It was not until 1956, however, that the Jewish Communist movement received its mortal blow in the form of the “secret speech” by Nikita Khrushchev at the twentieth congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in which Khrushchev exposed the murderous deeds of Stalin and his henchmen. The report of Stalin’s crimes against the Jews of Russia, with detailed revelations of anti-Semitic repression in the Soviet Union after 1948, including the murder of the cream of Yiddish writers and intellectuals in August 1952 and the so-called “Doctors’ Plot” in early 1953, were published in the Polish press and elsewhere.26 Nowhere was the crisis of faith more profound than among the Jewish Communists. For most, it became painfully clear that the Soviet Union was in fact a despotism and that its espoused ideals, which had inspired so many, were nothing more than cynical camouflage and window dressing. They now realized that, in their aspirations to build a democratic future without war and oppression, they had committed themselves to a social system that proved, in every sense, the negation of that vision. To have lived as a Communist had meant lying about, or at least living a lie in regards to, the main events in their own lives and in the history of their times. The Birobidzhan project was also exposed as largely fraudulent and a complete failure. When Harrison Salisbury, the Moscow bureau chief of the New York Times, was permitted to visit the region in June 1954, he was constantly shadowed by Soviet mvd (later kgb) secret police agents. “Never, in my stay in Russia, had I experienced such surveillance,” he wrote. Nonetheless, he managed to learn a great deal about jar, which seemed to have no particular Jewish character. “Established originally as a Jewish settlement colony in an obvious move to provide a counterweight to Palestine in the early thirties,” he concluded, “it was plain that Birobidjan had lost its significance as a Jewish center a long time ago.” It was now part of the Soviet gulag, “mvd-land.”27 Stalin and his successor, Nikita Khrushchev, tried to blame the Jews themselves for the failure. Stalin “is supposed to have noted privately [at the Yalta Conference in 1945] that he was displeased with the Jews, who had failed to build up their own territory – Biro-Bidzhan.”28 Khrushchev

222

Jerusalem on the Amur

told a correspondent for the French newspaper Le Figaro in March 1958: “They do not like collective work, group discipline. They have always preferred to be dispersed. They are individualists.”29 Many years later, Joshua Gershman would remark that Birobidzhan disappeared from Soviet propaganda until it “was taken off the dusty shelves” following the 1967 ArabIsraeli Six-Day War. And even then, he continued, no Jewish writers were allowed to visit the region to report on it. When the ussr in 1975 marked the hundredth anniversary of Mikhail Kalinin’s birth, not even the Birobidzhaner Shtern mentioned that Kalinin had been the “father” of the plan to make Birobidzhan a Jewish entity.30 As late as 1955, Morris Biderman, following a visit to the Soviet Union as a member of a Canada-Soviet Friendship Society delegation, had been able to report that Jews were making outstanding contributions in science, industry, education, literature, and other fields: “No objective person can be in the Soviet Union and fail to recognize the truth that Soviet Jews enjoy complete equality with their fellow citizens, and all the privileges that the Soviet system of society has to offer.”31 But when J.B. Salsberg went on a fact-finding tour to Moscow, he returned shocked at the degree of antiSemitism he had encountered. He also reported that the Birobidzhan experiment had failed. For this lpp officials criticized him, while he in turn reprimanded Gershman for being partial towards the pro-Soviet side in the internal dispute going on within the lpp regarding the Jewish situation in the ussr.32 The revelations of anti-Semitism in the highest ranks of the Soviet Communist hierarchy now led to defections in the ranks. Although the ujpo, at conferences in Toronto and Montreal at the end of December 1956, defined itself as an independent organization unaffiliated with any political party, most of the membership knew better.33 Several prominent members, including Biderman, Kirzner, Lipshitz, and Salsberg, struggled for a few years to save the organization by freeing it from Communist domination. But by 1959 they were gone.34 Biderman, in his statement of resignation, spoke of the “strife and inner struggle,” the “long and bitter debates,” that had wracked the organization. By October 1959, the total ujpo membership had declined to 872.35 Those who left formed the New Fraternal Jewish Association in 1960. Sam Carr took over the presidency of the ujpo and steered it once again in a pro-Soviet direction. The organization’s new national executive in April 1960 declared that it did not want to be a “base for political struggles against the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Canada.” Biderman, Lipshitz, and others who had quit had wanted these “dangerous tendencies” to become part of the ujpo’s political

Conclusion

223

purpose.36 Those who remained were mainly Communists like Labl Basman, Rose Bronstein, and Joshua Gershman. Sam Lipshitz, who left the cp in 1957 after being a member of its central committee from 1943 to 1956, acknowledged that “the political line” of icor “was dominated by the Communist Party.” By virtue of his position as a high-ranking cp official, he said, “I was involved in the icor. I made it my business to in some way supervise their activities. At one point in the early 1930s, during the very deep economic crisis, when a lot of people were leaning towards the left-wing movement, and out of sympathy for the Soviet Union, the icor had a good following.” As Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine intensified in the 1930s, he explained, the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East began to seem more problematic, “so Birobidzhan was presented as an alternative. A lot of Jews who were not left wing but nationalist, for them the idea of a Jewish state even under the Soviet regime, was very attractive. But later on it just disintegrated.”37 Morris Biderman, who left the cpc in 1957, remarked: We in the Labour League and the ujpo supported 100% the icor movement, because we believed that Jewish colonization in the Soviet Union, and the idea of a Jewish homeland, was a good thing. The icor was more of a propaganda movement, circulating literature that they would get from the States. It was established to try to broaden support among the wider circle of Jewish people that did not necessarily belong to the Jewish left. And it did work for awhile. In Canada, we thought socialism would solve the Jewish problem; I saw this as good for humanity, good for Jews. We had doubts before 1956, but we held our doubts until we realized what had happened. The whole idea of Birobidzhan, in retrospect, I don’t think it was a genuine attempt to provide a homeland for Jews. The idea was more to get rid of the Jews who thought of settling in the Crimea. The political leaders of the Soviet Union must have known that it wouldn’t work.38 Biderman, however, differentiated between “two kinds of Communists among Jews – Communist Jews and Jewish Communists. The former happened to be born to Jewish parents but had nothing in common with Jewish consciousness.” The latter, however, were involved in movements such as icor because they were “genuinely interested and concerned with the creation of a Jewish territory in the Soviet Union with its own language, culture and economy: In other words, a Jewish homeland.” He did admit that the

224

Jerusalem on the Amur

party was arrogant and dictatorial towards the pro-Soviet Jewish movements and interfered in their affairs to ensure that they adhered to Communist policy.39 In his memoirs, he called the Birobidzhan scheme “a disaster.”40 Even by the late 1940s, many Jewish Communists had begun seriously to doubt the politics of the Soviet Union, and some had found themselves developing pro-Israel feelings. The “Jewish problem” was more deeprooted and difficult to solve than the heady propaganda of the 1930s ever imagined. It had become increasingly apparent, as well, that Birobidzhan was stagnant, its Jewish population tiny and likely to remain so. Most of the Jews who survived the Nazi invasion had remained in the large cities of western Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states. Perhaps the coup de grace for Birobidzhan was the creation of the State of Israel. After the death of 6 million Jews, internationalism was a more difficult faith to sustain: despite the Allied victory over Germany, it seemed to many that European Jewry had been the true losers in the war – and that none of the Allied powers had been overly concerned when they learned of Hitler’s crematoria. Many Jews, including Communists, drew the conclusion that the catastrophe was due to statelessness and lack of sovereignty. These were conditions that Israel might rectify; Biribidzhan, by definition, could not. So in the end, not only were Jewish Communists not Zionists, they were not even good territorialists. In any case, the Canadian Jewish community in the immediate postwar world was a very different place than it had been in the 1930s and 1940s. Jews were leaving the workforce in the garment industries. They were moving out of the old downtown neighbourhoods and into the suburbs. Jewish Communists found it difficult to re-establish their institutions and gain a hearing for their ideas in these newer areas of settlement. The upwardly mobile children of the immigrant generation were gaining university educations, entering the professions or going into business, and rapidly joining the mainstream of Canadian society; they found it difficult to regard Soviet society as superior to Canada’s. As Erna Paris has remarked, “the ujpo simply failed to spawn a second generation.”41 Yet another factor in the decline of Jewish Communism in Canada was the large influx of Holocaust survivors into the country after the Second World War: most were traditionalists in culture and religion and harboured few illusions about the ussr and the new people’s democracies, in which many had actually lived. More recent Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union and its successor states brought further waves of people who were living proof of the failure of the Bolshevik experiment. For all these reasons, the Canadian Jewish community shifted away from the far left politically: “The older Yiddish-socialist

Conclusion

225

subculture could not survive this constellation of forces, nor ... could Communists and other radicals find effective ways of challenging it.”42 Ezra Mendelsohn has referred to the Jewish-oriented Communist fronts as being not just organizationally subservient to larger, non-Jewish parties, but equally suspect ideologically: while catering to and defending the needs of Yiddish-speaking, ethnically conscious, proletarian Jews in the present, they accepted and envisaged a future where Jews would assimilate into a universal culture and where they themselves would become superfluous. “These organizations,” he writes, “may therefore be regarded as halfway houses, positioned between the ultimately doomed ghetto and a future of universal brotherhood.”43 The demise of icor and the Canadian Birobidjan Committee was a part of the passing of an entire era in Jewish life. As the State of Israel became the central and most important feature of postwar Jewish life, Birobidzhan receded into the mists of memory. The Jewish Communists, for all of their ideals, their polemical cleverness, and their efforts, were never able to prove that a Soviet Jewish republic had actually emerged in the far east. Even in the 1930s, some skeptical socialist Zionists had questioned the actual scope of the Birobidzhan project. “Moscow has not made the matter a test of its prestige. It was precisely for this reason that Moscow allowed the project to be discredited in a foreign country by the petty cash collections of Icor, by the pious contributions of the Friends of Russia towards a romantic Khovevei Biro-Bidjan [Lovers of Birobidzhan] movement,” wrote Hayim Greenberg, editor of the Labor Zionist Jewish Frontier, in March 1938. They would never have permitted Communists to pass the hat at weddings and Bar-Mitzvahs “for plans in which Soviet ambitions are really involved.” He sensed that Birobidzhan was not “a problem in which the Soviet government is seriously determined to achieve success.”44 Jacob Jaffee made similar observations in the Poale Zion-Zeire Zion publication Yidisher Kemfer in March 1946, asking why the Soviets, with such an immense amount of territory, had chosen a land so far from traditional centres of Jewish life in European Russia, Belarus, the Crimea, and Ukraine. If not in Europe, he wondered why not at least areas in central Asia, such as Kazakhstan? He also chided the American supporters of the project: during the war, while Hitler’s murderous bands were destroying European Jewry, “among the American Birobidzhanistn [supporters of Birobidzhan] there was talk (especially when the collection boxes were being shaken) of saving Jews by sending them to Birobidzhan.”45 Yet some of the Jewish Communists who had been involved with the Birobidzhan support movements would continue their pro-Soviet activities

226

Jerusalem on the Amur

in a much-diminished Communist world: the ykuf, the ujpo, the Vochenblat, and a few other remnants survived the 1950s. “Aging immigrants could not give up a lifetime of psychological investment” and were “reluctant to abandon [their] protective if shrinking subculture”; for them, “the Communist world was their entire life” and the Communist Party itself had become “a comfortable retirement home.”46 They had devoted their entire lives to the movement and remained within its self-contained walls. They “belonged to a party that was stronger than any religion,” explained Biderman. “To betray it was a sin.”47 For such people, Communism also retained an ethical core. It remained a noble endeavour that, in their minds, had become a barbarous totalitarianism for specific reasons relating to the Soviet leadership, in particular Stalin. One such example was the pedagogue and cultural worker Labl Basman, a long-time Communist and member of icor.48 Basman declared that his work had always been inspired “by the great idea of socialism”; Marxism-Leninism, he said, had provided him with the “key” to understanding history.49 In tributes written on Basman’s fiftieth birthday, Sholem Shtern described him as an energetic worker on behalf of the Jewish progressive movement whose influence had been felt across Canada: “He went wherever he was needed.”50 A former student said that Basman’s name “is legendary to hundreds of Canadian young people who know and love him as a teacher and a friend.” He was “a working class teacher and intellectual who is not divorced from the struggles of people” and “a pioneer for whom no task was too difficult in carving out the future.”51 As B.Z. Shek observed after Basman’s death, “There was no area of progressive Jewish cultural activity with which Labl Basman was not associated, until his very last days.”52 Basman did however admit, at a speech he gave at a banquet in his honour in Vancouver on 21 March 1971 upon his retirement as principal of the I.L. Peretz School, that his “heart [was] being torn” by the outburst of anti-Semitism in Poland after 1968.53 Joshua Gershman was another example: though he acknowledged “the monstrous crimes committed against Jewish cultural workers and institutions in the Soviet Union,” the pain of which had “grown and intensified,”54 he refused to follow people such as Biderman, Lipshitz, and Salsberg out of the cpc in 1957. “The Party is my life, without it I am nothing,” he told Morris Biderman. “What will I do, where can I be active?” Gershman finally left the party, due to his differences with Soviet policy towards Israel and towards its own Soviet Jewish population, in 1977. Even then, he denied that Soviet policy “was one of anti-Semitism, and I’ve been there many times, and I’m critical of Soviet policy on the

Conclusion

227

national question.” He pointed out that Soviet Jews had been permitted to become professionals.55 The Vochenblat expired in 1978; Gershman died a decade later, on 30 April 1988.56 Long-time believers such as these were a dwindling minority. In 1940, Shloime Almazov had written an article in which he quoted the following sentence from Reuben Brainin, who had died a few months earlier: “to trample upon the truth is no lesser a crime than murder.”57 Unfortunately, the Jewish Communists, precisely because they trampled on the truth, had ended up supporting those in the Soviet Union who were certainly guilty of murder. Unlike the other Jewish left movements, Jewish Communism was itself a political and ideological paradox, a fact which would doom it in the end: although largely operating through its own autonomous institutions and in its own language, Yiddish, to the end of organizing a Jewish socialist life, it remained (until 1956) voluntarily under the discipline of a non-Jewish state that would prove to be a major enemy of the Jewish people. As Tony Michels has stated, after the early 1920s, “the basic relations of power, in which Yiddish cultural work and Jewish group interests were made contingent on the prerogatives of the Communist Party and the ussr, would continue to shape the Yiddish-speaking Communist movement for the rest of its history.”58 In a sense, the ideological basis of the movement, MarxismLeninism, had always required a “suspension of disbelief” on the part of Jewish Communists. Ideologically, they managed for a few decades to survive in the interstices between the Jewish and Communist worlds. After all, in many of the major works and pronouncements of Marxist writers and political actors, from Marx himself through Lenin and Stalin, the Jews were characterized uncharitably, to say the least; many Marxist polemics were downright anti-Semitic. This vulnerability would finally prove to be the movement’s Achilles’ heel. The ussr was the pole of reference for Jewish Communists mainly because of that new state’s apparently benign relationship to its Jewish population and only secondarily because of its supposed economic and political accomplishments. For so many decades, the Jewish Communists had defended the ussr: after all, how could a state that had granted Jews national rights, allowed for the development of Yiddish-language institutions, and defeated Nazism, betray the Jews? But in 1956, when the depth of Soviet anti-Semitism and the forced assimilation policies directed at Soviet Jews under Stalin became clear, it was too powerful a contradiction to ignore or rationalize. The movement could no longer serve as a Jewish diaspora support group for a state that

228

Jerusalem on the Amur

had arguably made conditions worse for its Jewish citizens, certainly in terms of cultural and political freedom; a state that, it turned out, had in fact perpetuated the marginal and exilic condition of Jews rather than liberating them from it. When it became evident that Soviet-style socialism had not in fact “solved” the “Jewish question,” the vast majority of Jewish Communists, forced to choose between their Jewish and their pro-Soviet attachment to socialism, overwhelmingly chose the former. Belonging to a Communist party was, even if they felt deep commitment, a utilitarian, not a basic, element of their identity. After 1956, Jewish and non-Jewish Communism would speedily diverge, even among those who did not immediately quit the cp and renounce Communism altogether. Further shocks were to come: the unconditional and uncritical Soviet support of the Arab side in the 1967 Arab-Israeli SixDay War, followed a year later by the Soviet destruction of a reformist government in Czechoslovakia and by the “anti-Zionist” campaigns in Poland, which drove out the remainder of Polish Jewry, including many who had remained loyal to Communism. Even the remaining Jewish sympathisers in movements like the ujpo would by then be forced to withdraw overt support from a Communist Party that remained loyal to the Soviet Union. (The feeling was mutual – the Canadian cp, which had only tolerated the movement for pragmatic reasons, rather than any deep-seated desire to strengthen the Jewish community of Canada or any affinity for a specifically Jewish variant of Communism, in turn virtually erased any mention of its former Jewish organizations and membership in its own histories and public memory.) They had finally come to recognize that the Soviet Union and the cpsu constituted a major threat not only to those Jews living under the harsh rule of Communism in the ussr and, later, in Soviet-dominated Eastern European countries but also, given Moscow’s increasingly vicious anti-Zionism and support of Arab Middle Eastern countries, to those Jews living in the State of Israel. And even at that, they would never be able to shake off the stigma in the wider Canadian Jewish community of having been a proSoviet movement. As for Birobidzhan, as Karl Marx once remarked, “all that is solid melts into air.” But then, the Birobidzhan project was never actually solid: it was always a “sandcastle,” a “Potemkin country,” the product of the misplaced hopes of desperate people. In other words, the stuff of which diasporic dreams are made.

appendix

Excerpts from Various icor Publications Describing Birobidzhan

It is worth describing the contents of a few articles and pamphlets in some detail as they provide a sense of the type of propaganda produced by icor. These reports were made credible by the extreme amount of detail; they were so full of impressive facts and figures that to many a reader they must have seemed genuine. This may help to explain why so many people, lacking evidence to the contrary, were prepared to believe in the Birobidzhan project. icor in 1932 printed pamphlets by two Soviet writers, Biro-bidzhan haynt and Tsvayter 5-yor plan far biro-bidzhan, extolling the virtues of Birobidzhan. Tikhonkaia, now renamed Birobidzhan City, was home to a furniture factory; a small electrical plant; artels (artisan cooperatives) producing wagons, luggage, and other goods; a print shop; two newspapers; telephones; a gezerd office; a school; a club; and a medical facility. Birobidzhan was a rich territory, with 4 million hectares of arable land, 1.8 million hectares of forest, with numerous species of trees, and was full of fish and fowl. All sorts of grains could be grown, and there was an abundance of berries and fruits. It was well suited to the production of honey. Its hills contained vast amounts of iron, graphite, limestone, gold, coal, asbestos, and peat. New industries were springing up in various settlements. The Icor commune had 500 cattle, 300 horses, 2,200 beehives, schools, kitchens and bathhouses, telephones, medical clinics, and clubs. It was producing bread, honey, vegetables, and dairy products. The climate, though severe in winter, was healthy, and the territory was free of malaria or other major diseases. Nor was Birobidzhan as isolated as many declared; it was on the main Trans-Siberian Railway line, linked to Moscow and Vladivostok. And a railway line traversing the territory from

230

Appendix

north to south was planned. There were already 250 communities in Birobidzhan, with sixty village Soviets. New schools and pedagogical institutes were being opened in various communities. Still sparsely populated, with just one person per square kilometre (as opposed to sixty-four per square kilometre in Ukraine), Birobidzhan was a perfect region for mass settlement. It would be able to absorb “hundreds of thousands of new people.” Between March 1928 and January 1932, 7,000 Jews had settled in Birobidzhan, but the first eight months of 1932 saw 9,000 Jews arrive. Birobidzhan would grow even faster in the Second FiveYear Plan beginning in 1933, with numerous new collective farms, artels, and other industries on the drawing boards in Waldheim, Birofeld, Amurzet, and the Icor commune. The various workers in the agricultural collectives, state farms, artels, and other workshops were earning good wages and living well. In Birobidzhan it was possible to create “a strong healthy productive life for great masses of Jewish workers.”1 The Second Five-Year Plan would see “great advances” in both the agricultural and industrial sectors. The area under cultivation would grow from 35,000 hectares to 230,000 hectares. This would enable the district to grow enough food for a projected population of 300,000 people. As well, by then Birobidzhan should have 108,000 head of cattle and 192,000 pigs. About 150,000 beehives were factored into the five-year plan as well; the export of honey would have an important economic significance. There would also be more specialization in the production of crops in the various collective and state farms. The industrialization of Birobidzhan would be part of the great effort being made in the far east during the coming years. In particular, mining, metallurgy, and, given its vast forests, woodworking industries, necessary for the construction of furniture, houses, poultry incubators, silos, and beehives, would be the backbone of its industrial development at first. Construction materials such as bricks, cement, and glass also needed to be produced locally. The Five-Year Plan envisioned eighteen such plants, to be built with an investment of 30 million rubles: “Otherwise the development of Birobidzhan will not be possible with the present speed. And we should remember, that Birobidzhan lies in the center of the far east along very convenient communications links—railways and the Amur.” It would play a big part in producing the construction materials for the entire region, and this would repay the large capital investments. Especially significant were the Khingan hills, with their rich deposits of iron ore. A metallurgical industry would be created, at a cost of 310 million rubles, that by 1937 would be able to produce 850,000 tons of metal,

Appendix

231

including 80,000 tons of steel and other forms of iron. This productive capacity will enable Birobidzhan to became a centre for the construction of machinery, shipbuilding, pipes, radiators, and all manner of goods made with steel. This would free the steelworks in the European areas of the country from having to ship such goods 10,000 kilometres away. Indeed, not only could Birobidzhan supply such goods in the Soviet far east more easily, but it could also export them to China and Japan. And, taking advantage of the presence of a metallurgical industry, there would also arise a great chemicals industry. The lack of good transportation being a major drawback to development, the Five-Year Plan envisaged the construction of 1,300 kilometres of good roads by the end of 1937, linking Birobidzhan City to various towns, mines, and industrial areas. Railway lines would be expanded and branches linked to mining facilities. A north-south line would intersect the east-west railway at Londoko, where a large plant for the building of machinery would be created. Rivers needed to be deepened or tamed to enable them to be used by boats transporting goods. As well, communications by air needed to be improved; aviation would play a role in linking remote areas to the capital and to other parts of the country: “By the end of the 2nd fiveyear plan Birobidzhan must be a district where one would be able to travel quickly and without difficulty, by automobile, boat, or by air, to any site important to its economic wherewithal.” Today’s difficulties would by then be nothing but a “bad dream from a bygone age.” To realize all of this Birobidzhan would need 300,000 inhabitants, about 129,000 of them industrial workers, by the end of 1937. As well, it would require 150,000 kilowatts of electricity – a major increase over the mere 2,500 kilowatts it had by the end of 1932. All of this would be no small undertaking: “We must remember that this is a question of building up completely new heavy industry in a raw district.” Fortunately, Birobidzhan abounded in natural resources, and its rivers could be harnessed to provide hydroelectric power. It also had an abundance of wood and coal to fuel thermoelectrical plants. Of course the incoming settlers would need adequate housing: some 1.7 million square metres worth of new housing capacity would be needed over the next five years. More hospitals, dispensaries, and polyclinics were also necessary to accommodate the newcomers. As well, more schools were needed for children. By the end of 1937, it was estimated that 6,000 students would be enrolled in high schools and vocational techniums. All told, the amount of money that would be invested in Birobidzhan during the Second Five-Year Plan was 1.362 billion rubles, of which 650

232

Appendix

million would go into industrial projects, 200 million into agriculture, and 168 million into the construction of housing and communal buildings.2 At the end of August 1935, the national executive of the Canadian icor published a twenty-four-page Yiddish pamphlet, The Land of Joyous Toil and Freedom, depicting the situation in the Jewish Autonomous Region and its prospects. The foreword informed the reader that, in what, before 1917, had been the prison house of nations, the land of pogroms, racial conflict, and dark tsarist reaction, the Jewish people had awakened to a new, peaceful life full of hope. They had been given the full and “epoch-making” possibility of building their own proletarian life in industry and agricultural collectives across the country. Five national districts had been established in the Crimea, Ukraine, and White Russia. Then, on 7 May 1934, Birobidzhan had been proclaimed an autonomous region with its own government, and the groundwork had been laid for a Soviet Jewish republic. The “joyous life” of the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union “shines all the brighter, with the rapid and triumphant construction of the first and only Jewish autonomous district in the world.” The pamphlet underscored “the contrast between the present-day life of the Jewish masses in the Soviet Union and that of the Jewish masses in the capitalist countries, even apart from life in the fascist countries.” The policies of Nazi Germany had brought pogroms, the loss of political rights, and economic ruin to the German Jews. The life of the Jews in Poland, too, was bleak. Never before had there been a time when so many Jews in Poland faced as much poverty and hunger as they did now. The situation in Romania was no better. Even in capitalist countries such as Canada and the United States, poverty and want were growing, while Jews felt “the taste of anti-Semitism” and “the fire of fascism.” Readers of the pamphlet were assured that, once they familiarized themselves with Birobidzhan, they would become friends of the Soviet Union and its nationality policy and would wish to assist in the work by joining the Canadian icor. Birobidzhan, the pamphlet explained, was located in the far east, “one of the largest and richest areas of the Soviet Union,” containing “immense” natural resources. The intensive socialist development had so changed the face of the region that it was almost unrecognizable. Collective farms were springing up, industries and transportation links were growing “at a quick tempo,” new socialist towns were being created, and all the peoples who inhabited the area were now treated equally. jar, a “colossal” area, was served by the Trans-Siberian Railway. The City of Birobidzhan, its administrative capital, was on the railway line, 170 kilometres west of Khabarovsk, the centre of the far eastern region. jar con-

Appendix

233

tained many rivers and streams, including the Amur, one of the largest in the Soviet Union, which flowed for some 550 kilometres along its southern border with Manchukuo. The lower, less hilly half of jar was fertile and could grow wheat, corn, rice, and other grains as well as flax, soybeans, potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, onions, and beans. The climate was suitable for agriculture and was healthy for people. Spring and fall were warm and dry, while winter was cold but sunny. Summer was hot, and July and August were the rainy months. This led to the area’s being infested with gnats, mosquitoes, and flies in the as yet uncultivated and unsettled parts of the region. More than half the territory was forested with many fruit-bearing species and was inhabited by animals and birds. The rivers contained many species of fish. The region was also perfect for the production of honey. As for minerals, Birobidzhan had deposits of iron, chalk, coal, marble, graphite, manganese, and granite. There was a spa famous for its health-restoring mineral waters at Kuldur, and it served some 3,000 people annually from the far eastern region. The next section of the pamphlet provided a brief history of the formation of jar. The region’s socialist collective farms had grown rapidly in size, from 14,500 hectares in 1928 to some 38,000 hectares in 1935, and it now numbered 62,000. Three machine tractor stations had been founded, and a fourth was being created near the Birofeld settlement. In 1933–34 seven new kolkhozes had been organized, and, as a result of the “earnest Bolshevistic work” of the new settlers, along with the outstanding help they were receiving from government and party agencies, these new settlements too were becoming strong both economically and culturally. The Stalinsk Sovkhoz (state farm) was one of the largest settlements in the far eastern territory, with 300 Jewish inhabitants. It included an electric station, a radio transmission centre, a library, two drama circles, an orchestra, a school, and a hospital. In 1935, Birobidzhan was expecting 200 new families and four new kolkhozes to be established on 10,000 new hectares. Industrialization in jar had been proceeding rapidly. Many factories were at work processing timber into the building materials necessary for all the new homes under construction. There was a large woodcutting plant near Nikolayevka, employing 300 workers. The rich iron deposits near Khingan were being worked by upwards of 1,000 workers and thirty to forty engineers and technicians. Another 1,000 workers were mining gold in several mines near the Sutara River. Near Londoko there was a fish-breeding plant, which, in 1934, released 60 million fish into the rivers of the region, and a large limestone plant was being built, which would produce 60,000 tons a year.

234

Appendix

The railway depot at Smidovitch, where locomotives and wagons were repaired, employed 2,000 workers and was one of the largest in the far eastern territory. Smidovitch had a functioning club, a movie theatre, and a hospital. There was another railway depot in Obluchye. The City of Birobidzhan had a concentration of factories, including a plant producing doors, window frames, tiles, and other items for homes, with 200 workers; a furniture plant with 223 workers; and a number of brick factories, with more under construction. Many of these were cooperatives. In the coming year a large clothing factory employing 1,800 workers would be built as well as a knitwear plant with 1,500 workers, a wagon factory with 800 workers, a shoe factory with 1,500 workers, a printing plant, and an electricity station. Cultural development in jar was equally impressive. Many schools, as well as technical institutes, were being constructed. Students were instructed in their native languages, including Yiddish, Russian, and Korean. In industrial plants, kolkhozes, sovkhozes, and other cooperatives, clubs, reading rooms, and libraries had been organized. Birobidzhan now had a Yiddish state theatre. The City of Birobidzhan had eleven kindergartens, four schools, a pedagogical technium, a large library containing 25,000 books, a radio station, a theatre, and two newspapers, one in Russian and the other in Yiddish. There were ten hospitals as well as smaller clinics in the region. Already planned for 1935–36 were three more middle schools, five elementary schools, two kindergartens, a cinema, and three more hospitals. The City of Birobidzhan was paving streets and sidewalks and building a park for culture and recreation. The Communist Party and Soviet government were giving their full attention to the young autonomous region, “actively guiding and helping in its development.” The thousands of new working emigrants would, “under the certain Bolshevist leadership of the territorial and regional Party committees, overcome all obstacles” and in the near future create on the banks of the Amur “a bright and strong Jewish Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.”3 In November 1936, Dr Lewis Schatzov, chair of the New York City icor committee, wrote The ICOR and What It Stands For. In this pamphlet, Schatzov enjoined Canadian Jews to join the organization. He declared that, in just ten years, icor had “written a most glorious page in the history of the Jewish masses in Canada.” It had from the start realized “the great historical importance of the transformation of the Jewish life from an oppressed, unproductive people into a happy, worthy citizenry of a great country, known as the Soviet Union.” He differentiated icor’s work

Appendix

235

from that of other Jewish organizations: “Superficially it may have looked as if the ‘Icor’ was doing some philanthropic work, participating in a movement of helping poor Jews to settle on land, to eke out a livelihood. It seemed as if the work was inspired by a sense of sympathy” and that icor was trying to alleviate the suffering of Jews “uprooted from centuries old economic foundations.” But icor had “readily grasped the great significance of settling Jews on land,” viewing it as a process of converting luftmenshen “into a productive element, capable of participating in the building of the new order of Society.” icor understood that the sufferings of the Jews had been the result of an economic system that “divides society into two groups, where one is oppressing the other.” In a heterogeneous country such as the old Russia, “the rulers will find a scapegoat for the enraged masses, diverting their attention from the real cause of their misfortune,” and “incite one section of the population against another, one nationality against another.” Schatzov noted that this was true even in Canada, where fascists were “becoming bolder, more threatening” and, particularly in Quebec, were carrying on “widespread antisemitic agitation.” icor would always be in the forefront of the fight against “that monstrosity,” fascism. In the new Soviet Union, in contrast, the very nature of the new order “calls for collaboration of all inhabitants, regardless of color, race or creed,” and the “complete equality of all nationalities, regardless of size and number.” Each nationality therefore “should be equally strong both economically and culturally.” The settlement of Jews on the land was the first step in transforming them “into a new type of people, capable of being builders of a new society.” The creation of Birobidzhan as a “Jewish National Unit” was a logical step in fulfilling the principles of socialism. Although Jews were free to live anywhere in the country, and were “in no way oppressed,” Birobidzhan would enable them to develop fully as a national group. However, emphasized Shatzov, “the mere segregation of Jews in a given place is not a security for their happiness.” Settling large numbers of Jews in Palestine “will not solve the Jewish problem, even in Palestine itself, let alone elsewhere in the world,” since there would always be friction between Jews and Arabs, and this would simply enable British imperialism to divide and rule. This was the message icor was bringing to the Jewish masses of Canada. Schatzov stressed that it had not been an easy task. icor had been treated with hostility by a bourgeois Jewish press “that has constantly, incessantly, uninterruptedly and maliciously spread lies and falsifications about the

236

Appendix

Soviet Union and Biro-Bidjan, poisoning the minds of thousands of people against the ‘Icor.’” But, he was proud to state, “Our work is bearing fruit.” The Jewish masses were coming to realize the truth about the Soviet Union: “The Canadian Jew at present is feeling insecurity of his own standing and his political rights. The long years of depression that played havoc with Canada have made him realize and appreciate much more the great deeds of the Soviet Union, the miraculous transformation of Jews into a healthy and sound nationality, based on productive labor and creative culture.” Schatzov concluded with an appeal to Canadian Jews to participate in the work of icor and to build it into a “broad mass-organization.”4 The Montreal poet Shabse Perel published a long article in the 9 April 1942 Vochenblat on the occasion of Birobidzhan’s fourteenth anniversary. Perel recounted the story of Birobidzhan, beginning with the Soviet decision in 1928 to colonize it with Jews, through its elevation in 1934 into an autonomous region with Yiddish as its official language, through to its status in 1942. Jews had been given the instruments of self-determination within a territory of their own, he wrote: “Jews have become a people the equal of other peoples – a people with their own sense of nationhood, with a recognized language, with their own cultural institutions, constructed with the stature of a nation.” He reiterated that Birobidzhan was a “gigantic” territory, as large as Belgium and Holland combined: “It is a fat land, a rich land, a land of tremendous natural resources, with tremendous forests, with rivers full of fish, with unlimited agricultural and industrial opportunities.” In 1928, Birobidzhan had been populated by a mere 30,000 people, its main town, Tikhonkaia, on the Bira River, had only 600 residents, and there were only 30,000 hectares of land under cultivation. This “rich corner” had been neglected in tsarist times, but the Soviet government was determined to develop all of the country, including the far east: “It was thus the good fortune for the Jews to obtain a parcel of land that the country planned to develop, agriculturally and industrially; where it planned to build cities and plant cultural institutions; where it planned to turn what had been a wilderness for centuries into collectives.” Many were the pessimists who had little faith in the potential of Birobidzhan: But the fact is, that in the course of building this new country, the Jews have reconstructed themselves. It is to the credit of the Jews and to the credit of the Soviet Union, which had faith in the Jews, that we can now say with the greatest assurance, that the Jewish pioneers in Birobidzhan have written a golden page in their own history and in the history of the

Appendix

237

entire Jewish people. Yesterday’s Menakhem Mendels, yesterday’s luftmenshen [people with no visible occupation or means of support], yesterday’s small-minded [klaynsheteldike] Jewish men and women, who feared going near a horse, to stand near a cow – they have turned into excellent collective farm workers, cattle and poultry breeders, welldiggers, house builders, and so on. They also took it upon themselves to create industries. Within a short period of time Birobidzhan had gained a reputation in the far east as an industrial centre. Across the Soviet Union, people learned that Jewish pioneers had created a big mechanized agricultural sector, and had built plants and factories, honey and fish farms – and that they worked, worked, worked without cease. Birobidzhan, declared Perel, was the symbol of the freedom and friendship of all of the Soviet peoples: “And just as Birobidzhan is the highest expression of Soviet nationality policy, which seeks to make all national groups healthy and independent and to elevate them culturally, so has its construction been helped by all the other people of the Soviet Union, who are aiding this youngest member of the Soviet family.” So Birobidzhan has become the highest symbol of national amity, and the Soviet Union “may justly point to it as one of the most beautiful achievements in the history of mankind.” Nor, Perel reminded his readers, had culture been neglected. Schools, technical institutes, a research academy, two daily and a number of weekly newspapers, a journal, a Yiddish theatre: these were all part of a new Jewish culture growing and flourishing in Birobidzhan. The country had already produced young new writers and poets, and many others had moved there. It was hard to believe, Perel declared, that so much wonderful work had been accomplished in a mere fourteen years. This anniversary was being celebrated in the midst of a world war in which Birobidzhan had sent her finest sons to the front. Jews the world over could justly be proud of Birobidzhan as their affection deepened for the country that was in the process of destroying Nazism and liberating the peoples of the world. “Let the 14th anniversary of Birobidzhan strengthen all Jews at this time, when Nazism has dealt us all its heaviest blows,” exclaimed Perel: “Long live Birobidzhan! Long live the country, which has made a Birobidzhan possible!”5 The 20 May 1948 issue of the Vochenblat carried a piece on Birobidzhan’s twentieth anniversary by long-time activist Abraham Nisnevitz. The success of Birobidzhan constituted a triumphal signal

238

Appendix

that we have reached a commanding height in our long historical voyage, that a curtain has come down on our past and the doors are opening to the genesis [breyshis] of our future. And we Jews throughout the world sensed, when we heard the historic declaration that Birobidhzan was being offered to the Jews that they might build their new life, their identifiable culture, their own country, in friendship and kinship with their neighbours of other nationalities, that we had heard that our prayers for deliverance had been answered. Twenty years ago the bright message spread across oceans and continents, and wherever one came across a Jewish community, wherever one found a Jewish heart, which beat with concern for the fate of the Jewish people, with love and a readiness to do battle for the future of our people – there, the spirit was awakened and it was recognized that we had to identify ourselves with the pioneers of Birobidzhan, with the new clanging and songs of hammers, the buzz of saws, that deafen the free domain of this new land – Birobidzhan. After so many generations of persecution, Jews could now derive contentment from this rich new community. But, Nisnevitz reminded his readers, none of this would have been possible without the “ten days that shook the world,” the historical events that transformed one-sixth of the world, so that “the prison house of peoples” had become a “union of liberated peoples, who are building a new life on new principles, where exploitation, hatred, oppression, racism – the roots of all the wickedness in the world – have been eliminated forever. With freedom has come friendship between peoples, fraternal cooperation in building a new society for all, with the bright hopes for a secure and sacred future for the new community of peoples.” And how much further along this project would be had not that “bloody storm loosed itself upon our heads.” Instead of bright hopes “there came the fires of Maidanek and Treblinka,” and “the hammer and saw had to be put down in favour of the gun and sword.” It was only due to the incredible heroism and sacrifices of the Soviet peoples that the victory came about. But in the meantime the Jewish people had suffered 6 million deaths and a world in ruins: However, living peoples heal their wounds, and continue on. With great difficulties, and with sacrifices, the remnants of our people are rebuilding their lives anew in the devastated countries. They have

Appendix

239

fought hard to overcome their bloody enemies. The Soviet Union, which had been so devotedly concerned with the construction of Jewish life before the war, now shows the same concern in the period of postwar construction. Tens of thousands of Jews seeking a new life were now making their way to Birobidzhan, “there to begin their lives anew, there to build their new nation, there to plant their future.” Jewish intellectuals and craftsmen, engineers and doctors, teachers and agronomists – all of them with a burning desire in their hearts: to build a new life, a bright life; to create their own Jewish nation, their own Jewish culture. All of them have in mind: from Holocaust to construction. Let the new existence in Birobidzhan blossom, so that we will remember only the hatred we hold for our enemies, while we forget the Holocaust that they brought down upon us. Let Birobidzhan blossom. Our brothers and sisters in Erets Yisroel, who are now engaged in a life and death struggle against the dark forces of reaction and oppression, for their survival and self-determination, should also be encouraged and strengthened by the hope that Birobidzhan brings to the Jews of the world. Because those who granted Birobidzhan to the Jews of the Soviet Union are also those who are struggling to make certain that Erets Yisroel will be granted to the Jews of the world. Let the flag of comfort and hope flutter, both over Birobidzhan and the Jordan, and over all the rivers where Jewish communities are to be found. We are only in the middle of our historic march – we will arrive at our final destination!6 Abraham Jenofsky, executive secretary of Ambijan in the United States, contributed to the Vochenblat of 24 March 1949 a lengthy piece commemorating twenty-one years of progress in Birobidzhan, filled, as usual, with apparently precise facts and figures. Many were the Jews who were deriving great satisfaction (shepn nakhes) from jar, Jenofsky wrote. It was now fifteen years since the Soviet Union had declared Birobidzhan a Jewish autonomous region, thereby giving the Jews the full possibility of becoming “a self-sufficient nation.” Despite a horrific war, the Jews in Birobidzhan could point to “colossal accomplishments ... grandiose agricultural and industrial achievements.” Given the natural wealth and rich potential of this large region, they were certain to realize even more ambitious undertakings. The old calumny spread by anti-Semites, that “Jews could not till the soil” and “sought only easy ways to make a living,” had been entirely

240

Appendix

“smashed.” Great tracts of land had been cultivated and made fertile according to modern methods of agronomy, enabling the Jewish settlers to “conquer the taiga.” Birobidzhan now contained sixty-six kholkhozes, five sovkhozes, an experimental agriculture station, and nine machine tractor stations. Jews had proven themselves as farmers, beekeepers, fishers, and fruit growers. In the industrial sector, the region now had sixty-four large industrial plants, including a sawmill, a pulp and paper mill, a cement and chalk factory, a furniture factory, and a plant for the construction of prefabricated houses, which Ambijan had helped provide. Jenofsky listed knitwear and textile mills, shoe and luggage factories, a wagon factory, and a factory for the overhaul of machinery. The region was blessed with an abundance of metals and minerals and had coal and gold mines. There were also over 2,000 cooperative workshops producing light goods for local consumption and for the far eastern market. The enemies of the Soviet Union were once again circulating stories about the paucity of Jewish culture in Birobidzhan, stated Jenofsky, but the facts and figures proved otherwise. There were Yiddish schools, theatres, drama circles, choirs, dance ensembles, cinemas, and libraries. In 1948, the region had 133 public schools, enrolling 17,600 children. There were five institutions of higher learning: a school for the training of railway engineers, a medical school, a pedagogical institute, a technium for the training of communal and cultural workers, and a school of agriculture. There were also four vocational schools, a music school, and dozens of evening adult education facilities. There were many artistic and sports facilities and stadiums, too numerous to describe in detail (the region had twenty-five volleyball and nine soccer clubs). There were many small theatrical groups apart from the main Kaganovitch theatre, numerous choirs and dance groups, and twenty-four movie theatres. The national library contained 200,000 volumes; in addition, there were twenty-nine other libraries and forty-four smaller reading rooms. In the capital city, Birobidzhan, a cultural centre named for Shloime Mikhoels and an evening university for the study of political science had recently opened, noted Jenofsky. There were two daily newspapers, one in Russian and the other in Yiddish, and various periodicals. The region had been enriched by the arrival of new dramatists, novelists, poets, essayists, sculptors, musicians, and actors. Birobidzhan had seventeen hospitals, fifty-five medical clinics, thirty-two health centres, a blood transfusion depot, and a health spa. All of this demonstrated, concluded Jenofsky, that the future of the Jewish people should and must be intertwined with the forces of democracy and progress as represented by the Soviet Union.7

Appendix

241

The Vochenblat of 24 November 1949 printed a story, in both English and Yiddish, emanating from Moscow, which announced the “great achievements” of socialist nation building in Birobidzhan, including the “immense development of industry and agriculture.” The Soviet system had delivered the Jews from “the tsarist yoke” and “the fate of outcasts.” No longer were Jews “a people without a country, without sovereignty.” They now had “Socialist statehood, as a result of the world-historic victories of the LeninStalin national policy which united all the peoples of the Soviet land into a single family, bound by inviolable ties of fraternity and mutual assistance.” Birobidzhan had in fifteen years “traversed a glorious path” of rapid economic and cultural development “in the closely-knit family of peoples in the land of Socialism, attained with the aid of the Russian people.” In 1928, there were two hospitals in Birobidzhan; now there were nineteen, along with sixty medical centres and forty-eight clinics. Some 25,000 children now attended 144 schools, where Yiddish was the language of instruction. In the City of Birobidzhan there were five specialized educational institutions: a pedagogical and medical school, a school for the training of cultural and educational “mass workers,” a school for graphic arts, and a railway school. There were also factory trade schools in smaller towns. Children on the many collective farms received a rich education. The region now contained sixty-six cultural and educational establishments and eighty-seven (in the English text) or seventy-eight (in the Yiddish text) libraries. The Yiddish theatre was thriving and so were the six newspapers and other periodicals. Jews from everywhere in the Soviet Union were moving to the Jewish Autonomous Region and hoping to make it their “permanent home.” Those who had already arrived had received “a warm and hearty welcome” and were provided with jobs, housing, and sustenance; those arriving at collective settlements “received nicely-furnished homes with radios installed and a truck garden” as well as cows, hogs, and poultry, while those moving into cities acquired “comfortable flats.” More houses, schools, medical centres, and office blocks for trade enterprises would soon be constructed. Roads were being improved and more automobiles and trucks were being introduced. The newcomers would help fulfill the goals of Stalin’s postwar Five-Year Plan, which would make Birobidzhan blossom into a yet more prosperous territory both in terms of agriculture and industry. Already Birobidzhan was producing ten times more goods than it was in 1936, and it would now be the site of new plants for the production of prefabricated housing, building machinery, locomotives, power boilers, woodworking, paper,

242

Appendix

textiles, artificial fibres, footwear, clothing, and many other products of both light and heavy industry. Birobidzhan was also an agricultural success, with its dozens of collective farms, three state farms, nine machine tractor stations, and an experimental agricultural station. The amount of land under cultivation had tripled since 1934, crop yields were up, and further agricultural expansion was under way, with new tractors, harvester combines, and other machinery being shipped to the collectives. “Rich harvests of wheat, oats, buckwheat, potatoes, vegetables are being gathered,” and the area devoted to soybeans was being extended. All of this was evidence of “the solicitude of the Party and the Government,” which “evokes warm gratitude in the hearts of the Jewish workingpeople.” Under socialism, Jews were finally free to exercise their talents and personal abilities, without being impeded by discrimination and racism.8

Notes

preface 1 The modern transliteration from the Russian for the name of the Jewish autonomous region is “Birobidzhan” or “Biro-bidzhan,” but during the 1920s to 1950s it was usually written as “Birobidjan” or “Biro-bidjan,” and I have retained the original spelling when quoting directly from English-language sources of the time or when referring to organizations such as the Canadian Birobidjan Committee. 2 Paris, Jews, 185; Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 123–5. 3 Geertz, “Thick Description,” 6. Geertz borrowed this term from Gilbert Ryle. 4 Geertz, “Thick Description,” 28. 5 Ibid., 13, 15, 18. 6 Bourdieu, “Field of Power, Literary Field and Habitus,” 162. 7 Reiter, “Secular Yiddishkait,” 125, 141. 8 Lyons, Philadelphia Communists, 62–3. This held true in Canada as much as it did in the United States. 9 Paris, Jews, 147. 10 E.H. Carr, What Is History?, 62. 11 There is a very large literature on this subject. See Gentile, Politics as Religion; and Klinghoffer, Red Apocalypse.

chapter one 1 Mendes, “The Rise and Fall of the Jewish/Left Alliance,” 497. 2 Shapira, “Black Night—White Snow,” 241. 3 Extensive research has been done on Marxist attitudes, both positive and negative, towards the national aspirations of the Jewish people. For a recent summary, see Traverso, The Marxists and the Jewish Question. See also Connor, The National

244

4 5 6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Notes to pages 4–5

Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy; Munck, The Difficult Dialogue; and Nimni, Marxism and Nationalism for a survey of historic Communist positions on nationality. Gitelman, “Introduction,” x–xi. Zucker, “The ‘Jewish Bureau,’” 146. Shtern, “Bageygenishn un shmusen mit Kalmen Marmor,” 14 (emphasis in original). For more on Marmor, see his biography, Mayn Lebns-geshikhte. An unflattering portrait of him appears in M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism, 394–8. The Jewish Section of the International Workers Order (iwo), or Internatsyonaler Arbayter Ordn, was founded in October 1929, when dissidents in the social democratic Workmen’s Circle split off from the national organization. A total of 108 Arbayter Ring branches, plus minorities from another twenty-two, denounced the Circle, which, they stated, had been originally “created under the flying banner of the class-struggle” but had now been transformed into “an organization serving the interests of capitalism.” These 15,000 rebels joined other cp-dominated ethnic fraternal benefit societies in founding the iwo in 1930. See Doroshkin, Yiddish in America, 166. For an overview of the iwo, see Sabin, Red Scare in Court, 1–24; another history, emphasizing its ethnic diversity, is Walker, Pluralistic Fraternity. Quoted in Abella, “Portrait of a Jewish Professional Revolutionary,” 204. See also S. Shek, “A Lifetime in the Labour Movement,” 7–8, 10, 37. For the type of “Communist Jews” who had little interest in their Jewish heritage, see the autobiography of York University political science professor James Laxer, Red Diaper Baby. Laxer’s father, Menachem Mendel, son of a Montreal Orthodox rabbi, joined the Communist Party while a student at McGill University in the 1930s. “Stopping the Nazis became his passion” and only the cp was up to the job, he felt (65). He married Edna May Quentin, daughter of a Toronto Methodist clergyman and missionary in China, in 1940. Laxer became a Communist functionary and the Laxer children were brought up largely in a non-Jewish fashion, though, as a child, James Laxer was sent to Camp Naivelt, which was run by Jewish Communists (121–32). Menachem Mendel Laxer quit the cp following the revelations of Stalin’s crimes and the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 (173–4). James Laxer became prominent in the New Democratic Party. Buhle, “Jews and American Communism,” 11, 14. “Utopian and quasi-messianic visions were ... endemic to the East European [Jewish] style of politics,” notes Jonathan Frankel in “Modern Jewish Politics East and West (1840–1939),” 84. Leviatin, Followers of the Trail, 98. The comment came from Joe Zuken, a lifelong Communist in Winnipeg. Quoted in Smith, Joe Zuken, 12. Hertzberg, The Jews in America, 241.

Notes to pages 5–13

245

13 Szajkowski, Jews, Wars, and Communism, 1:408–12. For more on this phenomenon, see Feuer, “American Travelers to the Soviet Union, 1917–32,” 119–49; Hollander, Political Pilgrims; and Margulies, The Pilgrimage to Russia. 14 Soyer, “Back to the Future,” 125–6, 130. 15 Soyer, “Soviet Travel and the Making of an American Jewish Communist,” 1, 3–5, 20. 16 Glazer, The Social Basis of American Communism, 168. 17 Isserman, If I Had a Hammer, 12. 18 Lyons, Philadelphia Communists, 1936–1956 , 72. 19 Kutulas, The Long War, 23; Schrecker, No Ivory Tower, 29–31. 20 Naison, Communists in Harlem during the Depression, 49. 21 Mendelsohn, On Modern Jewish Politics, 87–8, 94–6. 22 Kutulas, The Long War, 2, 132. 23 Isserman, Which Side Were You On? 20. Isserman notes that the term “Communist front” became a pejorative phrase often used by their opponents to discredit the politics of such organizations. 24 Hemingway, Artists on the Left, 86. This is not to say that the non-Communists in fronts were simply “dupes of Party manipulation.” For many “social liberals,” Hemingway reminds us, “it was possible to see the Soviet Union as embodying certain shared progressive values whatever the deformities of its political system” (195–6). 25 Kutulas, The Long War, 105. For more on the “fellow traveller,” and Communist attitudes towards such people, see Caute, The Fellow-Travellers. 26 For more on the concept of “Jewish Communism” as an ethno-social movement, see Srebrnik, London Jews and British Communism, 1935–1945, 11–19. I wish to thank Shloime Perel for introducing much of this perspective on Jewish Communism in his unpublished work entitled “History of the ujpo in Canada, 1926–1949.” While people of various political orientations might have shared views on matters of race, anti-Semitism, politics, and foreign policy with Jewish Communists, and been favourably disposed to the Soviet Union, the term “pro-Soviet” is most accurately applied to Communists and to those of their non-party allies who invariably exempted the ussr from serious criticism and scrutiny and defended Soviet crimes, both domestic and foreign. 27 See further Gorny, Converging Alternatives. 28 M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism, 78. 29 For more on the failed Uganda project, see R.G. Weisbord, African Zion; and Vital, Zionism, 267–347, 425–43. 30 For more on these efforts, see Shapiro, Haven in Africa. 31 For the Yevsektsiya, see Gitelman, Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics; and Altshuler, “The Attitude of the Communist Party of Russia to Jewish National Survival,

246

32

33 34 35 36 37

38

39 40

41

42

43 44 45 46

Notes to pages 13–17

1918–1930,” 68–86. See also Shneer, Yiddish and the Creation of Soviet Jewish Culture, 1918–1930. When the Central Committee of the cpsu disbanded the Yevsektsiya in 1930, it was done “in order to overcome once and for all the nationalist tendencies still observable in the activity of the Jewish Sections.” Quoted in Schwarz, The Jews in the Soviet Union, 103. Quoted in Miller, “Soviet Theory on the Jews,” 59. Abramsky, “The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927–1959,” 69. See Dekel-Chen, Farming the Red Land. Deutscher, “The Russian Revolution and the Jewish Problem,” 68. See Kagedan, Soviet Zion, 73–93. Still, by 1930, some 231,000 Jews were engaged in agricultural activities throughout the Soviet Union. See R. Weinberg, “Jews into Peasants?” 90. An excellent overview of the entire project is provided by R. Weinberg, Stalin’s Forgotten Zion. See, as well, the entry “Birobidjan,” written by Avrahm Yarmolinsky, then head of the Slavonic Division of the New York Public Library, in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia of 1941, 372–8. Kagedan, Soviet Zion, 109. Communists were not the only ones taken in by the scheme. Even Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization, greeted the plan favourably. The eminent historian Salo W. Baron called the idea of Birobidzhan “quite imaginative” and said that it “by far transcended the mere scheme of agricultural colonization, such as had long been underway in the European parts of the Union.” See Baron, The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets, 193. Chemerisky, a former socialist Zionist himself, had earlier been castigated for paraphrasing Theodor Herzl when he said of Birobidzhan, “If you will it, it will come about.” Quoted in Abramsky, “The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927–1959,” 71. Chemerisky was executed during the purges in the 1930s. But it was difficult to eliminate the Jewish nationalism that propelled many of the settlers. As one put it, “This is the Land of Israel in our own country.” See Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence, 158. Dimanshtein, “Di yidishe autonomye in biro-bidzhan,” 42–5 (Yiddish section); M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism, 178. This did not prevent his removal from office in 1938 and subsequent execution as a “Bundist” during the terror in the 1930s. Abramsky, “Russian Jews – A Bird’s Eye View,” 37. Schwarz, The Jews in the Soviet Union, 129n2. Kagedan, Soviet Zion, 107. Schwarz, The Jews in the Soviet Union, 175; Abramsky, “The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927–1959,” 71.

Notes to pages 17–25

247

47 St George, Siberia, 323. Noting Jewish reluctance, a journalist from the Yevsektsiya’s newspaper Der Emes observed in April 1928, “the Jews raise their hands easily for Biro-Bidjan, but not their feet.” See Abramsky, “The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927–1959,” 72. 48 M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism, 177–9. “That their opposition was justified was proven by the total collapse of Birobidjan even before World War II, a collapse that no clever propaganda or Iron Curtain could hide for long.” See M. Epstein, Pages from a Colorful Life, 89. Epstein was born in 1889 in Belarus and was initially a territorialist. He came to the United States in 1913. 49 Gellner, Conditions of Liberty, 117. 50 Fischer, “The Jews and the Five-Year Plan,” 597–9; Zukerman, “A Jewish Home in Russia,” 540. 51 Tobenkin, Stalin’s Ladder, 153–68, 172–82. 52 “Soviet Jewish Plan Lags,” New York Times, 30 September 1932, 14. 53 Quoted in Abramsky, “The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927–1959,” 74–5. 54 Estraikh, “Yiddish Language Conference Aborted,” 91–2. 55 Quoted in Epstein, The Jew and Communism, 309–10.

chapter two 1 Kagedan, “Birobidzhan,” 88. 2 Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917, 1:291. 3 “In di shtet,” ICOR 1 (March 1925): 14; “Icor” Bulletin no. 1 (April 1925): 8; Ab. Epstein, “Zibn yor icor geshikhte,” 46 (Yiddish section). It was also called until 1929, in English, the Society to Aid the Jewish Colonization of Soviet Russia, or the Committee for Jewish Colonization in Soviet Russia (in Yiddish the Gezelshaft tsu helfn der Yidisher Kolonizatsye in Sovyet Rusland). 4 The New York City Committee’s more radical logo was a sickle and the Yiddish letters spelling icor superimposed on a sheaf of wheat. 5 Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union, 65; Kagedan, Soviet Zion, 22–3. 6 “Icor” Bulletin no. 1 (April 1925): 1–8, 10–12. 7 “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 1 (March 1925): 14; “Barikht fun sekretar e. vatenberg,” ICOR 2–3 (April-May 1925): 10; “Icor” Bulletin no. 1 (April 1925): 9–10, 16; circular letter to the national executive from Dr Elias Wattenberg, New York, 6 November 1925, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo Institute for Jewish Research, New York (hereafter yivo). 8 Circular letter from Adolph Maurice, secretary, icor Agro-Industrial Co-operative Inc., New York, 8 June 1927, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg

248

9 10 11

12 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20 21

Notes to pages 26–32

495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo. The Joint did not think highly of this plan, nor was it enamoured of “the Communist icor,” according to Szajkowski, Jews, Wars, and Communism, 4:161–2. “Protokol,” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 5–14; “Vegn umpartayishn karakter fun ‘icor,’” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 28–9. Philadelphia icor Committee, “Der tsuzamenfor fun gezerd in moskve,” 41–3. National Executive Committee of the icor, Driter natsyonaler tsuzamenfor fun ‘icor’ opgehaltn in filadelfia, dem 30tn un 31tn detsember 1927 un 1tn yanuar 1928. icor, Barikht, 2–7, 11–18, 22, 24–36, 43–7. L. Talmy, “Tsum oyfboy fun a yidish land,” ICOR 1, 1 (May 1928): 1. Menachem Boraisha, “Der sof fun gemishtn tish,” and B.Z. Goldberg, “Tsvishn ‘icor’-mentshn,” ICOR 1, 1 (May 1928): 2–4. Jacob Levin, “Biro-bidjan – dos yidishe nayland,” ICOR 1, 1 (May 1928): 5–6; and ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 6–8. As soon as she had entered the ussr from Poland, in December 1926, she noticed the “calm demeanour of the people” as compared to that of those in the United States. “This was because of their certainty regarding the morrow, the lack of fear about losing their job, the livelihood, their piece of bread.” The youth, she wrote, “were the masters of the country.” She visited Minsk, Smolensk, Leningrad, Odessa, and the first Jewish colonies in the Crimea, before departing in April 1927. She lauded the hospitality of the gezerd and left “full of enthusiasm and with a purpose in life.” See Medem, A lebnsveg, 228–40. I.B. Bailin, “Gina birenzweig un gina medem (aynike kharakter-shtriken),” 7 (emphasis in original). She died 29 January 1977, aged eighty-nine, and her obituary can be found in the Frayhayt, 20 February 1977, 15. Irena Klepfisz asserts that Medem’s “silence on the drastic change in Jewish life and her continued admiration for the Soviets,” even after 1956, is “dumbfounding.” Despite the destruction of Yiddish and Birobidzhan by Stalin “she has no words of protest or regret.” She was unable to give up her politics, even though, as Klepfisz speculates, she would never have settled in Stalinist Russia because “her Medem name, and her Jewishness would have imprisoned her, most likely killed her.” See Klepfisz, “Di Mames, Dos Loshn/The Mothers, the Language,” 27–33. Medem, Lender, felker, kamfn, 53–8. Gina Medem, “Di erd,” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 2–6. Ibid., “Der vayter mizrakh,” ICOR 4, 8 (January 1931): 8–9. “‘Icor’ far biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 1, 1 (May 1928): 9. “Tsu a brayter masn-organizatsye,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 1; “Plenure zitsung fun der nats. ekz.,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 11–16; “‘Icor’ informatsye-briv numer 2,” 8 June 1928, 1–2, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor –

Notes to pages 32–8

22 23 24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35

36

37

249

Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, Jewish Public Library, Montreal (hereafter jpl). Prof. Charles Kuntz, “Briv fun biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 1, 3 (November 1928): 2–4. “Mashines fun ‘icor’ – in biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 1, 3 (November 1928): 7–8. “Barikht fun taytikayt,” ICOR 1, 3 (November 1928): 11–14. icor, Far der yidisher kolonizatsye in sovyetn-farband, pamphlet published in November 1928, in United States Territorial Collection, rg 117, box 57, folder “Icor” 17/16, yivo. Talmy, “A Jewish State in the Soviet Union,” 51–2. “Unzer nayer onhoyb,” ICOR 1, 4 (December 1928): 1; “Nayes fun der kolonizatsye,” ICOR 1, 4 (December 1928): 11; “Di ershte oyfgabe – der kampayn,” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 1; circular letter from Leon Talmy to icor’s national executive committee, 14 December 1928, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo. icor, Di ershte trit fun biro-bidzhan, 3–6, 16–18, 30–2. Jacob Levin, “Tsu di formen fun kolonizatsye in biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 2–4 and ICOR 2, 2 (February-March 1929): 11–12. “Plenare zitsung fun der nats. ekzekutive,” ICOR 2, 2 (February-March 1929): 18. L. Talmy, “Der ‘icor’ un biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 3 (April-May 1929): 2. Prof. Charles Kuntz, “Vos zenen di mayglekhkaytn fun biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 3 (April-May 1929): 5–7. “Vos der ‘icor’ hot shoyn ayngekoyft un geshikt kayn biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 3 (April-May 1929): 16; circular letter from Leon Talmy, New York, 2 April 1929, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo. Abraham Revutsky, “Bira-Bidzhan,” 158–68. Letters from Leon Talmy to Kalmen Marmor, New York, 3 January and 7 March 1929, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo. “Icor Experts Sail Today,” New York Times, 20 June 1929, 17; “‘Icor’ shikt ekspertn-komisye kayn biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 4 (June-July 1929): 6–7; letter from Ab. Epstein, national organizer, and A. Olken, secretary of the New York Committee, New York, 30 April 1929, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo. “Vos es vert gezogt vegn der ‘icor’-ekspeditsye kayn biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 5 (August-September 1929): 7–11; “Groyser kaboles-ponem far der ‘icor’ ekspeditsye kayn biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 2, 5 (August-September 1929): 16; “Americans Support Bira-Bidjan Project,” New York Times, 13 October 1929, sec. 3, 8; Leon Talmy, Oyf royer erd, 13–14, 23–33, 50–4, 61–2, 90–108, 118–20, 134–69, 188–91, 198–200, 208–12, 227–34, 247–54, 258.

250

Notes to pages 39–47

38 The ninety-four-page English version, Report of the American Icor Commission for the Study of Biro-Bidjan and Its Colonization, and the 111-page Yiddish version, Barikht fun der amerikaner icor ekspertn-komisye, were both published by icor in 1930, with print runs of 1,000 and 3,000 copies, respectively. There is a photo of the commissioners in the Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, 146 (Yiddish section). A short film, A Scientific Expedition to Birobidzhan, is deposited in the yivo archives. 39 icor, Report of the American Icor Commission, 25, 35, 46, 61–3. They noted that Japan, “which has very little iron ore of its own ... is a sure prospective customer” for iron from Birobidzhan as well as for dairy products and timber (44, 71). This was written before the Japanese had conquered Manchuria and became a threat to the Soviets in Asia. 40 Report of the American Icor Commission, 22–3. 41 Ibid., 71–4. 42 Dimanshtein, “Di yidishe autonomye in biro-bidzhan,” 44 (Yiddish section). 43 Report of the American Icor Commission, 85, 89. 44 icor, Biro-Bidjan and You. The icor had 50,000 copies of this pamphlet printed. 45 icor, Takeh – ver vet boyen biro-bidzhan? 46 National Executive of icor, “Tsu der arbet far der yidisher kolonizatsye far biro-bidzhan!” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 3–4. 47 S. Almazov, “Der barikht fun der amerikaner ‘icor’ eksperts-komisye,” ICOR 3, 2 (May 1930): 11. 48 “Barikht,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 8–15; “Rezolutsyes ongenumen oyfn fertn icor-tsuzamenfar,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 32–4; Prof. Chas. Kuntz, “The Biro-Bidjan Project and the ‘Icor,’” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 47–8; L. Talmy, “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive tsum fertn tsuzamenfar fun ‘Icor,’” typed minutes, December 1929, 1–8 and appendices, and icor, Lomir helfn boyen di prese in biro bidzhan, pamphlet [1931?], in United States Territorial Collection, rg 117, box 57, folder “Icor” 17/16, yivo.

chapter three 1 S. Almazov, “Vos viln di glantzes?” ICOR 5, 7 (July 1932): 9–10. 2 For details on this period, see Wasserstein, The British in Palestine; Kolinsky, Law, Order and Riots in Mandatory Palestine, 1928–35; and N.W. Cohen, The Year after the Riots. 3 The Executive Committee of the Comintern passed a resolution in support of the Arab uprising and in opposition to “counter-revolutionary Zionism.” It is reprinted in Degras, The Communist International 1919–1943 Documents, 3:76–84. 4 The cpusa leadership told the Frayhayt to stop calling the Arab attacks “pogroms.” The paper’s initial stand opposing the Arab murders was, it declared, a sign of

Notes to pages 47–56

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21 22

251

“bourgeois-nationalist and social-democratic influence” in “our own ranks.” “Red Party Here, Torn by ‘Heresies,’ Unable to Function,” New York Times, 8 September 1929, 1, 14. M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism, 223–33. “Barikht,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 8–31; “Rezolutsyes ongenumen oyfn fertn icor-tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 32–4; L. Talmy, “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive tsum fertn tsuzamenfor fun ‘Icor,’” typed minutes, December 1929, 1–8 and appendices, in United States Territorial Collection, rg 117, box 57, folder “Icor” 17/16, yivo. Prof. Chas. Kuntz, “Biro-bidzhan – a bazunder rayon,” ICOR 3, 5 (October 1930): 2–3. “Barikht,” ICOR 3, 5 (October 1930): 6–11. Ab. Epstein, “Gezerd in biro bidzhan,” ICOR 3, 7 (December 1930): 2–3. Aaron Kurtz, “Biro-bidzhaner shtern,” ICOR 3, 7 (December 1930): 4–5. Ab. Epstein, “Baym ershtn sovyetn-tsuzamenfor in biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 4, 8 (January 1931): 10–11. Ab. Epstein, “Mayn letster ovnt in ratn-farband,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1931): 5–6. Epstein’s account of his trip was also published as a pamphlet, Gezen in biro-bidzhan. “Der opshayd-banket far khaver prof. kuntz,” ICOR 3, 6 (November 1930): 12; letter from Leon Talmy to Kalmen Marmor, New York, 20 October 1930, letter from Abraham Olken to Kalmen Marmor, New York, 28 October 1930, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 545, “Icor-korespondents, 1930–1937,” yivo. “Oyfn gezerd-tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 8 (January 1931): 2–6. “Barikht tsu der oysgebrayterter plenarer zitsung fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive fun ‘icor,’” ICOR 4, 8 (January 1931): 11–14; “Icor informatsye-briv numer 1,” 2 January 1931, 1, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. “Redaktsyonale notitsn,” ICOR 4, 4 (April 1931): 2–3. Prof. Chas. Kuntz, “Biro-bidzhan vi es iz haynt,” ICOR 4, 3 (March 1931): 3–4; “Professor Kuntz on the Future of Biro-Bidjan,” ICOR 4, 3 (March 1931): 16. “Redaktsyonale notitsn,” ICOR 4, 3 (March 1931): 2; “Icor informatsye-briv numer 4,” 2 March 1931, 1, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. Prof. Chas. Kuntz, “A Polytechnicum in the Socgorodok in Biro-Bidjan,” ICOR 5, 2 (February 1932): 15–16. Medem, Lender, felker, kamfn, 63, 112–19, 208. Gina Medem, “Di taiga ruft,” ICOR 5, 3 (March 1932): 7–8 Medem, Lender, felker, kamfn, 59, 217.

252

Notes to pages 56–62

23 Gina Medem, “Grusn fun erd tsu erd,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1931): 7; Gina Medem, “Nokh amol birobidzhan,” 66–9 (Yiddish section). 24 “Barikht tsu der oysgebrayterter plenare zitsung fun der nats. ekzekutive fun icor, dem 14tn yuni, 1931,” ICOR 4, 5 (May 1931): 7–10. 25 M.Z. Goldstein, “Baym boyen dos sotsyalistishe shtetl ‘icor,’” ICOR 4, 8 (September 1931): 5; M.Z. Golsdstein, “Es zingt di hak un di lopate in di hent fun di vos boyen dos sotsyalistishe shtetl icor,” ICOR 5, 1 (January 1932): 8. Goldstein was a journalist with the Birobidzhaner shtern. 26 Ab. Victor, “Icor,” 148 (Yiddish section). 27 “Di anti-tsyionistishe kampanye,” ICOR 4, 5 (May 1931): 2; “Barikht tsu der oysgebrayterter plenare zitsung fun der nats. ekzekutive fun icor, dem 14tn yuni, 1931,” ICOR 4, 5 (May 1931): 7–10. 28 A. Shek, “Barikht fun der ant-tsiyon konferents in new york,” ICOR 4, 6 (June 1931): 4. 29 “Tsyionizm – der soyneh fun di yidishe masn,” ICOR 4, 7 (July 1931): 2. 30 There is a copy in the Labl Basman Papers, 1903–74, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Canadian Jewish Papers, F1405, series 085–033, mu 9045.02, mdt 8430, Archives of Ontario (hereafter ao), Toronto. 31 Ab. Epstein, “Mire kumen faraynigt, on sfeykes,” ICOR 4, 8 (September 1931): 3–4. 32 “Barikht fun dem finftn natsionaln icor tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 4–6; “Barikht fun der natsionaler ekzekutive tsu dem finftn icor tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 6–20; “Rezolutsyes,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 20–1. 33 “25 toyznt mitglider,” ICOR 4, 11 (December 1931): 2; “Mobilizatsye far 25,000 mitglider in icor tsu helfn in dem oyfboy fun di yidishe masn in sovyetn-farband,” ICOR 5, 1 (January 1932): 2–3. 34 icor, Di lage fun di yidishe masn, biro-bidzhan un icor /The Jewish Masses, Biro-Bidjan, and ICOR, [1–5]. 35 Circular letter from Abraham Epstein, New York, 15 February 1932, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 545, “Icor-korespondents, 1930–1937,” yivo. 36 “Barikht tsum icor plenum, gehaltn in new york dem 27tn marts,” ICOR 5, 4 (April 1932): 7–11; “Protokol fun plenum,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1932): 8–11. But Almazov admitted privately to Kalmen Marmor that the organization “was very much in need of money.” Circular letters from Shloime Almazov, New York, 17 March and 21 March 1932, circular letter from Shloime Almazov and Abraham Olken, New York, 25 March 1932, letter from Shloime Almazov to Kalmen Marmor, New York, 19 April 1932, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 545, “Icor-korespondents, 1930–1937,” yivo.

Notes to pages 62–8

253

37 Ab. Epstein, “Unzere noente arbetn,” ICOR 5, 9 (October 1932): 3–5. 38 “Barikht tsum icor plenum, vos vert gehaltn in new york, dem 16tn oktober 1932,” ICOR 5, 9 (October 1932): 6–11; “Protokol fun icor plenum,” ICOR 5, 10 (November 1932): 15–17. 39 “Professor Kuntz Writes,” ICOR 5, 8 (September 1932): 19; “Prof. Kuntz Writes from Biro Bidjan,” ICOR 5, 9 (October 1932): 19; circular letter of invitation from Shloime Almazov and Abraham Olken, New York, 10 May 10 1932, letter from Shloime Almazov to Kalmen Marmor, New York, 21 December 1932, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 545, “Icor-korespondents, 1930–1937,” yivo. 40 Medem, Lender, felker, kamfn, 211–13, 237–9, 246. 41 Leon Talmy, “Biro-bidzhan 1928–1931,” 15–18 (Yiddish section). 42 Charles Kuntz, “Biro-Bidjan in Socialist Reconstruction,” x (English section). 43 S. Almazov, “The 5th Anniversary of Biro-Bidjan, ICOR 5, 11 (December 1932): 23–4. 44 J.M. [Budish?], “War Propaganda against Soviet Union,” ICOR 4, 4 (April 1931): 15–16. 45 L. Talmy, “Vegn der vayterdiger arbet un oyfgabn fun icor,” ICOR 4, 8 (September 1931): 2–3. 46 “Barikht tsum icor plenum, gehaltn in new york dem 27tn marts,” ICOR 5, 4 (April 1932): 7–11; “Protokol fun plenum,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1932): 8–11. 47 “Ruf fun icor tsu ale arbayter tsu fartaydikn dem sovyetn farband,” ICOR 5, 3 (March 1932): 2; “Masn konferents tsu fartaydikn dem sovyetn-farband,” ICOR 5, 3 (March 1932): 17; “Defend the ussr,” ICOR 5, 3 (March 1932): 24. 48 S. Almazov, “Oyf der vakh!” ICOR 5, 3 (March 1932): 4. 49 “Rezolutsye ongenumen oyf der konferents, vos iz gerufn gevorn durkhn ‘icor,’” ICOR 6, 3 (March 1933): 3–4, 16; “Protokol fun der yerlekher konferents in new york dem 26tn februar,” ICOR 6, 3 (March 1933): 11–13; letter from Shloime Almazov to Philip Sandler, secretary of the Philadelphia icor City Committee, New York, 28 February 1933, in Philip Sandler Papers, rg 420, box 8, file 17, “icor,” yivo. 50 icor, Der rol fun rebonim in kamf gegn sovyetn farband, 2–15. 51 “Barikht fun general-sekretar tsu dem icor plenum, gehaltn in new york, 26tn marts, 1933,” ICOR 6, 4 (April 1933): 9–14. 52 Moishe Katz, “Glaykh in rekht un glaykh in flikhtn,” ICOR 6, 10 (November 1933): 7–8. 53 S.A., “Biro-Bidjan Is Forging Ahead,” ICOR 6, 10 (November 1933): 45; S.A., “16 Years of the ussr,” ICOR 6, 10 (November 1933): 46–8. 54 S. Almazov, “Barikht fun general-sekretar tsum ‘icor’ plenum, gehalten in new york 25tn marts, 1934,” ICOR 7, 4 (April 1934): 15–21; “Barikht fun icor plenum,

254

Notes to pages 70–2

gehalten gevoren in new york, dem 25tn marts, 1934,” ICOR 7, 5 (May 1934): 19–22. 55 “Deklaratsye fun der 6-ter konvenshon funm icor,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 3–4; S. Almazov, “Di ‘icor’-konvenshon un vos hot zi uns gelernt,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 5–6; “Barikht fun der 6-ter natsyonaler yubili-konvenshon fun dem ‘icor,’” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 7; “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive fun ‘icor’ tsu der 6-ter konvenshon,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 8–22; “Konvenshon rezolutsyes,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 24–5; “Vendung fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive tsu ale icor tuer,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 26; “Bagrisung fun kanader ‘icor,’” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 26; “Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union, Inc.,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 23. 56 Browder, “The American Communist Party in the Thirties,” 237. 57 M. Epstein, Jewish Labor in USA, 257.

chapter four 1 One Canadian Jewish woman, Suzanne Rosenberg, who grew up in Montreal, recalls in her memoirs that she was sixteen years old when her mother, a fervent Communist, organized a group of forty people and their children to emigrate to the ussr in 1931. She would remain in the Soviet Union, a prisoner of her mother’s misplaced idealism, for more than a half-century. See Rosenberg, Soviet Odyssey, 31–3. 2 Penner, Canadian Communism, 273; Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 119–22. 3 Rome was interviewed on 22 January 1983 by Lewis Levendel. See Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 151. Erna Paris quotes a cpc official as stating that, in 1929, some 20 percent of the members were Jewish. See Paris, Jews, 145. 4 Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 9. 5 Quoted in Betcherman, The Little Band, 98. 6 Abella, A Coat of Many Colours, 177. 7 Liebman, Jews and the Left, 26–33. 8 Frager, “Politicized Housewives in the Jewish Communist Movement of Toronto, 1923–1933,” 267–8; Frager, Sweatshop Strife, 53–4; M. Cohen and Reiter, “Women, Culture, Politics, Yiddishkayt and the Yiddish Arbeiter Froyen Farein,” 9–11; Speisman, The Jews of Toronto, 316–17. Both the Jewish Women’s Labour League and the Labour League would become part of the pro-Communist United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo) in 1944. 9 R. Usiskin, “Winnipeg’s Jewish Women of the Left,” 112. 10 Michael Buhay of Montreal was editor for the first two years. He was succeeded in 1926 by Philip Halperin, who died in 1932. Ber Green of New York in turn temporarily succeeded him, followed by Harry Guralnick. Joshua Gershman assumed

Notes to pages 73–6

11

12 13

14

15 16 17

18

19 20 21

22

255

the editorship in 1935 and would remain at the helm of Der Kamf and its successor, the Vochenblat-Canadian Jewish Weekly, until it ceased publication in 1978. In the mid-1930s, Der Kamf had a circulation of about 3,000. During the Second World War, the Vochenblat-Canadian Jewish Weekly had a print run of between 4,000 and 5,000 copies. See Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 130–5; Arnold, “The Jewish Left-Wing Press in Canada.” For more on Der Kamf and other Communist newspapers, see Estraikh, “The Yiddish-Language Communist Press,” 62–82. Noznitsky, “Zikhroynes,” 17; Israelite Press, “Canadian Jewish Congress Endorses Balfour Declaration,” 3; R. Usiskin, “The Winnipeg Jewish Community,” 10–21; R. Usiskin, “Moses Almazov and the Winnipeg General Strike, Part 3,” 13–14. R. Usiskin, “The ‘Alien’ and the ‘Bolshevik,’” 10–12, 18. “Bulletin No. 44: Notes of the Work of the cib Division for the Week Ending 7th October, 1920,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Early Years, 1919–1929, 200. “Bulletin No. 49: Notes of the Work of the cib. Division for the Week Ending 11th November, 1920,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Early Years, 1919–1929, 289. H. Guralnick, “Kanadisher komunistishe partay fayert 50-yorikn yubili,’ Vochenblat, 27 October 1971, 5. “In di shtet,” ICOR 1 (March 1925): 15–16; “Barikhtn fun di ‘icor’ komitaytn ibern land,” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 47. “Barikhtn fun di ‘icor’ komitaytn ibern land,” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 44–5; “25 Years Ago,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 1 March 1951, English page 2 of the Vochenblat. “Natsionale konferents fun ‘icor’ dem 30tn april un 1tn may in new york,” ICOR 1 (March 1925): 3; “Vos di prese shraybt vegn ‘icor,’” ICOR 1 (March 1925): 8–9; “Barikht fun sekretar e. vatenberg,” ICOR 2–3 (April-May 1925): 6, 8, 10; “Barikht fun der nominatsyonz komite,” ICOR 2–3 (April-May 1925): 28; Ab. Epstein, “Akhtsn yor icor,” 47 (Yiddish section). “Protokol,” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 5–14; “Vegn umpartayishn karakter fun ‘icor,’” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 28–9. “Barikhtn fun di ‘icor’ komitaytn ibern land,” ICOR 1 (second year) (March 1926): 42, 44, 46. National Executive Committee of “Icor,” Driter natsyonaler tsuzamenfor fun “icor” opgehaltn in filadelfia, dem 30tn un 31tn detsember 1927 un 1tn yanuar 1928. Barikht, 2–7, 11–18, 22, 24–36, 43–7. “In der ‘icor’-baveygung,” ICOR 1, 1 (May 1928): 11–13; Moishe Katz, “Iber der ‘icor’ medineh,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 2–7; “Dos yidishe lebn un di kolonizatsye in sovyet rusland,” Der springfield “icor” buletin 1, 1 (30 April 1928): 1–2; “Tsu ale

256

23 24 25

26

27

28

29

30 31

32

Notes to pages 76–9

organizatsyes un komitaytn fun ‘icor,’” 3 April 1928, 1–2, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl; pamphlet announcing the Chicago concert at the Central Park Theatre on Roosevelt Road, in group 2, box b, folder 18, “Brainin and the ussr – Lecture Tours (Addresses, Posters),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl; Letter from Ab. Epstein to Reuben Brainin, New York, 31 March 1928, in group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. “Plenure zitsung fun der nats. ekz.,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 13; Ab. Victor, “Iber’n vaytn mariv in di shtatn un in kanada furn ‘icor,’” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 16–17. “Icor-taytikayt ibern land,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 22; “Barikht fun taytikayt,” ICOR 1, 3 (November 1928): 11. Toronto, at $1,408, was twenty-first on the list, and Montreal, at $1,065.50, was twenty-sixth. Ottawa provided $609, Windsor $441.25, Edmonton $292, Hamilton $223, Calgary $69.50, London $38, and Vancouver $13. “Reshime fun shtet un di sumen vos zay hobn baygeshtayert tsum ‘icor,’” ICOR 1, 1 (May 1928): 15–16. “Tsu a brayter masn-organizatsye,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 1; “Plenure zitsung fun der nats. ekz.,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 11–16; “‘Icor’ informatsye-briv numer 2,” 8 June 1928, 1–2, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. “Barikht farn period fun 1 yanuar biz 20tn yuni, 1928: Linyes fun der arbet,” n.d., 4, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. New York City’s quota for the campaign was $60,000; Los Angeles, $15,000; Boston and Chicago, $10,000 each; Detroit and Winnipeg, $6,000 each; Philadelphia, $5,000; Baltimore and Cleveland, $4,000 each; Montreal and St Louis, $3,000 each. Toronto was assessed $1,000, and Hamilton and Windsor $500 each. See “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 10. “Kumendike ‘icor’ turs,” ICOR 1, 4 (December 1928): 12; “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 10; “Plenare zitsung fun der nats. ekzekutive,” ICOR 2, 2 (February-March 1929): 15. “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 1, 4 (December 1928): 15–16; “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 10–11. Eleven other cities had donated $1,000 or more each, including Montreal at $1,219. Toronto had contributed $617, Niagara District $500, Edmonton $465, Ottawa $260, Vancouver $127, Hamilton $105, Kitchener $100, Windsor $91, Regina $80, and Calgary $46. See “Der 150-toyznt dolar kampayn,” ICOR 2, 3 (April-May 1929): 12–14; “Sa’khakl fun 150-toyznt dolar kampayn,” ICOR 2, 6 (December 1929): 16. Montreal had contributed $1,745.50, Toronto $1,267, Edmonton $856.25, Niagara District $500, Ottawa $383, Hamilton $354.50, Windsor $266.10, Vancouver

Notes to pages 79–81

33

34 35 36 37

38

39

257

$245, Calgary $151, Regina $112.90, and Welland $10. See “Barikht,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 8–31; L. Talmy, “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive tsum fertn tsuzamenfor fun ‘Icor,’” typed minutes, December 1929, 1–8 and appendices, in United States Territorial Collection, rg 117, box 57, folder “Icor” 17/16, yivo. icor, Lomir helfn boyen di prese in biro bidzhan, pamphlet [1931?], in United States Territorial Collection, rg 117, box 57, folder “Icor” 17/16, yivo; “Tipografikal ‘icor’-komitayt,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 45; “Redaktsyonale notitsn,” ICOR 4, 3 (March 1931): 2; “Barikht fun der natsionaler ekzekutive tsu dem finftn icor tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 16–17; “Icor druker-komitet vet shikn nokh mashinen,” ICOR 5, 1 (January 1932): 3; J. Burakoff, “The Typographical Icor Committee,” Der druk-arbayter [The Typo-Worker] 1 (March 1932): [23–4]. “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1932): 16–17. “Di taytikayt oyf der yidisher radikaler gus in edmonton,” Dos yidishe vort-Israelite Press, Winnipeg, 3 May 1929, 3. Ayn yor autonomye teritorye, leaflet, in Philip Sandler Papers, rg 420, box 8, file 17, “icor,” yivo. Toronto had sent in $425, Montreal $400, Edmonton $156, Vancouver $81, Calgary $50, and Ottawa $45. See “‘Icor’-taytikayt in un arum new york,” ICOR 2, 6 (December 1929): 10–11; “Toronter ‘icor’ ruft di brayte masn tsu helfn in der boy-arbet fun biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 3, 1 (January-February 1930): 42; “Unzer 200 toyznt dolar kampayn,” ICOR 3, 2 (May 1930): 2; “Vi gayt der icor-kampayn far biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 3, 2 (May 1930): 12–15. Most standard histories of the Canadian Communist Party make it clear that, by the late 1920s, Canadian Communists were guided by Comintern directives emanating from Moscow. See Abella, Nationalism, Communism and Canadian Labour; Avakumovic, The Communist Party in Canada; Betcherman, The Little Band; and Penner, Canadian Communism. There are also references to Comintern financial support and ideological guidance to the cpc in Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism; and Klehr, Anderson, and Haynes, The Soviet World of American Communism. For the history of the Communist International, see E.H. Carr, Twilight of the Comintern, 1930–1935; Hallas, The Comintern; McDermott and Agnew, The Comintern; McKnight, Espionage and the Roots of the Cold War; Rees and Thorpe, International Communism and the Communist International, 1919–43; and Worley, In Search of Revolution. The Executive Committee of the Comintern monitored the activities of “Trotskyists” and “rightists” in Jewish organizations. Max Dolgoy of Winnipeg, a prominent trade unionist and icor supporter, was temporarily expelled from the cpc in February 1930. See Angus, Canadian Bolsheviks, 304–6. Some contacts with front groups in Canada also came through the ostensibly non-governmental Soviet

258

40 41 42

43 44

45 46 47

Notes to pages 81–2

agency VOKS, the All-Union Society for Cultural Ties Abroad, formed in 1925. See Nemzer, “The Soviet Friendship Societies,” 265–84; and David-Fox, “From Illusory ‘Society’ to Intellectual ‘Public,’” 7–32. “Farm Lands Available for Jews in Russia,” Toronto Daily Star, 25 January 1930, 14. “Protokol,” ICOR 3, 3 (June 1930): 12–16. Toronto sent $755; Montreal, $690; Edmonton, $424; Hamilton, $300; Vancouver, $203; Calgary, $143; Windsor, $120; Niagara District, $63; and Ottawa, $45. See “Barikht,” ICOR 3, 5 (October 1930): 6–11. “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 3, 6 (November 1930): 10–11. “Barikht tsu der oysgebrayterter plenarer zitsung fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive fun ‘icor,’” ICOR 4, 8 (January 1931): 11–14; “Icor informatsye-briv numer 1,” 2 January 1931, 1, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. Despite economic hardship in the city, $100 was raised due to his appearance. See “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 4, 8 (January 1931): 16. “Der ‘icor’ – tsu der ershtn sovyetn-tsuzamenfor in biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 3, 5 (October 1930): 12–14. Bekenshtein wrote many letters back to Canada. In his first, published in Der Kamf in December 1932, he recounted the “colossal” economic growth in the region, “a land of great opportunities,” and the consequent shortage of workers, which he contrasted to the misery of unemployment in the capitalist world. See “A briv fun biro-bidzhan fun a kanader khaver,” Der Kamf, 16 December 1932, 3. In letters to the American journal ICOR from the city of Birobidzhan in 1934, Bekenshtein wrote that “we are building the theatre” and that a hotel and cultural park were being completed. Better quality immigrants were also arriving. In Birobidzhan he did not have to worry about income, rent, and all the other afflictions back home. He wrote again in 1935, noting that back home he had been unemployed but that in Birobidzhan he was like every other decent worker, “a well needed person, taking part in the great socialist construction.” See Letters from V. Bekenshtein, ICOR 7, 4 (April 1934): 13; ICOR 7, 9 (October 1934): 14; and ICOR 8, 2 (February 1935): 16–17. He described his “cheerful and happy” new life in the capital of the region: “We grow day by day,” he wrote. “Comrades! Such a colossal construction is only possible in the land of the Soviets!” All of this thanks “to our great leader Comrade Stalin.” See “A briv fun unzer khaver Beckenstein fun biro-bidzhan,” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 5 (emphasis in original). Another letter from Beckenstein, dated 26 November 1935, came from Vladivostok, where he was on vacation in a cure and rest home. “In prosperous America, I would not have an opportunity of enjoying a holiday,” he wrote. “The worries of unemployment, the fear for the morrow ... would be a permanent anxiety,” whereas “in the Proletarian Fatherland, one does not know of unemployment.” See W. Beckenstein, “We Do Not

Notes to pages 83–6

48

49

50 51

52 53 54

55

56

259

Know of Hatred and Attacks,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 21. Letters from Canadians who had settled in the ussr were published so regularly in left-wing magazines such as Kanader “Icor” that they came to constitute a specific genre. Between 5 October 1929 and 16 April 1931, the Winnipeg branch had collected $1,733.39 and the B’nai Abraham Free Loan Society had collected almost $4,000 on behalf of icor. Despite its troubles, the Edmonton chapter had raised $105, some of it coming from the Jewish Women’s Progressive Club. In Calgary, $164 was collected. See “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 4, 4 (April 1931): 11–12, 14; “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1931): 13. In her memoirs, Medem describes Edmonton as a city “buried in snow-storms between snow-capped mountains.” See Medem, Lender, felker, kamfn, 231. Another $873 came from Edmonton, $531 from Hamilton, $500 from Vancouver, $283 from Windsor, $243 from Calgary, and $45 from Ottawa. See “Rekord fun di shtet in’m 200,000 kampayn biz’n 15tn okt., 1931,” ICOR 4, 9 (October 1931): 15. S. Rosenfeld, “Far a brayter icor masn-organizatsye,” ICOR 4, 9 (October 1931): 5. “Barikht fun dem finftn natsionaln icor tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 4–6; “Barikht fun der natsionaler ekzekutive tsu dem finftn icor tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 6–20; “Rezolutsyes,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 20–1; “Reshime fun di shtet un tsugeshikt sumen fun 16tn dets., biz dem 30tn sept., 1931,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 27. “Bagrisungen tsum 5tn icor tsuzamenfor,” ICOR 4, 10 (November 1931): 24–6. “In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 1, 4 (December 1928): 15; “Farshpaytigte bagrisungen tsum ‘icor’ bazaar-zhurnal,” ICOR 2, 6 (December 1929): 18. “Geshtorbn der khaver ike shapiro,” ICOR 4, 9 (October 1931): 14; “Icor optaylung,” Der Kamf, 14 April 1933, 3; Minutes of Hamilton icor meetings of 23 November and 8 December 1930; 25 January, 1 March, 29 March, and 21 December 1931; 3 April, 15 May, 11 September, and 23 October 1932; 26 February, 19 November, and 23 November 1933, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” Goldie Vine Papers, 1930–48, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, series 85, Jewish Canadian Papers, F1405, file 085–015, mu 90042.01, ao. “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 4, 11 (December 1931): 12; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 1 (January 1932): 10; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 2 (February 1932): 9; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 3 (March 1932): 12; ad in Der Kamf, 8 January 1932, 5. Montreal’s quota was $3,000 and 1,500 members; Toronto’s, $1,500 and 1,000 members; Winnipeg’s, $1,500 and 200 members; Hamilton’s, $1,000 and 200 members; and Niagara Falls’s, $500 and 100 members. See “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1932): 17; Minutes of Hamilton icor meetings of 6 March, 29 May, 3 April, 5 June 1932, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao.

260

Notes to pages 86–90

57 “Barikht tsum icor plenum, gehaltn in new york dem 27tn marts,” ICOR 5, 4 (April 1932): 7–11; “Protokol fun plenum,” ICOR 5, 5 (May 1932): 8–11. 58 “Fun tsvay veltn,” ICOR 5, 2 (February 1932): 7; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 6 (June 1932): 19; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 5, 10 (November 1932): 21; “Khaver prof. kuntz oyf a groysn tur biz kalifornia,” ICOR 6, 2 (February 1933): 10; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 6, 2 (February 1933): 14; “‘Icor’ froyen-brentsh gegrindet in vinipeg,” Der Kamf, 9 December 1932, 10; Der Kamf, 10 February 1933, 10; “Der vinipeger ‘icor’ froyen-brentsh tut guteh arbet,” Der Kamf, 17 February 1933, 2; Der Kamf, 17 February 1933, 8; “Icor optaylung,” Der Kamf, 14 April 1933, 3. 59 “Edenbridzh sec. vert a tsvayg fun ‘icor,’ Der Kamf, 9 December 1932, 2; Y. Bendoff, “Di yidishe colonye edenbridzh un di ‘icor,’” Der Kamf, 6 January 1933, 3; “A. Farmer,” “Kh. bendoff in edenbridzh,” Der Kamf, 13 January 1933, 2. Though the price of wheat was declining and the colony was struggling in the midst of the Depression, Michael Usiskin, the icor secretary, assured readers of Der Kamf that the icor branch would continue to support icor with its dues. See “In der ‘icor’-baveygung,” Der Kamf, 6 January 1933, 10. Usiskin had come to the settlement from tsarist Russia via London in May 1911. 60 “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 6, 5 (May 1933): 18. 61 “Shabes un zintig rayon icor-konferents,” Der Kamf, 10 February 1933, 1. 62 Y. Bendoff, “Der ‘icor’ in kanada in zayne oyszikhtn,” Der Kamf, 10 February 1933, 3, 10. The Communists in the Labour League were, according to Sam Lipshitz, who assumed its presidency in 1934, “overwhelmingly in the leadership.” Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 132. 63 S. Lapedes, “Unzere masn-organizatsyes,” Der Kamf, 27 January 1933, 3. Lapedes was born in Czestochowa, Poland. 64 “2-teh yerlekhe konferents fun ‘icor’ in kanada,” Der Kamf, 17 February 1933, 10. Kuntz’s speech at the Spadina Concert Hall the evening of 12 February was followed by a banquet for the conference delegates at Rubin’s Restaurant. He had also appeared at a mass meeting and concert in Montreal on 10 February. Toronto icor activists who had attempted to hand out flyers at a meeting of the Zeire Zion and Poale Zion at the Standard Theatre, announcing Kuntz’s lecture, were “brutally beaten,” according to the Toronto icor Committee. “We won’t forget their fascistic-hooliganish methods,” the committee protested. “The working masses can now see their true colours.” “Protest-rezolutsye kegn khuliganishe handlung fun tsyonistn,” Der Kamf, 17 February 1933, 10. 65 “Icor optaylung,” Der Kamf, 14 April 1933, 3. 66 “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 6, 4 (April 1933): 16. Salsberg, born in Lagev, Poland, in 1903, came to Canada with his family in 1911. By the 1920s he had become a Toronto union organizer. He joined the cpc in 1926 and was by the 1930s the leader of its trade union section. After leaving the cp in 1957, he went

Notes to pages 90–3

67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74

75 76 77

78 79 80 81

82

261

into the insurance business. He died in 1998. Gasner, “J.B. Salsberg ‘a Unique Personality,’” 3; Ron Csillag, “Lives Lived: Joseph Baruch Salsberg,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 6 March 1998, A22. Minutes of Hamilton icor meetings of 26 February, 19 November, and 23 November 1933, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao. “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 6, 3 (March 1933): 15; “In der icor baveygung,” ICOR 6, 5 (May 1933): 19. “Toronter fayerung fun 5 yor birobidzhan,” Der Kamf, 7 April 1933, 2. “Icor optaylung,” Der Kamf, 14 April 1933, 3. See, for instance, a 20 November 1933 letter from gezerd, published as “A briv fun ‘gezerd’ tsum kanader ‘icor,’” “Icor” buletin, 5 January 1934, 1. “A por verter nokh’n farshtorbenem khaver noakh levin,” ICOR 3, 7 (December 1930): 13–14; S. Almazov, “Barikht fun general-sekretar tsum ‘icor’ plenum, gehalten in new york 25tn marts, 1934,” ICOR 7, 4 (April 1934): 16; “Dem dritn yuni vert oyfgedekt der monument nokh khaver philip halperin,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 4; Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 130. “Ere dem gefalenem kemfer!” Der Kamf, 8 January 1932, 1. “Alkanader ‘icor’ konferents vert gerufen oyf dem 10tn un 11tn marts,” ICOR 7, 3 (March 1934): 15; Ab. Victor, “Oyfn 3tn tsuzamenkumpft fun alkanader icor sektsye in toronto 10tn un 11tn marts, 1934,” ICOR 7, 6 (June 1934): 40; Minutes of Hamilton icor meeting of 24 August 1932, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao. Moishe Feldman had taught for a year in the Liberty Temple School in Winnipeg in 1932–33. “Barikht fun icor plenum, gehalten gevoren in new york, dem 25tn marts, 1934,” ICOR 7, 5 (May 1934): 21. “In der ‘icor’-baveygung,” Der Kamf, 6 January 1933, 10. Ab. Epstein, Farvos ir must zayn a mitglider in “icor,” 2–3, 10, 13. The Toronto and Winnipeg branches each ordered 300 copies, and the Montreal branch 450 copies, of the pamphlet. Even the small Calgary branch requested forty copies. See “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 13–14. S. Lapedes, “Der ‘icor’ oyf braytere relsn,” “Icor” buletin, 5 January 1934, 1. “Biro-bidzhan farvandlt in yidisher autonomer sovyetisher teritorye,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 1. “Editoryals: A vikhtiker shrit foroys,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 2. Y. Trachimovsky, “Di oyfgabn un oyszikhten fun unzer arbet,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 10. The Kanader Adler was a foe of the Communist movement, even though Hershel Wolofsky, the owner, had two sons, Bill and Sam Walsh, who would become prominent Canadian Communists. See Gonick, A Very Red Life. S. Lapedes, “Di sovyetishe layzung iz di ayntsike,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 9, 15.

262

Notes to pages 94–7

83 V. Sydney, “Kanada muz anerkenen dem sovyetn-farband,” “Icor” buletin, 5 January 1934, 7. 84 “Editoryals: Unzer delegatsye kayn sovyetn-farband,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 2, 14; “Editoryals: Farshnelert di kampanye far der delegatsye in sovyetn-farband!” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 2–3; Sol Ellis, “Biro-Bidjan: The Autonomous Jewish Territory,” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 15–16. “No. 717: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 1st August, 1934,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 1, 1933–1934, 175. 85 Sh. Lipshitz, “Tsu farshtarkern ‘icor’-arbet!” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 4–5. 86 A. Shek, “ ‘Icor’-taytikayt ibern land,” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 12. 87 The letter is deposited among the papers of the Toronto political activist Moray Nesbitt (Abraham Nisnevitz) at the ao, Toronto. See Multicultural History Society of Ontario, series 85, Jewish Canadian Papers, F1405, file 085–015, mu 9003.02, ao. 88 “An Icor-nik,” “Unzer rol-kol,” Kanader “icor” 1, 3 (October 1934): 8. 89 “No. 727: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 10th October, 1934,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 1, 1933–1934, 318; “No. 730: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 31st October, 1934,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 1, 1933–1934, 359–60. 90 “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 13–14; Sh. Lipshitz, “Tsu farshtarkern ‘icor’-arbet!” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 4–5; Y. Trachimovsky, “‘Icor’-arbet in montreal,” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 10; A. Shek, “‘icor’-taytikayt ibern land,” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 12; F. Coodin, “Di arbet fun vinipeger ‘icor,’” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 13; “No. 727: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 10th October, 1934,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 1, 1933–1934, 325–6; Minutes of Hamilton icor meetings of 19 November 1933; 5 February, 18 April, 17 June, and 11 November 1934; 14 February 1935, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao; 1934 handbill announcing Lipshitz’s visit, in the “History of the I.L. Peretz School and the Calgary Hebrew School” binder, Jewish Historical Society of Southern Alberta Archive, Calgary Jewish Centre, Calgary. Bill Walsh helped organize the Victoria Leather Jacket Company strike. Gonick, A Very Red Life, 79. 91 A. Minsker, “Farvos mir hobn opgeshtelt di delegatsye-kampanye,” Kanader “icor” 1, 3 (October 1934): 4. 92 Y.G., “Fun yordn biz amur,” Der Kamf, 9 December 1932, 3.

Notes to pages 98–101

263

93 P. Novick, “Der hitlerism kumt vider tsu di yidishe arbayter,” Der Kamf, 16 December 1932, 5. 94 Y. Bendoff, “Der tsyionism un di yidishe kolonizatsye in sovyetnfarband,” Der Kamf, 27 January 1933, 11 (emphasis in original). 95 Moishe Katz, “Di letste antviklungen in palestina,” “Icor” buletin, 5 January 1934, 6, 8. 96 “1 milyon mark hitler-gelt far der histadrut,” “Icor” buletin, 5 January 1934, 7. 97 “Der historisher bashlus fun der sovyetn-regirung vegn biro-bidzhaner teritorye,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 5, 10. 98 M. Feldman, “Der yidisher fashizm un biro-bidzhan,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 8, 15. 99 Y. Trachimovsky, “Di oyfgabn un oyszikhten fun unzer arbet,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 10. 100 A. Hamer, “Biro-bidzhan – an umglik far di tsyionistn,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 11. 101 “An Icor-nik,” “Troyerike yontevdikayt,” Kanader “icor” 1, 3 (October 1934): 5. 102 A. Minsker, “Nisht kayn ‘konkurents’ nor an onzog,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 15. 103 S. Lapedes, “Di sovyetishe layzung iz di ayntsike,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 9, 15. Lapedes also accused the Jewish garment manufacturers of colluding with the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec to keep French-Canadian women workers backward and exploited, thus driving many into prostitution. 104 Ben Malkin, “The Jew as Fascist: A Letter from Canada,” New Masses 11, 13 (26 June 1934): 20. 105 Sh. Lipshitz, “Der maariv-kanader tur farn ‘icor,’” Kanader “icor” 1, 4 (November 1934): 10. Lipshitz, one of the speakers, “spent several very pleasant days in Edenbridge,” where he sought to win back support from people who had been offended by the earlier visit of Y. Bendoff. An ultra-leftist, Bendoff had refused to don a kipa (skullcap) to speak in the community hall. “It was silly, considering the icor was an organization that sought broad support,” related Lipshitz. Interview, Sam Lipshitz, Toronto, 9 June 1998. 106 “No. 731: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 7th November, 1934,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 1, 1933–1934, 374; Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 124–5. 107 “No. 744: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 13th February, 1935,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 2, 1935, 105. 108 “Deklaratsye fun der 6-ter konvenshon funm icor,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 3–4; S. Almazov, “Di ‘icor’-konvenshon un vos hot zi uns gelernt,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 5–6; “Barikht fun der 6-ter natsyonaler yubili-konvenshon fun dem ‘icor,’”

264

Notes to pages 101–8

8, 3 (March 1935): 7; “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutiv fun ‘icor’ tsu der 6-ter konvenshon,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 8–22; “Konvenshon rezolutsyes,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 24–5; “Vendung fun der natsyonaler ekzekutive tsu ale icor tuer,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 26; “Bagrisung fun kanader ‘icor,’” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 26; “Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union, Inc.,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 23; “No. 746: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 27th February, 1935,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 2, 1935, 129–30. 109 A. Minsker, “Der trayumf fun an ideye,” Kanader “icor” 2, [5?] (January 1935): 3, 13. See also page 14 for a message of greetings from the “poor farmers of Edenbridge.” ICOR

chapter five 1 National Executive of the Canadian “Icor,” Der ershter natsyonaler tsuzamenfor fun dem Kanader “icor,” 2–32; “Deklaratsye fun dem ershtn natsyonaln tsuzamenfor fun dem ‘icor’ in kanada,” ICOR 8, 4 (April 1935): 10–11; “No. 752: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 10th April, 1935,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 2 1935, 226–7. Gina Medem would stay at the Nisnevitz home when in Toronto, according to Nisnevitz’s daughter Florence Vigod. Letter from Florence Vigod to the author, Toronto, 30 August 1996. 2 See the sample card deposited in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – icor, jpl. 3 “Di baveygung fur frayntshaft mit dem sovyetn-farband,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 1; “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 4; Jack Cowan, “‘Icor’ Participates in National Conference of Friendship with the ussr,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 16. Cowan visited the ussr in 1934 and then became national secretary of the fsu. He would become head of the ujpo from 1967 to 1983; he also would edit the Canadian Jewish Outlook (later Outlook), a magazine closely aligned with the ujpo, founded in 1963. 4 Sh. Lipshitz, “Darft der ‘icor” zikh batayliken in kumende federale valn?” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 2, 7. 5 The January 1935 Kanader “Icor” carried an article by the then secretary of the Hamilton branch, Herman Abramovitch, expressing its pleasure at the release from prison of Tim Buck, general secretary of the cpc. H. Abramovitch, “Arum dem ‘icor’ in hamilton,” Kanader “icor” 2 (5?) (January 1935): 13. 6 Trachtenberg, “The Winnipeg Jewish Community in the Inter-War Period, 1919–1939,” 58–9. 7 “No. 800: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 1st April, 1936,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 3, 1936, 146.

Notes to pages 108–13

265

8 Manley, “Communists Love Canada!” 60–3, 68–9, 72–5, 79, 82. 9 “Khaver ab. epstein in khaverte gina medem oyf 2 groyse turs farn ‘icor,’” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 2; “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 4; “Mit unzer brentsh-korespodenten,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 10; “‘icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 13–14; “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 10–11; Minutes of Hamilton icor meetings of 10 March, 27 May, and 15 September 1935, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao; “Peretz Hirshbein in Calgary,” 1935 handbill, in the “History of the I.L. Peretz School and the Calgary Hebrew School” binder, Jewish Historical Society of Southern Alberta Archive, Calgary Jewish Centre, Calgary. 10 H. Abramovitch, “In kamf kegn fashizm un antisemitism,” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 7, 14. 11 H. Abramovitch, “Di virkung fun birobidzhan oyfn yidishn lebn in di kapitalistishe lender,” 8–12, typewritten undated ms (autumn 1936) in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – icor, jpl. 12 H. Abramovitch, “Antisemitism in kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 6–7. Anti-Semitism in Quebec was a recurring theme in icor literature and was the subject of the lead editorial in the English section of Nailebn-New Life in the summer of 1939. “The whole province of Quebec is seething with the poison of fascism,” wrote the magazine, in commenting on anti-Jewish signs posted in the Laurentian resort of Ste Agathe. “The French-Canadian part of Canada has obviously been chosen by the Nazis as a springboard for an attack upon Canadian democracy and as a probable base for an attack upon the United States as well.” These actions were “a blot on the good name of Canada and a challenge to the entire country.” “Anti-Semitism in Canada,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 8 (AugustSeptember 1939): 3 (English section). 13 “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 13–14; “Editoryals: Farvos der zhurnal hot zikh farshpetekt,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 1. 14 “Editoryals: Grayt zikh tsu di november-fayerung!” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 1. 15 H. Abramovitch, “Tsvay veltn,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (October-November 1935): 8–9. 16 “Editoryals: Biro-bidzhan vert regirt in yidish...,” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 1; “An Icor-nik,” “‘Zhargon’ iz gevorn a melikhe shprakh,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 5. 17 “Editoryals: Der tur fun khaver guralnick,” Kanader “icor” 2, 9 (October 1935): 1, 14; “Editoryals: Der ‘icor’ in kanada vert farshtarkt,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 1; “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10

266

18

19 20 21

22

23 24

25

Notes to pages 113–6

(November-December 1935): 10–11; “Jewish Editor Lauds Soviet, Flays Fascism,” Edmonton Journal, 31 October 1935, section 2, 13, 15; “No. 774: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 25th September, 1935,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 2, 1935, 500. It might have been the unfortunate series of events in Edenbridge that prompted an rcmp informer to note that there was “not much interest” in icor in the district. Quoted in Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 124. “Der montrealer ‘icor’ tsum 18-tn yortog fun der oktober revolutsye,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 7; “‘Icor’-taytikayt iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 10–11; “No. 782: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 20th November, 1935,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 2, 1935, 594. Chas. Kuntz, “The Soviet Union Wiped Out National Oppression,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): [16]. “Editoryale notitzn,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 3–4; A. Shek, “Mit di icor-brentshes iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 10–11. A. Shek, “Mit di icor-brentshes iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 10; A. Zailig, “Der icor in vinipeg fartsaykhent groyse dergraykhungen,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 8. B.A. Victor, “The Soviet Union Takes Great Care of the Health of Its People,” Nailebn-New Life 11, 11 (November 1937): 8–9 (English section). The name of the American icor’s English-Yiddish monthly magazine had been changed from ICOR to Nailebn-New Life in May 1935. The quotes from Itzi Victor are in D.I. (Itzi) Victor, “The Life of Dr. Benjamin A. Victor,” Outlook 37, 3 (1 April-15 May 1999): 11–12, 29; and 37, 4 (15 May-30 June 1999): 13–15. Maurice Victor is quoted in Gutkin with Gutkin, The Worst of Times, the Best of Times, 68–71, 79. “Had my father lived to learn what we now know of Soviet tyranny, he would have been deeply disappointed,” Maurice stated. For Victor’s support of the Sholem Aleichem School, see “Bagrisung fun dr b.a. victor un rosa victor,” 36–7. S. Wine, “Oykh in edmonton shlogn hertser mit libe far birobidzhan,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 10. “Editoryale notitzn,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 3–4; A. Shek, “Mit di icor-brentshes iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 10–11; A. Epstein, “‘icor’-arbet in toronto,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 14; M. Speisman, “Unzer idea vortslt zikh ayn tsvishn di yidishe masn,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 10; Toronto icor Youth Club ad in Nailebn-New Life 11, 11 (November 1937): 90 (Yiddish section). A. Shek, “Mit di icor-brentshes iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 11; Harry Price, “Der ‘icor’ in hamilton gayt foroys,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May

Notes to pages 116–22

26 27 28 29

30

31

32 33

34 35

267

1936): 2; Minutes of Hamilton icor meetings of 2 February, 1 March, and 19 April 1936, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao. “Mir shiken akht shrayb-mashinkes anshtot finf,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 3 (emphasis in original). Yosef Blitzshtein, “In kanader ‘icor,’” Nailebn-New Life 11, 4 (April 1937): 20 (Yiddish section). A. Nisnevitz, “A matoneh far birobidzhan,” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 3. A. Shek, “Mit di icor-brentshes iber kanada,” Kanader “icor” 2, 11 (February 1936): 10; Y. Trachimovsky, “Nor nisht kayn falshe oystaytshungen!” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 9–10; “In der icor baveygung in kanada,” Nailebn-New Life 10, 10 (October 1936): 34 (Yiddish section). “Gallacher Says British Labor Is Observing Spain,” Daily Clarion, Toronto, 13 August 1936, 1, 3; “No. 820: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 19th August, 1936,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 3, 1936, 350–1. See also Manley, “A British Communist mp in Canada,” 6–11. See Rome, Canadian Jewish Archives, 102. The Zionist Socialist Council (Poale Zion) of Montreal in 1935 had printed a pamphlet, entitled “From ‘NonPartisanship’ to ‘Fraud’ or Worse,” charging icor with fraud and challenging its leadership to prove it was not a purely Communist organization. It also accused icor of transmitting only 43 percent of the monies collected to Birobidzhan in 1934. See Rome, Canadian Jewish Archives, 71. “Komunistn entferen oyf erklerung fun poale tsyion,” Kanader adler (Montreal), 6 August 1936, 5. Circular letter from Dr M. Eisenberg, secretary, Biro-Bidjan Committee, Montreal, 15 July 1936, in Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zc, file “Biro-Bidjan Committee,” National Archives and Reference Centre, Canadian Jewish Congress, Montreal; undated [March 1936] circular letter from Y. Trachimovsky, secretary, Montreal icor, Montreal, in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – icor, jpl. H. Abramovitch, “Vos toronter yidish klal-tuer zogn vegn birobidzhan,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 11, 14. Israel Zelinsky, icor’s finance secretary, reported on the financial situation of the organization. At the end of April 1936, the total intake of funds, from general revenues and sale of the icor journal, was $1,922.79. Toronto had contributed $349.75, Montreal $340.06, Winnipeg $259.00, Hamilton $110.10, Windsor $108, Vancouver $99.18, Calgary $89.25, Edmonton $83.34, Edenbridge $70.25, Saskatoon $60.50, Cornwall $28.30, Regina $16.00, and the Niagara District $13.97. A. Shek, “Foroys, tsu a brayter folks-organizatsye fun dem ‘icor’ in kanada!” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 5–7 (emphasis in original); National Executive of the Canadian “Icor,” Far der yid. autonomye gegnt, 3–30; “No. 808:

268

36 37 38 39 40 41

42

43 44 45 46 47 48

Notes to pages 122–5

Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organizations and Agitators in Canada, 27th May, 1936,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 3, 1936, 221. “Application for Membership,” Russian Relief Collection, box 2, Birobidzhan folder, Yeshiva University Archives, New York. Letter from James Waterman Wise to Reuben Brainin, New York, 4 April 1934, group 3, box x, folder “Wise, James Waterman,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. “What We Must Do to Face the Future, James Waterman Wise Tells Audience,” Jewish Standard (Toronto), 23 November 1934, 6. Louis Fischer, “Biro-Bidjan – Jewish Republic of the Soviet Union?” Jewish Standard (Toronto) 19 April 1935, 37. Thelma Nurenberg, “Russia Reaches Balance ‘Twixt Revelry, Austerity,” Toronto Daily Star, 13 September 1934, 1, 11. Margaret Gould, “Soviet Builds Autonomous Jewish State in Siberia,” Toronto Daily Star, 19 August 1936, 1, 15. The American icor published a pamphlet in which Marley gave an account of his trip. In it, he compared Birobidzhan favourably to Palestine because in Birobidzhan the number of Jews who could be received “is quite unlimited.” In language reminiscent of early Zionist accounts of Palestine, he wrote that “there is no problem of an existing local population to be dealt with,” whereas in Palestine, “there is a widespread and increasingly bitter opposition on the part of the Arab population.” In Birobidzhan the Soviet government offered settlers free transport and free land, while in Palestine the British were discouraging the immigration of Jewish refugees, he wrote. Indeed, he said he had interviewed a number of Jews who had come from Palestine and “who preferred the conditions of Biro-Bidjan.” See Aman, Biro-Bidjan as I Saw It, 2–15 (emphasis in original). S. Lapedes, “Di sovyetishe layzung iz di ayntsike,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 15; Y. Trachimovsky, “Di oyfgabn un oyszikhten fun unzer arbet,” Kanader “icor” 1, 1 (June 1934): 10. “Der gantser sovyetn-farband boyt di yid. autonomye gegnt in biro-bidzhan,” Kanader “icor” 1, 2 (August 1934): 1. Moishe Katz, “Sheftum iber biro-bidzhan oyslandishe aynvanderung,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 8–9. “An Icor-nik,” “‘Zhargon’ iz gevorn a melikhe shprakh,” Kanader “icor” 2, 10 (November-December 1935): 5. L. Koldoff, “Farvos a folks-delegatsye?” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 4 (emphasis in original). See R. Weinberg, “Purge and Politics in the Periphery,” 13–27. M. Usiskin, “Edenbridzh vet lang gedenken dem bazukh fun khaver h. abramovitch,” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 4; H. Abramovitch, “Ot azoy lebn yidishe farmer in kanada,” Nailebn-New Life 11, 11 (November 1937): 57–8 (Yiddish section).

Notes to pages 125–9

269

49 M. Usiskin, “Di ershte trit fun yidisher farmeray in kanada,” Nailebn-New Life 12, 8 (August-September 1938): 24–5 (Yiddish section). See also his book of memoirs Oksn un motorn: Zikhroynes fun a yidishn farmer-pioner (di geshikhte fun edenbridzh). It was translated from the Yiddish by Marcia Usiskin Basman as Uncle Mike’s Edenbridge: Memoirs of a Jewish Pioneer Farmer. 50 “A briv fun london,” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 4; “A yor taytikayt fun toronter ‘icor,’” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 4. 51 Advertisement in the “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 4. The Soviets had begun to produce films about Birobidzhan as a means of appealing to North American Jews. Birobidjan: The Greater Promise was made in Belarus in 1936. Its plot was based on a group of Jews who, “passionately dreaming of working the Soviet land ... in their new homeland, Birobidzhan,” immigrate to the new Jewish Autonomous Region. See Vaksberg, Stalin against the Jews, 66. The Toronto Daily Star called it “frankly propaganda.” See “Russian Refuge for Jews Seen in Film,” Toronto Daily Star, 17 April 1937, 9. 52 “A nay folk vert geboyren,” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 1 (emphasis in original). 53 H. Abramovitch, “A troym vert farvirklekht,” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 3. 54 “Troyanovsky bagrist ‘icor,’” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 1. 55 “Vikhtike perzaynlekhkaytn vegn birobidzhan,” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 2. 56 “Vinipeg brentsh fun kan. ‘icor,’” “Icor” buletin, April 1937, 2. Shane and her husband Philip were, according to their granddaughter, “hard nosed communists.” See Usiskin, “Winnipeg’s Jewish Women of the Left,” 107. 57 Ads in Nailebn-New Life 11, 11 (November 1937): 64, 88–90, 94 (Yiddish section); F. Golfman, “Montreal ‘icor’-taytikayt in 1937,” Nailebn-New Life 12, 3 (March 1938): 36 (Yiddish section). Israel Hershbain died in 1939. See “Troyerrezolutsyes,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 9 (October 1939): 34 (Yiddish section). The anti-Communist legislation was officially entitled An Act to Protect the Province against Communistic Propaganda. 58 A. Nisnevitz, “Di konferentz fun kanader ‘Icor,’” Nailebn-New Life 11, 11 (November 1937): 58 (Yiddish section). Nisnevitz also contributed poems to the magazine. See his “Hitlerishe flamen,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 4 (April 1939): 17 (Yiddish section); “May 1939,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 8 (August-September 1939): 19 (Yiddish section); and “Mir veln gedenken di ‘saint louis,’” Nailebn-New Life 13, 9 (October 1939): 25 (Yiddish section). His daughter Florence Vigod wrote that her father was a “very charismatic person – he wrote poetry in Yiddish and in English.” Nisnevitz was born in 1877 and died in 1955. Letter from Florence Vigod to the author, Toronto, 30 August 1996. For his autobiography, see Oyf di vegn fun lebn. 59 Typewritten undated ms of 19 December 1937 speech by Herman Abramovitch, 1–30, in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – icor, jpl.

270

Notes to pages 130–3

60 Becker, “Reuben Brainin in montreal,” 106; “In kanader ‘icor,’” Nailebn-New Life 12, 2 (February 1938): 35–36 (Yiddish section); “In kanader ‘icor,’” Nailebn-New Life 12, 3 (March 1938): 35 (Yiddish section); F. Golfman, “Montreal ‘icor’-taytikayt in 1937,” Nailebn-New Life 12, 3 (March 1938): 36 (Yiddish section); Minutes of Hamilton icor meeting of 7 February 1937, “Minute Book of Hamilton Chapter of icor,” ao; typewritten undated ms of 19 December 1937 speech by Herman Abramovitch, 25–6, in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – icor, jpl; flyer printed by the icor Toronto City Committee announcing B.Z. Goldberg’s speech at the Strand Theatre, Toronto, 10 April 1938, in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – icor, jpl. Rosenfeld returned to the United States shortly thereafter. See “S. Rosenfeld Stationed in Chicago for ‘Icor’ Work,” Nailebn-New Life 12, 3 (March 1938): 15 (English section). 61 Rome, Canadian Jewish Archives, 35–6, 43. Eisendrath was a strong opponent of Zionism and had participated in the founding congress of the League against War and Fascism held in Toronto in October 1934. See Penner, Canadian Communism, 134; Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 157–8. 62 See David Rome, ed., Canadian Jewish Archives: The Jewish Congress Archival Record of 1936, 68–9, 74. 63 Gutkin, The Worst of Times, the Best of Times, 75. 64 Rome, Clouds in the Thirties, 541–2, 548–51, 554–8; ykuf, Ershter alveltlekher yidisher kultur-kongres, pariz, 17–21 Sept. 1937: stenografisher barikht, 346, 364; “No. 883: Weekly Summary Report on Revolutionary Organization and Agitation in Canada, Feb. 9, 1938,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 5, 1938–1939, 63–4; “No. 899: Weekly Summary Report on Communist and Fascist Organizations and Agitation in Canada,” RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 5, 1938–1939, 261–2; Cherniak, “Personal Perspective,” 206. chapter six 1 Meisel, “Reuben brainin,” 7–11; Meisel, “Reuben brainin un dr. khaim zhitlovsky,” 147–8. Brainin’s life in Montreal has been chronicled in Rome, Caruso, and Rosen, The Canadian Story of Reuben Brainin. For Brainin’s period as an editor of the Kanader Adler, see Anctil, Through the Eyes of The Eagle. 2 Reuben Brainin, “Opposition Crime against Jewish People,” United Jewish Campaign News 1, 4 (October 1926): [8]. This periodical was published by the New York-based United Jewish Campaign, which was strongly supported by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. 3 J. Brainin, “The ‘Crime’ of Reuben Brainin,” 7; Shapira, “Black Night—White Snow,” 260; Soyer, “Back to the Future,” 134.

Notes to pages 133–7

271

4 Letters from Leon Talmy to Kalmen Marmor, New York, 16 May, 13 June 1928, 8 January 1929; letter from David Abrahams of the icor Lecture Commission, New York, 21 May 1928, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929,” yivo. 5 J. Brainin, “The ‘Crime’ of Reuben Brainin,” 8–9. 6 Letter from Ab. Epstein to Reuben Brainin, New York, 20 December 1926, group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 7 icor, Jewish Colonization in Soviet Russia, [3]. 8 Letter from Ab. Epstein to Reuben Brainin, New York, 12 December 1927, group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. Letter from Professor Charles Kuntz and Benjamin Brown to Reuben Brainin, New York, 19 December 1927, group 3, box v, folder “Kuntz, Charles,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 9 “Icor-taytikayt ibern land,” ICOR 1, 2 (July 1928): 23. 10 “Dos yidishe lebn un di kolonizatsye in sovyet rusland,” Der springfield “icor” buletin 1, 1, 30 April 1928, [1–2]; “Tsu ale organizatsyes un komitaytn fun ‘icor,’” 3 April 1928, 1–2, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl; pamphlet announcing the Chicago concert at the Central Park Theatre on Roosevelt Rd, in Group 2, box b, folder 18, “Brainin and the ussr – Lecture Tours (Addresses, Posters),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl; letter from Ab. Epstein to Reuben Brainin, New York, 31 March 1928, in group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 11 “Barikht farn period fun 1 yanuar biz 20tn yuni, 1928: Linyes fun der arbet,” n.d., 5, in group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 12 The article is in the Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box 2, “Brainin, Reuben,” file 3, “Brainin, Reuben – English Press Clippings and Various,” narc. 13 In der ‘icor’ baveygung,” ICOR 1, 4 (December 1928): 14–16; “Plenare zitsung fun der nats. ekzekutive,” ICOR 2, 2 (February-March 1929): 14; letter from Mark Aberson to Leon Talmy, Los Angeles, 30 November 1928, group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 14 Pamphlet advertising the visit, in group 2, box b., folder 18, “Brainin and the ussr – Lecture Tours (Addresses, Posters),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 15 Reuben Brainin, “Ayndrukn fun a tur far’n ‘icor,’” ICOR 2, 1 (January 1929): 5–6. 16 “Plenare zitsung fun der nats. ekzekutive,” ICOR 2, 2 (February-March 1929): 16. 17 Letter from Moishe Backall to Reuben Brainin, Chicago, 14 July 1928, Group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl.

272

Notes to pages 137–44

18 Letter from Leon Talmy to Reuben Brainin, New York, 1 June 1928, in Group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 19 J. Brainin, “The ‘Crime’ of Reuben Brainin,” 9. 20 Yungerfeld, “Reuben brainin un khaim nakhman bialik un zayer briv-oystoysh,” 133–5; Marmor, “Reuben brainin (zikhroynes),” 95–7. 21 “Di rayde fun reuben brainin oyf dem farayniktn plenum fun ‘gezerd’ in moskve,” ICOR 3, 4 (September 1930): 10–11. 22 Dr Rachman Rochlin, “Brainin Sees Zionism at Standstill,” Canadian Jewish Review (Montreal and Toronto), 15 April 1932, 10–12. 23 Pierre van Paassen, “More than a Humanist – A Pioneer,” Jewish Times (Baltimore), 25 March 1932, 3. 24 M.Z. Frank, “A Prince in Exile,” Jewish Standard (Toronto), 7, 11 (November 1936): 4; and 7, 12 (December 1936): 19, 34. 25 “The Sins of the Communists,” Jewish Standard (Toronto), 7, 12 (December 1936): 3. 26 Actually, ill health prevented him from speaking; Shloime Almazov read his greetings. See R. Brainin, “Bagrisung fun khaver brainin bay der natsyonaler konvenshon fun icor in marts, 1935,” 13; “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutiv fun ‘icor’ tsu der 6-ter konvenshon,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 20–1. 27 “Derklerung fun reuben brainin bay mishpet ibern forverts,” Kanader “icor” 2, 8 (June 1935): 2. 28 Rome et al., The Canadian Story of Reuben Brainin, 113–15. 29 “Der historisher bashlus fun der sovyetn regirung tsu farvandlen biro-bidzhan in a yidisher autonomye teritorye,” ICOR 7, 6 (June 1934): 9–10; Reuben Brainin, “Der yontev fun biro-bidzhan,” ICOR 7, 6 (June 1934): 15–16. 30 Reuben Brainin, “A Miracle in Russia,” Jewish Standard (Toronto), 1 June 1934, 16–17; Reuben Brainin, “Why the Strange Silence?” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 32–4. 31 Meisel, “Reuben brainin un dr. khaim zhitlovsky,” 151. 32 Reuben Brainin, “Yidishe pyonern in biro-bidzhan boyen far zikh a gliklekhe tsukunft,” iCOR 7, 8 (September 1934): 4. 33 Reuben Brainin, “Biro-bidzhan,” Nailebn-New Life 9, 2 (June 1935): 12. 34 R. Brainin, “A yor biro-bidzhaner autonomye,” 16. 35 Reuben Brainin, “Hot der natsyonaler yid a tsukunft in sovyetn-farband?” Der Tog (New York), 2 February 1938, 7. 36 R. Brainin, “Bagrisung fun reuben brainin bay der fayerung fun tsvantsig yor sovyetn-farband in hipodrom, new york, in 1937,” 18–19. 37 “Reuben Brainin shraybt tsum kanader ‘icor,’” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 2; “We Should be Happy and Proud to Become Part of a Country Which Stands as the Torchbearer of a New and Better World for All Men – Reuben Brainin,” Kanader “icor” 3, 1 (May 1936): 24. 38 Ambijan, “Prominent Leaders Appraise Birobidjan,” 36.

Notes to pages 144–6

273

39 Letter of invitation from Ab. Epstein, New York, 15 May 1937, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 545, “Icor-korespondents, 1930–1937,” yivo. For more on Artef, see Nahshon, Yiddish Proletarian Theatre; for Proletpen, see Glaser and Weintraub, Proletpen. Proletpen supplied the literary pages for the various icor publications. It also ran its own publishing house and literary journal, Der Signal. It was phased out with the founding of the ykuf. See Bat-Ami Zucker, “American Jewish Communists and Jewish Culture in the 1930s,” 178. 40 Letter from H.M. Caiserman to Reuben Brainin, New York, 28 February 1937. Brainin responded with a letter of thanks to Caiserman on 12 March 1937. See Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box 1, “Brainin, Reuben,” file 3, “Brainin, Reuben – Correspondence,” narc. 41 A.B. Bennett, “Reuben Brainin – An Appreciation,” Jewish Standard (Toronto), 8, 1 (April 1937): 5, 42. 42 “Reuben Brainin and his Critics,” Canadian Jewish Review (Montreal and Toronto), 24 September 1937, 4–5. 43 Letter from Reuben Brainin to Kalmen Marmor, Montreal, 14 June 1937, group 5, box a, folder 1, “R. Brainin – Outgoing Correspondence (Chronological),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 44 Letter from Reuben Brainin to Paul Y. Borovoy, Consulate General of the ussr, New York, 14 December 1937, group 5, box a, folder 1, “R. Brainin – Outgoing Correspondence (Chronological),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 45 Morton Deutsch, “Reuben Brainin at 75 Looks to Biro-Bidjan for the Future of Jewish Culture,” Nailebn-New Life 11, 4 (April 1937): 6–7 (English section). 46 Chas. Kuntz, “Reuben Brainin – A Son of the People,” Nailebn-New Life 11, 4 (April 1937): 7–8 (English section). Brainin in turn had acknowledged that it had been his “old friend, Professor Kuntz” who “opened [his] eyes to the truth” regarding Soviet Russia. See “Barikht fun der natsyonaler ekzekutiv fun ‘icor’ tsu der 6-ter konvenshon,” ICOR 8, 3 (March 1935): 20–1. 47 “Mir grisn khaver Reuben Brainin tsu zayn 75tn geburts-tog,” Nailebn-New Life 11, 4 (April 1937): 3 (Yiddish section). 48 “Message by Reuben Brainin,” Nailebn-New Life 12, 11 (December 1938): 9 (English section). 49 Letter from Paul Novick to Reuben Brainin, New York, 22 March 1937, group 3, box n, folder “P. Novick,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 50 Letter from Reuben Brainin to Ab. Epstein, New York, 29 April 1937, group 5, box a, folder 1, “R. Brainin – Outgoing Correspondence (Chronological),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 51 Letter from Reuben Brainin to Shloime Almazov, New York, 8 April 1938, group 5, box a, folder 1, “R. Brainin – Outgoing Correspondence (Chronological),” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl.

274

Notes to pages 146–8

52 Letter from Shloime Almazov to Reuben Brainin, New York, 21 April 1938, group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. For Brainin’s speech, see R. Brainin, “Der tsukunft fun der mentshhayt iz eng farbunden mit dem derfolg fun sovyetn-farband,” 21–3. 53 “Bagrisungen tsu ‘nailebn’ un sh. almazov,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 4 (April 1939): 31 (Yiddish section). 54 See, for example, the flyers advertising a 6 March 1938 concert, “10 yor birobidzhan: Grandyezer kontsert arandzhirt fun reuben brainin icor, jamaica” and “Grand Concert in Celebration of 10 Years Biro-Bidjan” in group 2, box b, folder 28, “Reuben Brainin icor of Jamaica Branch (Long Island) – Flyers,” Reuben Brainin Collection, jpl. 55 “A historishe erklerung fun reuben brainin tsum ‘icor,’” Nailebn-New Life 13, 9 (October 1939): 26–7 (Yiddish section); “Historic Statement by Revered Veteran of Jewish Writers on the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 10 (November 1939): 17 (English section). Brainin was by now very near death; his son Joseph, a member of the Communist Party usa, may have had a part in releasing this statement. Almazov later recalled that it was Brainin’s secretary, Devora Kofsky Rosenfeld, who dictated the statement to the icor office in New York. See S. Almazov, Mit dem vort tsum folk, 302. 56 “Barikht fun ‘icor’-plenum opgehaltn zuntig, dem 15tn oktober,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 10 (November 1939): 31 (Yiddish section). 57 “Jewish Writer, R. Brainin Dies,” Montreal Daily Star, 30 November 1939, 24. 58 “Reuben Brainin, 77, Noted Writer, Dies,” New York Times, 1 December 1939, 23. See also the obituary “Reuben brainin geshtorbn,” Kanader adler (Montreal), 1 December 1939, 1–2; and the article by the noted historian of Canadian Jewry, B.G. Sack, “Reuben brainin: A por verter tsu zayn farlust,” Kanader adler (Montreal), 1 December 1939, 4. 59 “Reuben brainin – toyt,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 11 (December 1939): 4–5 (Yiddish section); “We Mourn the Death of Reuben Brainin,” Nailebn-New Life 13, 11 (December 1939): 3–4 (English section). 60 “Levaye fun reuben brainin ruft aroys dem grestn interes in der yidisher montreal,” Kanader adler (Montreal), 4 December 1939, 1–2; Becker, “Reuben Brainin in Montreal,” 106. 61 Yacov Milch, “Der umfargeslekher reuben brainin,” Nailebn-New Life 14, 3 (April 1940): 15–17 (Yiddish section) (emphasis in original); “1,000 mentshn kumen ern ondenk fun reuben brainin,” Nailebn-New Life 14, 3 (April 1940): 28 (Yiddish section); Benjamin Schecter, “Reuben Brainin was a Truly Great Man,” NailebnNew Life 14, 3 (April 1940): 6–7 (English section); “In Honor of the Late Reuben Brainin,” Nailebn-New Life 14, 3 (April 1940): 11 (English section). 62 Milch, “Der gilgul fun a neshomeh,” 102.

Notes to pages 149–53

275

63 “In der icor baveygung,” Nailben-New Life 14, 3 (April 1940): 27 (Yiddish section). 64 “Der ershter yortsayt fun reuben brainin,” Nailben-New Life 14, 10 (December 1940): 4 (Yiddish section). 65 I.B. Bailin, “Reuben brainin – der zukher fun emes, der humanist un yid,” Nailebn-New Life 17, 1 (January 1943): 4 (Yiddish section) (emphasis in original). 66 S. Almazov, Mit dem vort tsum folk, 50–1. 67 Sholem Shtern, “Der reuben brainin tsimer,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 28 November 1940, 4. 68 M. Feldman, “Der folgreykher bazukh fun sholem shtern in toronto,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 27 February 1941, 6. 69 Sholem Shtern, “Di yidishe folks-masn fargesn nisht reuben brainin,” Vochenblat, 3 March 1949, 7. See also Sholem Shtern, “Tsum tseyntn yortsayt fun reuben brainin,” Vochenblat, 19 January 1950, 7; Sholem Shtern, “Ba dem kayver fun reuben brainin,” Vochenblat, 12 October 1950, 3. 70 “The ‘Trial’ of Reuben Brainin,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 26 January 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 71 J. Brainin, “The ‘Crime’ of Reuben Brainin,” 7, 9; “The Ambijan Annual National Dinner, 1949,” Ambijan Bulletin 9, 1 (January-February 1950): 13; Ber Green, “Ambijan Pledges Closer Ties with Soviet Jewry,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 22 December 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat.

chapter seven 1 There is an enormous literature on the pact. See, for example, Roberts, The Unholy Alliance. 2 Paris, Jews, 186–7. 3 Harry Guralnick was charged under the act in March 1941, as was his wife, Annie Buller. Guralnick was released after serving a few months but was temporarily re-detained in June 1942. See “Kh. guralnick, buvuster yidisher anti-fashist internirt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 25 June 1942, 1, 8. See also the article by Guralnick’s lawyer, Joseph Zuken, “Harry guralnicks internirung iz a farletstung fun gezets,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 2 July 1942, 5. Buller received a two-year sentence for distributing illegal literature. See “Annie Buller farmishpit tsu 2-yor turme,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 22 May 1941, 1. For more on Buller, see Watson, She Was Never Afraid. Buller was released in March 1942. 4 “Derklerung fun der redaktsye,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 31 October 1940, 1, 8. 5 “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 31 October 1940, 4 (emphasis in original). 6 Ibid., 7 November 1940, 4. 7 Ibid., 21 November 1940, 4.

276

Notes to pages 153–5

8 Ibid., 28 November 1940, 4. 9 Ibid., 19 December 1940, 4. There was even an item about a street in that city being renamed for the famed Yiddish writer I.L. Peretz. See “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 January 1941, 4. 10 “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 March 1941, 4. 11 Ibid., 6 March 1941, 4. In reality, most of the yivo archives and library were moved to New York in 1940. 12 “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 December 1940, 4. 13 R. Davidson, “Bialystok amol un haynt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 3 July 1941, 5 14 “A. Leyener,” “A yidisher mayor in vilna,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 June 1941, 3. 15 “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 31 October 1940, 4; “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 28 November 1940, 4. 16 “Fakh-shulen veln bazorgen biro-bidzhan mit nayeh boy-arbayter,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 19 December 1940, 1. 17 “Di lage fun di yidn in farsheydene lender,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 16 January 1941, 4. 18 Ibid., 27 February 1941, 1, 6. 19 Ibid., 28 November 1940, 4. 20 “Entfers tsu layener,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 8 May 1941, 2. 21 Hershl Ornshtein, “Der emes kumt aroys vi boyml ofn vaser,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 6 February 1941, 3; “Maynungen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 June 1941, 4. 22 Max Werner, “Di kraft fun der royter armey,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 22 May 1941, 2. 23 Moishe Kasoff, “Di diplomatishe tragedye fun yor 1939,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 3 July 1941, 4, 6. 24 M. Shifman, ““Di rikhtikayt fun der sovyetn politik vert its bashtaytikt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 10 July 1941, 4, 6. 25 Sholem Shtern, “Di gantse velt vet helfn,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 3 July 1941, 6–7. 26 Ibid., “In shvere teyg,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 17 July 1941, 5. 27 “‘Mir velen opvishn di fashistishe barbaren fun der erd’ deklarn di sovyetishe arbayter,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 June 1941, 1. 28 “Der rukn-bayn un der gayst fun der natsisher krig-mashin iz gebrokhen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 1, 8. 29 “Oyf di nazis in poylen tsitert di hoyt” [lit: “The skin is trembling on the Nazis in Poland”], Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 4.

Notes to pages 155–6

277

30 “In nayem yor mit frishen mut foroys tsum zig,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 1 January 1942, 4, 7. 31 “Di ayzen-feste aynikayt fun di sovyetishe felker,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 8 January 1942, 8. 32 “Nor in gayst fun ofensive ken men gevinen di milkhome,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 8 January 1942, 4; “Demoralizatsyeh khapt arum di fashistishe armayen oyf aleh fronten,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 15 January 1942, 1, 7. 33 For the history of this important wartime organization, see Redlich, Propaganda and Nationalism in Wartime Russia; and Redlich, War, Holocaust and Stalinism. 34 See “Radio-ruf fun sovyet-yidishe shrayber tsint on a fayer in hartsen fun yedn yidn [sic] iber der gorer velt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 4 September 1941, 1, 6. 35 “Shnele un baldike aktsye – a lebns noytvendikayt tsu farnikhten hitlerism,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 10 July 1941, 1. 36 “Anti-hitler masn-miting in maple leaf gardens,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat Kanader, 3 July 1941, 8; S. Laserson, “Masn-miting in toronto ruft tsu-hilf di sovyetn kegn hitlerism,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 10 July 1941, 2–3. Stefansson supported many American pro-Soviet organizations during his lengthy career and was a prominent member of Ambijan. He became a sponsor of the National Council of AmericanSoviet Friendship and of the National Council of Canadian-Soviet Friendship during the war. See Srebrnik, “An Idiosyncratic Fellow-Traveller,” 37–53. 37 A. Kravitz, “Montrealer masn fodern hilf tsum sov. farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 31 July 1941, 5. 38 “Labor lig nemt unter aktsyeh far alirteh armeyen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 October 1941, 1; “Farzamlung in viktori teater – a rizikeh demonstratsyeh far faraynikteh milkhomeh-aktsyes,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 6 November 1941, 1, 8. Shek had become secretary in 1937 and continued in the post when it was transformed into the United Jewish People’s Order in 1944. Shek was born in Lokacz, Ukraine, in 1901 and, after a period during which he lived in Palestine, came to Canada in 1934. For a brief biography, see R. Usiskin, “Unzer chaver sol shek 1901–1989,” 21. 39 “Shtits di kampanye fun royten krayz far di sovyetishe kemfer,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 4 December 1941, 1. 40 M. Feldman, “Der labor lig hot zikh derhoyben tsu di foderungen fun der tsayt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 8 January 1942, 5. 41 Biderman, A Life on the Jewish Left, 60. 42 More than $700 was collected. See L. Basman, “Lomir helfn leshn dem fayer—itst iz di tsayt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 6 November 1941, 4; “Komitayt tsu hilf sovyetn gegrundet in vinipeg,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 6 November 1941, 5; “Yidishe masn ibern land gibn mitn gantsen hertsn far miditsinisher hilf tsu alierteh,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 November 1941, 1, 8.

278

Notes to pages 156–7

43 After serving twenty years on the board, Zuken would be elected a member of city council for another twenty-two. His brother Bill Ross (born Cecil Zuken), who would lead the Manitoba cp from 1948 to 1981, had already served as a school board trustee for the ward from 1936 until he was forced underground in 1940 and was stripped of his position. The two brothers had come to Canada with their mother in 1914, having been preceded by their father two years earlier. Ross joined the cpc in 1929, but Zuken was not formally a member until 1943, when the banned Communist Party re-emerged as the Labor-Progressive Party (lpp). Zuken, born in 1912, attended the I.L. Peretz School as a child. He died in 1986, and his brother William Ross died two years later. See A. Ross, “Personal Perspective on William C. Ross,” 210–13; Smith, Joe Zuken, Citizen and Socialist, 8, 36, 82, 97, 103–5. 44 Muraskin, Let Justice Well Up Like Water, 87. 45 The 17 November meeting brought in $3,200. See L. Basman, “Vinipeger masn rufen zikh varem op far meditsinisher hilf tsum sovyeten-farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 27 November 1941, 3, 8; “Yidishe organizatsyes trogn-tsu zayre bayshtayerungen tsu-hilf dem sovyetn-farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 8 January 1942, 2; L. Basman, “Vinipeg boyt faraynikte yidishe folks-baveygung far a zikhern zig fun de alayz,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 3. A bazaar organized by the Winnipeg Council for Allied Victory netted $5,000. See Fred Donner, “Thank You!” in Carnival and Bazaar to Aid the Civilian Population of the Soviet Union, pamphlet advertising the event, 8, Donner book box, Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, Winnipeg. 46 Jewish People’s Committee, Yidn, tsum gever!, 3–4. 47 L. Basman, “Di klayder-kampanye far sovyetn-farband vert a rizike folks-baveygung fun aleh shikhten fun der vinipeger bafelkerung,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 25 June 1942, 6. 48 Ibid., “Klayder-zamlung kampanyeh farn sovyetn-farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 23 July 1942, 4, 6. 49 The meeting raised $1,200 to be sent to the Soviet Union; another $600 was raised at a luncheon. See “Groyser folks-miting farn royten krayz in hamilton,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 5 February 1942, 5; “Hamiltoner yidn shafn iber tsvay toyzent dolar tsuhilf sovyetishe kemfer,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 12 February 1942, 1; A. Hamiltoner, “Hamiltoner yidn tsaykhenen zikh oys in kampanye fun roytn krayz,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 19 February 1942, 6. 50 Letter from M. Usiskin to Joshua Gershman, Vancouver, 2 February 1943, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 2a, ao. 51 A mass meeting in December 1941 raised more than $2,000; by late March 1942 the Windsor community had raised some $3,000. See “Vindsorer yidn shafn iber tsvay toyzent dolar far hilf tsu sovyetn,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 18 December

Notes to pages 157–60

52 53

54 55 56

57

58

59

60 61 62

279

1941, 8; S. Leiserson, “Progresive yidn in der provints,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 March 1942, 2. Letter to the editor from M. Usiskin, Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 2. Sh. L., “Di groyse badaytung fun der viktori baveygung in montreal,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 28 May 1942, 4. Lunan was arrested after the war in the wake of the revelations that a Communist spy ring was providing information to the Soviet embassy in Ottawa. See Lunan, The Making of a Spy. “Briv un barikhten,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 2 July 1942, 6. “Shtitz dem royten krayz!” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 27 November 1941, 4. “Royter-krayz kampanye farn sovyetn-farband krigt brayten opruf tsvishn ale shikhten,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 25 December 1941, 2, 5; A. Kravitz, “A historisher farzamlung,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 1 January 1942, 2. See also the very favourable review of Davies’ book by P. Nayer, “Ambasador davies’ bukh—a groyse politishe sensatsyeh,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 12 February 1942, 5; P. Nayer, “S’iz gekumen der tog ven di velt hot zikh ongehoybn dervisn dem emes vegn dem sovyetish-daytshen opmakh,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 19 February 1942, 5. “Carnival and Bazaar,” 2, 4–5, 8; letter from Lt.-Col. H.P. Rocke, Department of National Defence, to Fred Donner, Winnipeg, 24 February 1944, Donner book box, Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, Winnipeg. Donner, who came to Winnipeg in 1903 from Nikolayev, in Russia, had been one of the activists in the League Against Fascism and Anti-Semitism before the war. He became a vice-chair of the ujpo after its formation in 1944. During the war he was a member of the national council of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Jewish People’s Committee, Dos goldene bukh fun di yidn in vinipeg tsu di heldishe felker in sovyetn-farband/Zolotaia kniga ot imeni Evreev goroda Vinnipega k Geroicheskim Narodam Sovetskogo Soiuza, Donner book box, catalogue no. jhs31, Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, Winnipeg. The book was deposited by Eileen Donner Sever, the granddaughter of Fred Donner. I wish to thank the Centre’s archivist, Irma Penn, for bringing this to my attention. Labl Basman, “Vegn zikh alayn un vegn mayn dor,” typewritten ms, 21 March 1971, in Labl Basman Papers, 1903–74, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Canadian Jewish papers, f1405, file 085–033, mu 9043.03, msr 8430, ao. Sholem Shtern, “Bagaysterung un mayshim,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 8 January 1942, 7 (emphasis in original). “Iber helft fun kvota geshafn in viktori holveh kampanye,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 1. Montreal Jewish Section, Canadian Aid to Russia Fund, Our Answer to Soviet Jewry, 1–6 (English section).

280

Notes to pages 160–3

63 Louis Fitch, “Unzere flikhtn tsum sovyetn-farband alts kanader birger un alts yidn,” in Our Answer to Soviet Jewry, 1 (Yiddish section). 64 Charles Rosen, “Montrealer yidn hobn gegebn zayer virdign entfer,” in Our Answer to Soviet Jewry, 4, 6 (Yiddish section). 65 Israel Rabinovitch, “S’iz keday geven,” in Our Answer to Soviet Jewry, 2, 6 (Yiddish section). 66 H. Wolofsky, “Ofn brivl,” in Our Answer to Soviet Jewry, 3 (Yiddish section). 67 “Hilfs farayn hot shaft iber zeks toyznt dolar farn roytn krayz,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 1 April 1943, 2. 68 Y. Elban, “Di finfteh plenare sesye fun yidishn kongres,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 22 January 1942, 3, 7. 69 Letter from L. Rosenberg to Margaret Chunn, Winnipeg, 6 November 1942, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 1, ao. 70 “Derklerung fun kanader yidisher kongres vegn hilf-konferents,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 4 February 1943, 7. 71 See the letter from A.B. Bennett, president of the Central Division of Congress, to Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 29 January 1945, confirming that at the cjc’s sixth plenary session, held in Toronto from 13 to 16 January 1945, Gershman had been elected a member of the Dominion Council of the Congress; and the letter from Bennett to Gershman, Toronto, 18 October 1945, informing him that he had been elected a member of the Ontario provincial executive, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, files 5 and 7, ao. Gershman was re-elected to the Dominion Council as late as 1949. Letter from Samuel Bronfman to Joshua Gershman, Montreal, 21 November 1949, Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 7, ao. 72 “Der ykuf in kanada in iber di velt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 23 January 1941, 2; Noznitsky, “Zikhroynes,” 20–1. 73 “Dr Roza Bronstein bu vinipeger ykuf,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 20 March 1941, 1; “Kultur-arbet iber kanada,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 1 May 1941, 6. Dr Bronstein also went to Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver to publicize the work of the ykuf. “Dr R. bronstein tsurik fun der vest,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 10 April 1941, 1. 74 Sholem Shtern, “Der yidisher layener un der zhurnal ‘yidishe kultur,’” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 23 January 1941, 5–6. 75 M.F., “Tsentraler ykuf-komiteyt gegrunden in kanada,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 October 1941, 7. 76 “Al-kanadishe ykuf konferents fraytik, shabes un zuntik in montreal,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 15 January 1942, 1; “A grus der kanader ykuf konferents,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 15 January 1942, 4; Sholem Shtern, “A vikhtiker kultur tsuzumenfor,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 15 January 1942, 4–5; “Der ershte

Notes to pages 163–7

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

84

85

86 87 88 89 90

281

alkanadishe ykuf-konferents,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 29 January 1942, 6; “Premier king entfert oyf milkhome-rezolutsye fun kanader-ykuf konferents,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 6. M. Feldman, “Fun bashlusn tsu arbet,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 12 February 1942, 8; 19 February 1942, 5. L. Basman, “Vinipeg boyt faraynikte yidishe folks-baveygung far a zikhern zig fun de alayz,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 February 1942, 3. L. Basman, “Oyfn kultur front in vinipeg,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 28 May 1942, 2; L. Basman, “Dr b.a. victor,” Kanader Yidishe Vochenblat, 4 June 1942, 6. “Shtot-konferents fun montrealer ykuf hayntiken zuntik,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 5 March 1942, 1. “Montrealer ykuf konferents nemt on vikhtike bashlusen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 4 June 1942, 6. Sholem Shtern, “Kalmen marmor,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 4 June 1942, 3. Letter from Nakhman Meisel to the editorial board of the Kanader Yidishe Vochenblat, New York, 30 November 1942, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 1, ao. “Fun yidishn lebn in vindsor,” Vochenblat, 2 March 1944, 3. Weinper, born in Trisk, Ukraine, in 1892, came to New York in 1920. icor published his book Birobidzhan in 1935. His last visit to western Canada came a year before his death in 1957. See Sholem Shtern, “Z. Weinper–Tsu zayn 15tn yortsayt,” 7–8. “Vos tut zikh in kanader ykuf,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 April 1942, 7; “Briv un barikhten fun ykuf-tuer”; “Vos tut zikh in der kanader ykuf”; M.F., “Vos der ykuf ken un darf bald ton”; M. Feldman, “Kanader ykuf: Milkhome un kultur”; Sholem Shtern, “Farvos an ykuf optaylung in ‘vochenblat,’” all in Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 28 May 1942, 2, 6–7; “Briv un barikhten,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 18 June 1942, 2. Khaim Zhitlovsky, “Der gebot fun der tsayt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 28 August 1941, 5 (emphasis in original). Sholem Shtern, “Dr khaim zhitlovsky,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 23 April 1942, 3. Yehudith Stein, “Dr khaim zhitlovsky’s yubili-fayerung,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 14 May 1942, 6. Meisel, “Di letste rayzeh fun dr khaim zhitlovsky,” 5. L. Pearlman, “Dr zhitlovsky’s letste tayg in Calgary,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 5; L. Basman, “Dr kh. zhitlovsky in vinipeg,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 6. See the photograph of Zhitlovsky lying in his coffin in the Montreal train station on his way to New York, surrounded by mourners, in Meisel, “Di letste rayzeh fun dr khaim zhitlovsky,” 5. For more on Pearlman, who was born in Propoisk, Belarus, came to Canada as an eight-year-old, and died in 1971, see Trudy Cowan’s interview of his wife: Cowan, “Yiddishkeit and Music,” 1–3.

282

Notes to pages 167–70

91 “Zhitlovsky memorial-miting, zuntik, 23-tn may, in viktori teater, b.z. goldberg, redner,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 1. 92 Letter from A.B. Bennett to Dr Rose Bronstein, Toronto, 18 May 1943, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 2a, ao. 93 Life and Death of a Great Jew, pamphlet in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–4, box 71, file 1, ao. 94 “Dr khaim zhitlovsky,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 4. 95 Sholem Shtern, “In tifn troyer,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 5, 7. 96 “Dr. Chaim Zhitlovsky Dies Suddenly in Canada,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 13 May 1943, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 97 Dr Khaim Zhitlovsky, “Biro-bidzhan un erets-yisroel,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 5 (emphasis in original). 98 Switzer, “Chaim Zhitlovsky, Revered Yiddish Philosopher, His Canadian Connections,” 24–5. For a brief appraisal of Zhitlovsky’s ideological role in North America, see Rosenfeld, “Zhitlovsky,” 78–89. See also Goldsmith, Architects of Yiddishism at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, 161–81; Frankel, Prophecy and Politics, 258–87; D.H. Weinberg, Between Tradition and Modernity, 83–144; and Michels, A Fire in Their Hearts, 125–78. 99 I. Medres, “Dr khaim zhitlovskys letste tayg in kanada,” Ainikeit 1, 5 (15 May 1944): 19. Edited by B.Z. Goldberg, this was the organ of the American Committee of Jewish Writers, Artists and Scientists. 100 Smith, Joe Zuken, 17–18. 101 “Yidn in varshever geto kemfn heldish kegn natsisheh retsikhim,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 6. 102 “Arabishe kvizlings faraten zayre felker,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 5 February 1942, 2. 103 H. Abramovitch, “‘Vilt ir helfn alays, helft rusland,’ zogt tsyionistisher firer ab. goldberg,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 12 March 1942, 1, 3. 104 “Yidish-arabishe farhandlungen in palestine,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 19 March 1942, 4. 105 “Faraynikte yidishe folks hilf konferents shtelt nisht op di hilf-arbet in di zumer-khedoshim,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 2 July 1942, 8. 106 Gina Medem, “Di felker fun vaytn mizrakh un di yidn,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 25 June 1942, 5. 107 “15 yor biro-bidzhan,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 1 April 1943, 4. The same issue carried a feature article on Birobidzhan Jewish deputies elected to the Supreme Soviet of the ussr. See B. Levin and S. Persov, “Di deputaten fun biro-bidzhan,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 1 April 1943, 6. The Vochenblat continued to print articles about jar throughout the war. See, for example, a piece about Yiddish

Notes to pages 170–2

108

109 110 111 112 113 114

115 116

117 118

119

120

121

283

theatre in Birobidzhan in “Yidishe nayes fun ratn-farband,” Vochenblat, 9 September 1943, 3. “B.Z. goldberg bay biro-bidzhan fayerung, fraytik, may 7, in montreal,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 29 April 1943, 1; “Montrealer yidn fayern fuftsen yor biro-bidzhan,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 13 May 1943, 2. Nakhman Meisel, “Di debates vegn yidishe nokh-milkhome foderungen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 16 April 1942, 3. Sam Carr, “Di yidishe masn un der ershter may,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 29 April 1943, 5. See Bialystok, Delayed Impact, 15. Henryk Diamant, “In poylen vert opgevisht der antisemitism,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 26 March 1942, 4. “Daytshen zaynen zikher, az zay farliren di milkhome,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 18 June 1942, 2. “Dr zhitlovsky in montreal dem 25-tn biz 27-tn april,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 16 April 1942, 1; Nakhman Meisel, “Di debates vegn yidishe nokh-milkhome foderungen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 16 April 1942, 3. Hershel Ornstein, “Zayer blut shrayt tsu unz,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 16 April 1942, 2. Sam Brown, “Kemat ale yidn in vitebsk, grodno, un andere nazi-okupirteh shtet dermordet. Gestapo firt durkh shreklekhe pogrom in varsheh,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 July 1942, 1, 6; “Blutekeh faktn un blutekeh tsifern,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 July 1942, 5. Sh. Lipshitz, “Shoyn tsayt oyfgebn ayer shaydlekhe politik,” Vochenblat, 21 October 1943, 4. See the article emanating from the jafc about heroic Soviet Jewish partisans saving Jews from death at the hands of “Hitler’s beasts.” Shakhno Epstein, “Nazis tsvingen altn shames tsu groben zikh a khayver, ober khaim mit zayne partizaner kumen on punkt in tsayt,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 19 March 1942, 5. B.A., “Sovyetishe yidn geyen mit frayd in der royter armey,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 17 July 1941, 2, 6; L. Singer, “Der sotsyaler vidergeburt fun di yidn in sovyetn-farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 24 July 1941, 5; Gina Medem, “Zhankoye – der steppe fun arbet un glik,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 4 December 1941, 7. Dzhankoy was a major railway centre in the Crimea. Shakhno Epstein, “Sovyetn rateven milion yidn fun hitler’s naygel,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 5 March 1942, 3. One of them, Israel Emiot, would later move to Birobidzhan. See Emiot, The Birobidzhan Affair. A. Zvihiler, “Ernste fayleren in rabbi eisendrath’s revizye beneyge dem sovyetn-farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 12 March 1942, 5.

284

Notes to pages 172–7

122 “Yidishe hilf-konferents greyt groyse folks-konferents far di yidishe milkhome-korbones,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 2 April 1942, 1–2. 123 H. Abramovitch, “Derfolgraykhe konferents far yidishe milkhome korbones,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 7 May 1942, 3. 124 Gershon Pomerantz, “Tuen mir altz vos mir kenen far di yidishe milkhomehkorbones?” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 30 April 1942, 5. Pomerantz was born in 1904 in Sokolow-Podlaski, Poland, and came to Toronto in 1929. Not an ideologue or “party man,” he contributed to various left-wing journals published in New York, including the anarchist Fraye Arbayter Shtime, the Bundist Tsukunft, and the Communist Morgn Frayhayt and Yidishe Kultur. He contributed to, and from 1960 to 1964, edited and published the Toronto daily Yidisher Zhurnal–Hebrew Journal. Pomerantz died in 1968. See his book of memoirs, Geshtaltn fun mayn dor. 125 “Takeh, farvos shvaygt men?” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 2 July 1942, 4. 126 Gershon Pomerantz, “Moskve un yerushalayim ruft tsu unz – lomir nit shvaygn!” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 9 July 1942, 3 (emphasis in original). 127 Gershon Pomerantz, “Mir hern shoyn di trit,” Vochenblat, 13 January 1944, 4 (emphasis in original). 128 Lappin, “When Michoels and Feffer Came to Toronto,” 45. 129 See, for example, I.K. Baylin, “Itzik fefer – royt-armayer un dikhter,” Vochenblat, 19 August 1943, 3. 130 H. Abramovitch, “25 toyznt yidn giben entuziastishe oyfname sovyetish-yidisher delegatsye bay rizike mitingen in montreal un toronto,” Vochenblat, 9 September 1943, 1. 131 “A. Reporter,” “Kaboles-ponem diner fun yidishn kongres far sovyetish-yidisher delegatsye,” Vochenblat, 9 September 1943, 6. 132 Lappin, “When Michoels and Feffer Came to Toronto,” 53–5. 133 Victor, “The Life of Dr. Benjamin A. Victor,” 14. For Mikhoels’ speech, see the Canadian Jewish Outlook 22, 9 (September 1984): 17–19. When Sam Lipshitz visited Winnipeg while on a western Canadian tour a month later, he and Dr Victor analyzed the impact of the Mikhoels-Fefer visit at a mass meeting. See “Bazukh fun sh. lipshitz in vinipeg zayer derfolgrikh,” Vochenblat, 21 October 1943, 1. 134 “Canada’s Hunted Men,” Toronto Daily Star, 7 July 1942, 6. 135 “Gershman Set Free Under Defence Act,” Toronto Daily Star, 28 August 1942, 2. 136 H. Abramovitch, “Aza demonstratsyeh hot nokh toronto nit gezen,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 25 June 1942, 1–2, 8. 137 Harry Price, “Groyser oylem in hamilton salutirt dem sovyetn-farband,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 2 July 1942, 8. 138 Meisel, “Di letste rayzeh fun dr khaim zhitlovsky,” 5.

Notes to pages 177–9

285

139 “Future Hinges on Trust in Russia, Canada Told,” Montreal Daily Star, 23 June 1943, 17; Jessica Smith, “Review and Comment,” Soviet Russia Today, 12, 4 (August 1943): 7. 140 See Whitaker, “Official Repression of Communism During World War II,” 135–66. The name was restored in 1959. See also, “Manifesto of Labor-Progressive Party, Canadian Tribune (Toronto), 28 August 1943, 16. 141 Sarkin, An emes’ter folks mentsh, 3–11. 142 For example, Fashizm iber kanada, also published in English as Fascism Over Canada: An Exposé; and Hitler’s 5th Column in Quebec, published by the Communist-Labor Total War Committee in 1942 and updated in a second edition put out by Progress Publishers in 1943. 143 See the bilingual English and Yiddish pamphlet announcing a 21 July 1943 rally at Fletcher’s Field, in the Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box 1, “Fred Rose,” file 7, “Varia,” narc. 144 Ilya Ehrenburg, “The Murder of the Jewish People,” and “Demand Punishment for Race Riot Instigators,” in Canadian Jewish Weekly, 29 July 1943, English page 1 of the Vochenblat. 145 Michael Buhay, “Fred rose—der mutiker arbayter-kemfer un shtoltser yid,” Vochenblat, 5 August 1943, 5–6. 146 Max S. Bailey, “The Jewish Seat Is Not in Danger!” Kartier nayes–Cartier News, 6 August 1943, 1–2; “Elect a Friend of the ussr Rose Stands for Soviet-Canadian Unity,” Kartier nayes–Cartier News, 6 August 1943, 2–3. This pamphlet was published by the Fred Rose Election Committee, in the Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–6–3, box 60, “Yiddish Pamphlets,” ao. 147 Letter from a Hero’s Mother, pamphlet in Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box 1, “Fred Rose,” file 7, “Varia,” narc. 148 10 Poonktn fun mayn program, pamphlet in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–6–3, box 60, “Yiddish Pamphlets,” ao. See also “Fred Rose’s program in di kartier bay-valn,” Vochenblat, 15 July 1943, 5. 149 Abel Vineberg, “More than Half of Cartier Voters Failed to Cast Ballots on Monday,” Montreal Gazette, 11 August 1943, 11, 17. An analysis of poll-by-poll voting statistics by Myer Siemiatycki demonstrating the very significant correlation between ethnicity and party preference also revealed that the turnout among French Canadians was far lower than among Jews, enabling Rose to beat Massé. Many French Canadians were alienated from the Liberal Party but, not being prepared to vote for the Bloc, stayed home. The ccf had more of a Gentile aura about it, possibly due to the preponderance of Christian clergy in its leadership and the Protestant “social gospel” basis of its ideology. See Siemiatycki, “Communism in One Constituency.”

286

Notes to pages 179–82

150 These terms were developed by Donald L. Horowitz. He has argued that, in situations of ethnic competition, parties that may appear to be universalistic and whose rhetoric and terminology stress ideology and class can nevertheless come to represent an ethnic group and articulate its sectional interests. See his Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, 410–16. 151 Carr, The Face of the Enemy, 45–53; Sam Carr, “The Lessons of Cartier,” Canadian Tribune (Toronto), 21 August 1943, 7. 152 “Fred rose’s dervaylung hot geratevet kartier fun a fashist,” Vochenblat, 12 August 1943, 4. 153 T. Rubin, “‘Kamf gegn antisemitizm, mayn ershter oyfgabeh’ – fred rose,” Vochenblat, 12 August 1943, 1; “A Weapon in the Struggle against Anti-Semitism,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 26 August 1943, English page 1 of the Vochenblat; “Labor-Progressive Party Urges Unity with ccf,” Canadian Tribune (Toronto), 28 August 1943, 1; Sh. Lipshitz, “Shoyn tsayt oyfgebn ayer shaydlekhe politik,” Vochenblat, 21 October 1943, 3–4. 154 I. Medres, “Organizirter antisemitism in land,” Vochenblat, 21 October 1943, 4. Even the famed historian Benjamin (B.G.) Sack was publishing in the Vochenblat during the war. See his article “Yekhezkel hart, der kemfer far yidishe rekht in kanada,” Vochenblat, 21 October 1943, 6. 155 See, for instance, a notice for a Victory Loan rally held at the Jewish Communists’ headquarters on 27 October 1944, under the auspices of the Yidisher Hilfs Farayn, with Rose as the featured speaker, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 4, ao. 156 “Attack Anti-Semitism,” Montreal Gazette, 13 April 1944, 17. The meeting, held under the auspices of the lpp, also heard from J.B. Salsberg, Michael Buhay, and Joshua Gershman. Salsberg, who had been elected to the Ontario legislature the previous August, called anti-Semitism “an evil which not only offends the Jews and Negroes, but whites and many others.” 157 “Ask Royal Commission Inquiry Into Antisemitism in Quebec,” Der Yidisher zhurnal–Daily Hebrew Journal (Toronto), 5 July 1944, 1. 158 Groyser masn-miting, pamphlet in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–6–3, box 60, “Yiddish leaflets,” ao. 159 Dem 11-tn yuni vidervaylt fred rose, [13], pamphlet in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–6–3, box 60, “Yiddish pamphlets,” ao; notice from the “People’s Committee for the Re-election of Fred Rose,” in the program booklet for the Nineteenth Annual Concert of the Montreal Jewish Choir, presenting “Memories of the Past,” at the Monument National Theatre, Montreal, 21 and 22 April 1945, Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box 1, “Fred Rose,” file 7, “Varia,” narc. 160 Tsu ale mitglider fun yidishn hilfs farayn, pamphlet issued by the Jewish Assistance and Social Organization (emphasis in original), in Joshua Gershman Papers,

Notes to pages 182–6

287

f1412–6–3, box 60, “Yiddish pamphlets,” ao; “Vi Azoy kenen mir shtarken di hant fun godbout in st. louis divizyeh?” lpp advertisement in the Kanader Adler, Montreal, 4 August 1944, 8; election results in Montreal Daily Star, 9 August 1944, 1. 161 “Montrealer city council hert vegn farfolgungen oyf yidn,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 11 March 1943, 8; “Comments by the Editor,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 1 April 1943, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. This was the first time the paper introduced a section in English. The English pages were edited by Danny Halperin, son of Philip. 162 Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 129. See also “Banket tsu fayern dervaylung fun ald. norman freed,” Vochenblat, 13 January 1944, 1.

chapter eight 1 Paris, Jews, 145–6. 2 Tulchinsky, Branching Out, 129–32; Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 137; Abella, “Portrait of a Jewish Professional Revolutionary,” 208. 3 Arnold was appointed editor of the Jewish Western Bulletin in February 1949. See Arnold, Judaism, 17; e-mail correspondence with Abe Arnold, Winnipeg, 2 February 2001. Guralnick was also teaching at the Morris Winchevsky School in Toronto at this time. He died in 1972, at age seventy-two. 4 “Monthly Intelligence Report, February 1, 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 260–2; “Monthly Intelligence Report, April 1, 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 291–2; “Monthly Intelligence Report, July 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 356–360; “Monthly Intelligence Report, September 1, 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 412–15; “Special Section Monthly Bulletin, November 1, 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 452–4. 5 Letter from Joshua Gershman to Joseph Zuken, Toronto, 8 March 1946; in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 9, ao. 6 Ambijan Committee, Ambijan National Conference on Emergency Aid and Reconstruction for the Victims of Fascism ; J.M. Budish, “Greetings to Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee of ussr and to the Jewish Autonomous Region,” Ambijan Bulletin 4, 1 (June 1945): 2; “Summary of the Proceedings of the National Conference of the American Birobidjan Committee (Ambijan),” Ambijan Bulletin 4, 1 (June 1945): 13–24; Letter from Ethel Ostry, executive director, Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Division, to Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 5 November 1944, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 4, ao. Stefansson remained active in pro-Soviet organizations even as the Cold War intensified. In 1947, he undertook a Canadian

288

7

8

9

10 11

Notes to pages 186–7

speaking tour for the National Council of Canadian-Soviet Friendship. Circular letter from Max Levin, New York, 5 May 1947; letter from Vilhjalmur Stefansson to Max Levin, chair of the Board of Governors of Ambijan, New York, 7 May 1947; Stefansson correspondence, mss 196, box 72, 1947 – ussr-American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidjan (Ambijan) Folder, in the Stefansson Collection, Baker Memorial Library, Dartmouth College, Hanover, nh. Raymond Arthur Davies, “A Letter to William L. White,” Soviet Russia Today 13, 11 (March 1945): 34; “Monthly Intelligence Report, February 1, 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 253, 256–8; “Special Section Monthly Bulletin, December 1, 1945,” in Kealey and Whitaker, RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45, 474; Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 136–8. R.S. Gordon, whose real name was Sid Ostrovsky, edited Today. It suspended publication in October 1946. Letter from Ethel Ostry, executive director, Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Division, to Saul Hayes, national executive director, Canadian Jewish Congress, Toronto, 24 November 1944; letter from Rabbi H.A. Fischel to Ethel Ostry, St Catharines, on, 3 January 1945; poster advertising Davies’ London appearance. All located in Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box “Davies, Raymond Arthur,” file 11B, narc. Letter from Saul Hayes, national executive director, to Ethel Ostry, Montreal, 17 November 1944; letter from Raymond Arthur Davies to Saul Hayes, Toronto, 5 February 1945. Both located in Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box “Davies, Raymond Arthur,” file 11B, narc. Davies was referring to his efforts to help Jewish survivors with Canadian relatives to immigrate to Canada. While in Montreal, Davies had also spoken to a closed-door meeting of the lpp on 17 November. Although the meeting was supposedly private, it was, nonetheless, duly reported in the press. This prompted a mild reprimand from Saul Hayes, who reminded Davies that he was “on an important mission in Canada and single handed may do a great deal to cement relations between Canada and the ussr, the effects of which may be profound and will certainly rebound to Canada’s benefit ... It is my opinion, however, that a good deal of it will be negate[d] if publicity attaches importance to the fact that you are addressing meetings of the Labour [sic] Progressive Party as a member of the National Executive of the Labour Progressive Party.” Letter from Saul Hayes to Raymond Arthur Davies, Montreal, 20 November 1944, in Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box “Davies, Raymond Arthur,” file 11B, narc. See Davies, The Truth about Poland. Letter from A.I. Shumiatcher to Morris Smith, president, Calgary branch of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Calgary, 25 January 1946, in Abraham Isaac Shumiatcher Papers, M1107, box 9, file 61, Glenbow Museum, Alberta Institute

Notes to pages 187–90

12 13

14 15 16

17

18 19

20 21

289

Archives, Calgary. Shumiatcher was also at the time involved in sending food and clothing to Jews in the Soviet Union, through the auspices of the Union of Russian Jews Inc., a labour Zionist initiative headquartered in New York. See Shumiatcher Papers, M1107, box 29, file 176. A typical example was the article “9,600 yidn gefinen zikh in lodz: Hoyben on a nay lebn,” Vochenblat, 28 June 1945, 1–2. Nat Cohen, “Editor’s Notebook,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 9 May 1946, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. Cohen edited this page from 1946 until 1947. Abraham J. Arnold replaced him. Cohen did have second thoughts on this matter a few years later. He remarked that “this catastrophe [the Holocaust] has eliminated what was formerly the heart of Jewish culture.” See Nathan Cohen, “Where Lies the Essence of Jewishness?” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 4 March 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. “Many Jews Go Back to Poland,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 24 October 1946, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. Letter from Shloime Almazov to Joshua Gershman, New York, 16 October 1946, in Joshua Gershman papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 10, ao. R. Usiskin, “Moses Almazov and the Winnipeg General Strike, Part 2,” 31; S. Almazov, Mit dem vort tsum folk, 319–36. Almazov died in 1979. For the last decades of his life, he worked on the Frayhayt. “The paper was his life,” remarked Paul Novick: “We remember him as a fellow fighter.” See “Sol A. Pearl, Wrote under Name S. Almazov for Morning Freiheit,” New York Times, 24 April 1979, sec. 4, 17; P. Novick, “A nomen tsu gedenken,” Morgn Frayhayt, New York, 26 June 1980, 3, 6. “‘Ambidzhan’ vet shafn an ‘einstein-fond’ tsu bazetsn 30,000 yidishe yesoymim in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 28 June 1945, 4. The Toronto Daily Star had already carried an Associated Press story from New York reporting that Ambijan would settle 30,000 orphans in Birobidzhan. See “Russia Shelters 30,000,” Toronto Daily Star, 30 May 1945, sec. 2, 1. A. Jenofsky, “Biro-bidzhan hot gemakht groysn forshrit di letste por yor,” Morgn Frayhayt, 20 July 1945, 3. See, for instance, the undated, circa 1945 pamphlet Mir muzen entferen dem ruf! issued by the Russian-Ukrainian Jewish Farband (Der farband fun rusish-ukrainishe yidn) in Toronto. This group had been founded in 1943 and was sympathetic to the Jewish Communist movement. See Moray Nesbitt Papers, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, series 85, Jewish Canadian Papers, F1405, file 085–015, mu 9003.02, ao. Letter from Joshua Gershman to B.A. Victor, Toronto, 4 October 1945, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 7, ao. “Alef Raysh” [Alfred Rosenberg?], “Biro-bidzhan konferents bashlist oysshtaten a fakh-shul far yidishe yesoymim in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 21 February 1946,

290

22

23

24

25

26

27

Notes to pages 190–5

1–2; “Canadian Birobidjan Committee,” Ambijan Bulletin 5, 1 (February 1946): 7–8. The Russian-Ukrainian Jewish Farband of Toronto announced that it would be sending five delegates to the conference, including its president, N. Gold, A. Eisen, H. Greenberg, C. Cohl, and Rabbi N. Stolnitz. See “Natsyonale konferents far biro-bidzhan dem 9-tn un 10-tn marts in new york,” Vochenblat, 28 February 1946, 1; “Kalinin Sure of Future of Birobidjan,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. B.Z. Goldberg, “Birobidjan in the Soviet Five-Year Plan, Ambijan Bulletin 5, 2 (April 1946): 5; “Greetings to Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee Moscow,” Ambijan Bulletin 5, 2 (April 1946): 6. “Telegrams and Messages of Greeting to the Conference,” Ambijan Bulletin 5, 2 (April 1946): 4; “Proceedings of the National Conference for Birobidjan,” Ambijan Bulletin 5, 2 (April 1946): 7–10; J.M. Budish, “National Conference Rallies American Jews to Birobidjan,” Ambijan Bulletin 5, 3 (September 1946): 5. Upon their return, Lipshitz and Caiserman travelled across Canada to report on their findings; Lipshitz told a mass meeting in Winnipeg on 20 March 1946 that the new Polish government was doing its utmost “to fight anti-Semitism and to aid the Jews in their problems,” though he did admit that many Jews wanted to leave the country. See “Jews Want to Leave Poland Say Delegates,” Western Jewish News, Winnipeg, 28 March 1946, 1. See also an interview with Lipshitz in M. Ginsburg, “In the Ashes of Warsaw, Jews Learn to Live,” Canadian Jewish Chronicle (Montreal and Toronto), 15 March 1946, 6. Long afterwards, Lipshitz, who had also travelled to Poland on behalf of the United Radomer Relief and other Toronto landsmanshaften, admitted that the trip had left him “sad and heart-broken.” See Lipshitz, “On a Mission to Poland, Right after the War,” 26–8. Letter from Joshua Gershman to Joseph Zuken, Toronto, 8 March 1946, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 9, ao. Gershman said that the National Jewish Committee of the lpp would help cover Guberman’s salary to the extent of $500 per year. S.C., “Classic, Say Critics Hailing New Concert by Jewish Folk Choir,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 9 May 1946, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; “Groyse delegatsye kumt tsu birobidzhan konferents, zuntik, may 26-tn in montreal,” Vochenblat, 16 May 1946, 1; H. Abramovitch, “Kanader biro-bidzhan komitayt bashlist ayntsuordinen toyzent yidishe yesoymim,” Vochenblat, 30 May 1946, 1; “Ruf fun biro-bidzhan komitayt tsu di yidn fun kanada,” Vochenblat, 6 June 1946, 3. See also page 2 of the 16 May issue for a story about long-time Detroit icor activist Abraham Victor’s seventy-fifth birthday celebrations in the United States. Victor died in 1954. J.M. Budish, “Birobidjan: Its Origins and its Future,” Today: An Anglo-Jewish Monthly 2, 7 (June 1946): 12–15, 25.

Notes to pages 196–9

291

28 See Sh. Gordon, “Kolvirt ‘valdhaym’ in biro-bidjan,” Vochenblat, 10 October 1946, 7. 29 Letter from Joshua Gershman to B.Z. Goldberg, Toronto, 5 November 1946; letter from Joshua Gershman to B.A. Victor, Toronto, 13 November 1946; letter from Irving Myers to B.A. Victor, n.d. [mid-November 1946], in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 10, ao. Myers also suggested that all members of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee automatically receive subscriptions to Nailebn-New Life. 30 Letter from Abraham Bick to Joshua Gershman, New York, 10 February 1947, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 11, ao; “The Meeting of the National Committee,” Ambijan Bulletin 6, 5 (October 1947): 3. 31 Winnipeg Birobidjan Committee, Carnival and Bazaar for the Jewish War Orphans and Refugees in the Jewish Autonomous Region Biro-bidjan, USSR, pamphlet advertising the event, unpaginated, Donner book box, Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, Winnipeg. 32 National Executive, ujpo, 20 Years Progressive Fraternalism in Canada: Main Reports and Resolutions of the 2nd National Convention of the United Jewish Peoples Order, Held in Montreal, June 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1947, 7, 22–3, 52–3. Goldberg would in later years grow disillusioned with the ussr. “Most of the Birobidjan propaganda was directed at the Jews of the Western world” in order to help the Soviets attain their objective of “better public relations with the West,” he admitted. See Goldberg, The Jewish Problem in the Soviet Union, 193. 33 Nisnevitz, “Biro-bidzhan,” [19–20]. 34 “Alef Raysh” [Alfred Rosenberg?], “Kanader biro-bidzhan komitayt vet oysbraytern zayne taytikayten ibern gantsn land,” Vochenblat, 29 January 1948, 1; “Biro-bidzhan komitayt vet durkhfiren groyse fayerungen fun 20 yor yidishe autonomye teritorye,” Vochenblat, 5 February 1948, 1. 35 They included children’s clothing, blankets, and various medicines destined for Jewish war orphans, along with builders’ tools, sewing machines, two one-and-onehalf-ton Chevrolet trucks, and a number of tractors. Pictured standing with the transport were Irving J. Myers, executive secretary of the Canadian Birobidjan Committee; George Erlick, chair; Sh. Lapitsky, treasurer; N.S. Grey and Samuel Pesner, honorary chairs; Councillor Max Bailey; Alfred Rosenberg; Joseph Yass; J. Golfman, treasurer; Shloime Temkin; and A. Hirshbein. See “Ershter matoneh-transport fun kanader yidn kayn biro-bidzhan shoyn aroysgeshikt,” Vochenblat, 5 February 1948, 6; “First Shipment to Birobidjan,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 5 February 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 36 “Naye ibervanderer hobn zikh shoyn ayngeordent in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 19 February 1948, 3; “Transport kayn biro-bidzhan opgeshikt durkh moore mccormicks lines in new york,” Vochenblat, 19 February 1948, 3. 37 “Folks-baratung tsu organizirn fayerung fun 20 yor biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 18 March 1948, 1.

292

Notes to pages 200–3

38 Dr Rose Bronstein, “On the 20th Anniversary of Birobidjan: Canadian Birobidjan Committee Plans Extensive Program,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 11 March 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 39 Every new family arriving received a credit of 10,000 rubles towards the building of a house; 400 rubles for furnishings; 3,000 rubles to buy a cow; and 300 kilograms of flour, he wrote. See A. Rosenberg, “20 yor biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 25 March 1948, 4. 40 Gina Medem, “Biro-bidzhaner sovyetishe virklekhkayt,” Vochenblat, 6 May 1948, 3. 41 M. Ziv, “Vos hert zikh in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 11 March 1948, 5; 18 March 1948, 3; 1 April 1948, 3; 24 June 1948, 6; Y. Kerler, “Naye ibervanderer flaysik in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 15 April 1948, 3; “Hekher tsvantsik toyzent yidn zaynen gekumen kayn biro-bidzhan: Nokh masn yidn grayten zikh tsu forn,” Vochenblat, 22 April 1948, 2; “Naye boyer fun der yidisher oytonomer gegnt,” Vochenblat, 6 May 1948, 5; M. Ziv, “Shnit-tsayt in biro-bidjan,” Vochenblat, 9 September 1948, 6; M. Ziv, “Ibervanderer fardinen gut in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 13 January 1949, 5. 42 G. Zhitz, “Felker-frayntshaft in yidisher autonomer gegnt,” Vochenblat, 5 August 1948, 5–6. 43 “New Yiddish Books in Soviet Union,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 26 August 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; M. Ziv, “Vi azoy biro-bidzhan nemt oyf yidishe shrayber-gest,” Vochenblat, 26 August 1948, 7; M. Ziv, “‘Vi gut es iz tsu lebn!’” Vochenblat, 2 September 1948, 6. 44 A. Shtein, “Di sheferishe playner fun der yidishn teater in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 10 June 1948, 7. 45 Sh. Gordon, “Yidish – a melikhe-shprakh in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 10 March 1949, 5; S. Gordon, “Yiddish Triumphant,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 17 March 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 46 See, for example, an article by A. Pik, from Tel Aviv, “Yidish-arabishe aynikayt is meglekh,” describing joint Arab-Jewish cooperation in a general strike of 35,000 government employees. Vochenblat, 16 May 1946, 4, 6. 47 J. Gershman, “Di shtelung fun di komunistn tsu der erets yisroel problem,” typewritten undated ms [probably October 1945], in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–3–1, box 67, ao. 48 “Palestine Jewish State Can Be Achieved in New World Order F. Rose mp Tells Parliament,” Der yidisher zhurnal–Daily Hebrew Journal (Toronto), 25 March 1945, 1. 49 Letter from Joseph Zuken to Joshua Gershman, Winnipeg, 5 November 1945, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 7, ao. 50 National Jewish Committee, Labor-Progressive Party of Canada, “Theses on the Question of Palestine,” Toronto, December 1945, typewritten ms, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–3–1, box 67, ao.

Notes to pages 203–7

293

51 Letter from Joshua Gershman to Joseph Zuken, Toronto, 8 March 1946, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–3–1, box 67, ao. 52 For Gromyko’s speech, see Thomas J. Hamilton, “Russia Urges un to Split Palestine, Failing Dual State,” New York Times, 15 May 1947, 1, 9. Much has been written about the Soviet position on Palestine at this time. See, for instance, Krammer, The Forgotten Friendship; Yaakov Ro’i, Soviet Decision Making in Practice; and Rucker, Moscow’s Surprise. 53 “Palestine Plan Not Fully Understood,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 1 January 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 54 “Biro-bidzhan komitayt vet durkhfiren groyse fayerungen fun 20 yor yidishe autonomye teritorye,” Vochenblat, 5 February 1948, 1. 55 J. Gershman, “Mir muzn gebn dem yishuv in erets-yisroel fulshtendike moralishe, finantsyele un politishe hilf,” Vochenblat, 12 February 1948, 4. 56 “Natsoyonale ekzekutive fun yid. folks ordn ruft shtitsen kampanye far yishuv in erets-yisroel,” Vochenblat, 26 February 1948, 1. 57 “Di yidishe melikhe muz un ken geratevet vern!” Vochenblat, 8 April 1948, 1. 58 “Salute the Jewish State and the Jewish Army,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 13 May 1948, English page 12 of the Vochenblat. 59 Alexander S. Panyushkin, “Birobidjan Living Example of Soviet Attitude to Jewish People’s Rights,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 13 May 1948, English page 12 of the Vochenblat. 60 A. Bakhmutsky, “Groys zaynen di dergraykhungen fun 20 yor yidisher melikhe’shaft in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 13 May 1948, 7. Bakhmutsky was purged shortly thereafter. 61 A. Rosenberg, “Tsvay historishe dates in der antviklung fun biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 13 May 1948, 7. 62 “Zayt gegrist, boyer fun biro-bidzhan!” Vochenblat, 13 May 1948, 3. 63 Canadian Birobidjan Committee, A yidishe melikhe vert geboyt in biro bidzhan /A Jewish State Rises in Birobidjan. 64 “Tekst fun sovyetisher anerkenung fun der medineh yisroel,” Vochenblat, 20 May 1948, 1; “Kanada muz anerkenen di medineh yisroel!” Vochenblat, 20 May 1948, 4. 65 L. Guberman, “Vinipeger yidn hobn mit groys interes oyfgenumen grus fun j.b. salsberg vegn der lage fun di yidn in europa un erets-yisroel,” Vochenblat, 20 May 1948, 3. Salsberg had travelled to Palestine in early 1948, following a visit to European dp camps. 66 “Need Greater Understanding of the Soviet Union,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 27 May 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; “Forthcoming Events,” Ambijan Bulletin 7, 3 (May 1948): 2; “Organizational Activities,” Ambijan Bulletin 7, 4 (June-July 1948): 15; Council of Progressive Jewish Organizations pamphlet, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–4, box 71, file 3, ao.

294

Notes to pages 207–10

67 fbi report from Edward Scheidt, Special Agent in Charge, New York, to J. Edgar Hoover, fbi director, 27 October 1947, ny file 100–42538, file 100–99898, section 2, Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts foipa no. 416152, Ambijan. 68 Circular letter from J.M. Budish to Ambijan supporters, New York, 15 October 1947, in Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955, rg 205, mg 495, folder 585, “Ambidzhan-korespondents, 1946–1950,” yivo. 69 Letter from Abraham Jenofsky to Joshua Gershman, New York, 1 November 1948, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 16, ao. 70 “National Committee Maps Extended Program of Cooperation With Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidjan,” Ambijan Bulletin 7, 7 (December 1948): 4. 71 J.M. Budish, “Report on the Activities of Ambijan, Nov. 1947 to Nov. 1948,” Ambijan Bulletin 7, 7 (December 1948): 16. 72 “Amerikaner biro-bidzhan komitayt shikt op transport metones kayn birobidzhan,” Vochenblat, 24 February 1949, 2; “15 Years of the Autonomous Region,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 24 March 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 73 Letter from Abraham Jenofsky to Joshua Gershman, New York, 1 November 1948, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 16, ao. 74 “The Ambijan Annual National Dinner, 1949,” Ambijan Bulletin 9, 1 (January-February 1950): 13; Ber Green, “Ambijan Pledges Closer Ties With Soviet Jewry,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 22 December 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 75 “The Truth about Birobidjan,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 6 January 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat (boldface in original). 76 “Warsaw Lovely City Again, People Support Government,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 6 January 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. See also “Journalist Debunks Slave Camp Stories,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 24 February 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat: “This business of ‘slave labor camps’ in the ussr is an old story, and a mothworn falsehood, exposed numberless times, but still being used.” 77 Aaron Maxwell, “No Bigotry in the ussr,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 7 April 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 78 J. Gershman, “Jews in Eastern Europe Reveal Healthy Progress,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 3 February 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 79 The letter of invitation is in the Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zc, box “United Jewish People’s Order,” file 6, “ujpo and the Padlock Law in Quebec,” narc. Bick also gave a lecture entitled “The Far East and the Colonial Question” at the Carpenters Hall in Montreal on 7 February 1949, under the auspices of the ykuf. See the notice of the lecture in Jewish Canadiana, Institutions – ykuf, jpl. 80 “15 yor biro-bidzhan un 1 yor medines yisroel vet gefayert vern in montreal, may 15-tn,” Vochenblat, 5 May 1949, 1; “Groyse fayerung fun 1 yor medines yisroel un 15 yor yidishe autonomye gegnt zuntik ovent in montreal, Vochenblat, 12 May 1949, 1. Mandel, a colleague of Vilhjalmur Stefansson, was the author of many

Notes to pages 210–3

81 82 83 84 85 86

87 88 89 90

91 92

93 94 95 96

295

pro-Soviet publications, including The Soviet Far East and Central Asia and A Guide to the Soviet Union. Both contained sections on Birobidzhan. A. Nisnevitz, “15 yor yidishe autonomye gegnt in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 12 May 1949, 3. “A Centre of Jewish Life,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 12 May 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. A. Nisnevitz, “Yidn hobn bloys dankbarkayt tsu dem sovyetn-regirung,” Vochenblat, 10 November 1949, 5, 8. Aaron Maxwell, “1917–1949,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 10 November 1949, English page 12 of the Vochenblat. Advertisement in the Vochenblat, 10 November 1949, 11. Ibid., 9. One achievement noted by the Vochenblat: the region “had fulfilled its bread-harvest quota ahead of the allotted time”; “ussr Honors Jewish Citizens: Czech Jews Thank Government,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 3 November 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. Advertisement in the Vochenblat, 10 November 1949, 9. “Balance Sheet – And Survey,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 5 January 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. J. Gershman, “Facts Easily Debunk Vicious Slander of Soviet Anti-Semitism,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 16 March 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. Aaron Maxwell, “Hundreds of Jews Win 1950 Stalin Prizes,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 23 March 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; Abraham Bick, “Emmanuel kazakevitch – der biro-bidzhaner dikhter un novelist,” Vochenblat, 23 March 1950, 7. Kazakevitch, who had moved to Birobidzhan in 1931, had now twice won Stalin prizes for his work. A. Jenofsky, “Sovyetn-farband – a muster fun felker-frayntshaft,” Vochenblat, 11 May 1950, 3. “Harav abraham bick vet redn ba groyser fayerung likoved 16 yor biro-bidzhan un 2 yor yisroel,” Vochenblat, 4 May 1950, 2; “Harav abraham bick redt zuntik ovent ba fayerung fun 16 yor birobidzhan un 2 yor medines yisroel,” Vochenblat, 11 May 1950, 1; “Celebrate Anniversaries of Biro-Bidjan, Israel,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 11 May 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. Khaim Gelfand, “Der yidisher teater in biro-bidzhan, “ Vochenblat, 19 October 1950, 5–6. A. Jenofsky, “In biro-bidzhan zaynen itst do mer yidn vi ven friyer,” Vochenblat, 2 November 1950, 4. Aaron Maxwell, “Thirty-Three Years of Soviet National Policy,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 2 November 1950, 2. See, for example, Yitskhak Guterman, “Dort vu men shmidt a productiv yidish lebn,” Vochenblat, 22 January 1948, 3; Yacov Chernberg, “Romania – a

296

97

98

99 100

101

102

Notes to pages 213–6

demokratishe folks-republik,” Vochenblat, 12 February 1948, 3; Yacov Chernberg, “Di layzung fun der yidn-frage in der rumaynisher folks-republik,” Vochenblat, 10 June 1948, 5; “Build Jewish Culture in Partnership with Europe Jewry, Says J. Gershman,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 5 August 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; J. Gershman, “Jews in Eastern Europe Reveal Healthy Progress,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 3 February 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; Sh. Lipshitz, “Riziker kulturayler forshrit in der nayer rumania,” Vochenblat, 29 December 1949, 5; “Romanian Jews Proud of Productivization,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 29 December 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. “Cartier Needs a United Voice,” Montreal Gazette, 5 March 1947, 8; “Democratic Principles Backed by Cartier Against Dictatorship Groups,” Montreal Daily Star, 1 April 1947, 4. “R. Alef,” “Dervaylung fun max bailey tsu dem montrealer shtot-kounsil iz a vikhtiker zig far demokratsye,” Vochenblat, 1 January 1948, 3; “Max bailey efent ofis in montreal,” Vochenblat, 22 January 1948, 2. “4,000 Cartier Electors Vote For Peace Program,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 22 June 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. “Harry binder vert dervaylt koynsilor,” Vochenblat, 14 December 1950, 1; A. Rosenberg, “Dervaylung fun harry binder – a zig far yidishe masn,” Vochenblat, 21 December 1950, 4. J.A. Cherniak spoke at his funeral. Joseph Zuken, “Dr b.a. victor, prominenter gezelshaflekher tuer geshtorben in elter fun 58 yor,” Vochenblat, 8 June 1950, 1; Y. Halper, “Riziker oylem baglayt Dr b.a. victor tsu zayn aybiker ru,” Vochenblat, 15 June 1950, 3. Yitzkhok Halper was principal of the Sholem Aleichem School in Winnipeg from 1947 until 1951. He had come to Canada from Brazil. B. Noznitsky, “Halper, nayer printzipal fun sholem aleichem shule un zayn froy,” Dos Yidish vort-Israelite Press (Winnipeg), 1 August 1947, 4. Zuken wrote to Joshua Gershman in 1947 that the newly arrived Halper “is going about his work quietly and well.” He would not “be attached to any [Communist] party club.” Letter from Joseph Zuken to Joshua Gershman, Winnipeg, 14 August 1947, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 12, ao. The school shut down in 1963. L. Basman, “Dr benjamin aaron victor,” Vochenblat, 22 June 1950, 7. chapter nine

1 “Peoples of World Hail Stalin’s Genius,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 29 December 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. 2 “‘Vochenblat’ shikt iber troyer-oysdruk oyf toyt fun profesor shloime mikhoels,” Vochenblat, 22 January 1948, 2; Sholem Shtern, “A groyser mentsh is gefaln oyf zayn postn!” Vochenblat, 22 January 1948, 4; David D. Spigler, “Jewry Mourns

Notes to page 217

3 4

5 6

7

8

9

10

297

Mikhoels: Was Greatest Exponent of Jewish Culture,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 22 January 1948, English page 8 of the Vochenblat; “Groyser memorial-miting nokh sh. mikhoels zuntik in toronto,” Vochenblat, 29 January 1948, 1; “Troyer-oysdruken oyf dem plutsimdikn toyt fun prof. shloime mikhoels,” Vochenblat, 29 January 1948, 3; “Impozanter memorial-miting nokh sh. mikhoels durkhgefirt in toronto,” Vochenblat, 5 February 1948, 1; “Montrealer yidn veln ern dem ondenk fun prof. shloime mikhoels,” Vochenblat, 12 February 1948, 1; “Mikhoels-memorial in vinipeg,” Vochenblat, 19 February 1948, 1; “Alef Raysh” [Alfred Rosenberg?] and Y. Halper, “Impozunte mikhoels memorial in montreal un in vinipeg,” Vochenblat, 11 March 1948, 7. “Farvos bakemft men kozmopolitizm in sovyetn-farband,” Vochenblat, 28 April 1949, 3. For more on the campaign against “rootless cosmopolitans” and other Jewish enemies of the Soviet state, see Azadovskii and Egorov, “From Anti-Westernism to Anti-Semitism,” 66–80. Sh. Lipshitz, “Lenin, der idiolog fun fridn,” Vochenblat, 25 January 1951, 2, 4. “David biderman un pearl wedro brengen a bagaystertn grus fun sovyetn-farband,” Vochenblat, 18 October 1951, 1, 6; “Met Zaslavsky, Discussed Jewish Life in ussr,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 18 October 1951, 1. The commission’s official name was the “Royal Commission to Investigate Facts Relating to and the Circumstances Surrounding the Communication, by Public Officials and Other Persons in Positions of Trust of Secret and Confidential Information to Agents of a Foreign Power.” For an overview of the commission’s draconian powers and methods, see Clément, “Spies, Lies and a Commission,” 53–79; and “The Royal Commission on Espionage and the Spy Trials of 1946–9,” 151–72. Rose, born in Lublin, Poland, in 1907, came to Montreal in 1920. He joined the cpc in 1927. After being released from prison in 1951, Rose and his wife Fanny moved first to Czechoslovakia, then to Poland, where he worked as an editor in Warsaw for an English-language publication, Poland. He died in 1983 at the age of seventy-six. “mp Jailed as Spy Fred Rose Dies,” Montreal Gazette, 17 March 1983, A7; “Former Member of House Convicted as Soviet Spy,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 17 March 1983, 8. Carr, born Shloime Kogan in 1906 in Kharkov, Ukraine, came to Canada in 1924. In 1927, he joined the cpc and studied at the Comintern’s Lenin School in Moscow for two years. He was by 1930 the party’s national organizer. He helped recruit volunteers for the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Carr became head of the ujpo in 1960. He died in 1989. For more on this committed Communist and, according to some, the “real brains” of the party, see “Sam Carr Remembered,” 10–11; Paris, Jews, 167–74, 176. Finkel, “The Decline of Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg after 1945,” 198.

298

Notes to pages 218–9

11 See the circular letter from the committee, signed by Alex Gauld and dated 11 November 1946, soliciting funds and urging readers to protest “the persecution exemplified in this refusal.” Canadian Jewish Congress Collection, series zb, box 1, “Fred Rose,” file 7, “Varia,” narc. 12 “Reds Here Raided, Student Held, as Fred Rose Leaflet Distributed,” Montreal Gazette, 9 December 1946, 13. Other Communists also faced charges of various sorts during this period. In June 1952, Raymond Arthur Davies was arrested for passport fraud, and in 1954 he was sentenced to two years in jail. He was found guilty of falsely claiming in a 1936 application for a Canadian passport that he was a British subject born in Montreal in 1908. He was in fact born in tsarist Russia, and his real name was Rudolph Shohan. Davies and his father had escaped Russia in 1917 and settled in Boston, where the younger Shohan became an active Communist organizer. In 1932, Rudolph moved to Toronto and adopted the name Raymond Arthur Davies. After being released from prison, Davies became a rare books dealer in Montreal. He died in Montreal on 18 July 1985. See Bruce MacDonald, “May Deport Davies to us or Russia after 2-Year Term,” Toronto Daily Star, 23 April 1954, 4; “Obituary: Writer Davies,” Montreal Gazette, 20 July 1985, G–8. 13 For more on this period, see Granatstein and Stafford, Spy Wars; Weisbord, The Strangest Dream; Whitaker and Marcuse, Cold War Canada; Lambertson, Repression and Resistance; Black and Rudner, The Gouzenko Affair; and Knight, How the Cold War Began. See also Haynes and Klehr, Early Cold War Spies, 48–59. These books contain much information on the arrest and trials of Carr, Rose, Lunan. and others. 14 Lipshitz, “Followed by the rcmp,” 123–4. 15 Letter from Morris Biderman to Joshua Gershman, Winnipeg, 7 November 1949, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 2, file 19, ao. 16 “Masn-oyfbroyz kegn fashistishn akt fun premier duplessis nemt arum dos land,” Vochenblat, 2 February 1950, 1–2; “Demand Reopening of Cultural Centre,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 2 February 1950, English page 8 of the Vochenblat. “In the glare of negative publicity, so many parents removed their children from the Morris Winchevsky School on Villeneuve St. that it was no longer viable, a former student recalled.” See Irwin Block, “Militant Saw Communist Dream Collapse,” Montreal Gazette, 20 November 2005, in–7. 17 The organization during the war had raised the money for the new building to house the Morris Winchevsky School. Letter from Berel Silverberg, the secretary, to Joshua Gershman, Montreal, 8 November 1943, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 1, file 2b, ao. 18 Weinrib, “Ensuring Equality,” 74; Biderman, A Life on the Jewish Left, 79–83. 19 S. Lipshitz, “Ontario Election – Some Lessons,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 6 December 1951, 2. Salsberg lost his seat in 1955, in no small part due to the ill-advised eulogy he delivered in the Ontario legislature two years earlier when Stalin had

Notes to pages 219–22

20 21

22

23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

299

died. Sam Lipshitz, who ran his campaigns, later would claim that Salsberg was pressured by the cpc to make the speech. See interview, Sam Lipshitz, Toronto, 9 June 1998. Salsberg and Binder both quit the cp in 1957. For details, see Reiter and Usiskin, “Jewish Dissent in Canada,” 20–2, 41. Sam Lipshitz, “Congress Always under Millionaire Control,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 5 October 1951, 1–2. The ujpo attempted to rejoin the cjc in 1979 but was turned down. It was finally readmitted in 1995. See Rose, “ujpo Rejoins Congress,” 6. Letter from Melekh Ravitch to Joshua Gershman, Montreal, 23 October 1950; letter from Joshua Gershman to Melekh Ravitch, Toronto, 7 November 1950, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 3, file 21, ao. Letter from Joshua Gershman to Dr Rose Bronstein, Toronto, 6 April 1951, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 3, file 22, ao. In the United States, the Ambijan Bulletin ceased publication with the July-August 1950 issue. In November 1950, a message sent to Ambijan, purportedly by the leadership of the Jewish Autonomous Region, declared that Birobidzhan no longer required or wanted any outside help. In response, Ambijan had ceased holding meetings or collecting funds. Its offices at 103 Park Avenue, New York, were vacated at the end of November 1950. At a meeting of the American Friends of Stalingrad (formerly the Russian Division of Ambijan) held in New York on 4 February 1951, J.M. Budish declared that the organization was officially dissolving “because the Jews of Birobidjan did not need any more outside help and because the Soviet Government was helping in the building of Birobidjan.” In the spring of 1951 it was winding down its operations, according to Budish. See Harry Schwartz, “Soviet Abandoning ‘Jewish Homeland,’” New York Times, 22 April 1951, section 1, 20. The full transcript of the trials, translated into English, has been made available in Rubenstein and Naumov, Stalin’s Secret Pogrom. See further Lendvai, Anti-Semitism without Jews. On 13 January 1953, the Soviets announced that a conspiracy had been unmasked among Jewish doctors in the ussr to murder Kremlin leaders. Mass arrests quickly followed. The “Doctors’ Plot,” as this alleged scheme came to be called, was Stalin’s last anti-Semitic attack as he died shortly thereafter. See Brent and Naumov, Stalin’s Last Crime. Sebag-Montefiore, Stalin, provides portraits of Stalin and his entourage of sycophants. Salisbury, American in Russia, 279–85. Weinryb, “Antisemitism in Soviet Russia,” 321. Quoted in Weiner, “Nature and Nurture in a Socialist Utopia,” 268. Gershman, “‘It Should Never Have Happened!’” 3–5. Morris Biderman, “Jews in the ussr: A Canadian Describes his Visit,” New World Review 32, 8 (September 1955): 33. This American magazine was the successor to

300

32

33 34

35

36 37

38 39 40

41 42 43

Notes to pages 222–5

Soviet Russia Today. In his memoirs published forty-five years later, Biderman admitted that, although he had requested a vist to Birobidzhan in order to investigate first hand the situation of the Jewish community there, the trip did not materialize. On their way back to Canada, the members of the group stopped in Poland and Biderman met with Fred Rose. See Biderman, A Life on the Jewish Left, 104, 118–119. Letter from Norman Brudy and Phyllis Clarke, Manitoba Provincial Committee, Labor-Progressive Party, to Joshua Gershman, Jewish National Bureau, lpp, Winnipeg, 28 December 1956; letter from J.B. Salsberg to Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 13 May 1957, in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–1, box 4, file 34, ao. Salsberg now called jar “a dimly flickering cultural candle.” See Tulchinsky, “Family Quarrel,” 161. According to James Laxer, whose father Menachem Mendel Laxer was a prominent Communist at the time, as early as 1952 Salsberg feared that anti-Semitism was rife in the ussr but was prevailed upon to keep silent by other Communists. Laxer’s father later managed Salsberg’s unsuccessful 1955 campaign to hold his seat in the Ontario legislature. See Laxer, Red Diaper Baby, 171. “The ujpo Redefines Its Aims and Purposes,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 20 December 1956, English pages 1–2 of the Vochenblat. For more on Salsberg’s decision to leave the party, one which “broke his heart,” following his thirty-year career as a Communist, see Tulchinsky, “Family Quarrel,” 149–73. “Report to the Annual Conference December 5–6, 1959, by the Executive Director, M. Biderman,” 1–2, 15 (tss.), in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–4, box 72, file 11, ao. “Report to the 5th National Convention of the ujpo – April 1960,” 3 (tss.), in Joshua Gershman Papers, f1412–7–4, box 72, file 11, ao. Interview, Sam Lipshitz, Toronto, 9 June 1998. For more on Lipshitz, who was born in Radom, Poland, in 1910, came to Canada at age seventeen, and sat on the lpp’s central committee from 1943 until 1956, see Levendel, A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press, 130–43, and Paris, Jews, 154–7, 193–8. After leaving the Communist movement, he opened a typesetting business. He died in Toronto at age ninety in 2000. See Rose, “Sam Lipshitz,” 35. Interview, Morris Biderman, Toronto, 9 June 1998. Letter from Morris Biderman to the author, Toronto, 27 January 1999. Biderman, A Life on the Jewish Left, 149. Biderman was born in a small town near Kielce, Poland, in 1908 and came to Canada in 1920. After he left the cpc, Biderman opened a printing business. Paris, Jews, 208. Lyons, “Philadelphia Jews and Radicalism,” 61. Mendelsohn, On Modern Jewish Politics, 27–8.

Notes to pages 225–7

301

44 Greenberg, “Why Not Biro-Bidjan?” 29. 45 Jaffee, “Vos far a land iz biro-bidzhan?” 4–6. 46 Hertzberg, The Jews in America, 265; Lyons, Philadelphia Communists, 165; Glazer, The Social Basis of American Communism, 165; Isserman, If I Had a Hammer, 24. 47 Biderman, A Life on the Jewish Left, 230. 48 Born in Vilkomir, Lithuania, in 1905, Basman came to Canada in 1928 and taught at the Liberty Temple School in Winnipeg for two years. After leaving Winnipeg he spent a year in Windsor and then two years in Toronto at the Markham Street shule. From 1933 to 1940 he was a teacher at the Morris Winchevsky School in Montreal. He went back to Winnipeg for another seven years to teach at the Sholem Aleichem School (formerly the Liberty Temple School) and then returned to Toronto to become a teacher and principal at the Morris Winchevsky School from 1947 to 1960. He was principal of the Vancouver I.L. Peretz shule from 1960 until retirement in 1971. He was also a contributor to the Vochenblat and was at various times a director of the ujpo-affiliated summer camps Naivelt and Kinderland, near Brampton, Ontario, founded in 1935. He died in Toronto in 1976. See Reiter, “Labl Basman (1903–1976),” 24–5, 42. His 1932 icor membership card, accompanied by a form letter from the national icor office in New York, is included in his papers. See Labl Basman papers, 1903–74, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Canadian Jewish papers, F1405, series 085–033, mu 9045.02, msr 8430, ao. 49 Labl Basman, “Vos di program fun der l.p.p. partay maynt far mir in mayn partay arbet,” typewritten ms [early 1950s], in Labl Basman Papers, 1903–74, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Canadian Jewish papers, F1405, series 085–033, mu 9043.03, msr 8430, ao. 50 Sholem Shtern, “Labl basman,” Vochenblat, 29 September 1955, 4. Born in Tishevitz, Poland, in 1906, Shtern came to Montreal in 1927. He died in 1990. See his Shrayber vos ikh hob gekent, now translated and published in French as Nostalgie et tristesse. 51 Ruth Borchiver, “Chaver Basman – Teacher and Friend,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 25 September 1955, English page 5 of the Vochenblat. 52 B.Z. Shek, “Labl Basman,” 13. For more on Naivelt, see Reiter, “Secular Yiddishkait,” 136–40; and Abramowitz, “Kindervelt, Kinderland, Naivelt,” 24–5. 53 Labl Basman, “Vegn zikh alayn un vegn mayn dor,” typewritten ms, 21 March 1971, in Labl Basman Papers, F1405, series 085–033, mu 9043.03, msr 8430, ao. 54 J. Gershman, “We Cannot Agree with You, Madame Furtseva!” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 28 June 1956, English page 3 of the Vochenblat. 55 Interview with Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 5 September 1978; Biderman, A Life on the Jewish Left, 163; Abella, “Portrait of a Professional Revolutionary,” 212–13. “A Letter From Joshua Gershman to the C.C. of the Communist Party of Canada,”

302

Notes to pages 227–42

in which he announced he was withdrawing from the party, was published in the Canadian Jewish Outlook 15, 10 (October 1977): 10. See also the tribute to him by Sholem Shtern, “Y. Gershman—tsu zayne 75 yor,” 5. 56 “ujpo Activist Dead at 84,” Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), 19 May 1988, 29. 57 S. Almazov, “Why Did Rabbi Theodore N. Lewis Slander Biro-Bidjan?” Nailebn-New Life 14, 3 (April 1940): 9 (English section) (emphasis in original). 58 Tony Michels, A Fire in Their Hearts, 250. Michaels is referring here to the American Jewish Communists, but the same held true for their Canadian counterparts.

appendix Kadishevitsh, Biro-bidzhan haynt, 2–15 (emphasis in original). Kanterovitsh, Tsvayter 5-yor plan far biro-bidzhan, 2–15. Kanader “icor,” Dos land fun fraydiker mi un frayhayt, 1–24. Schatzov, The ICOR and What It Stands For, 3–14. S. Perel, “Fertsen yor biro-bidzhan,” Kanader yidishe vochenblat, 9 April 1942, 2 (emphasis in original). Perel was born in the Podolia region of Poland, now in Ukraine. In later years he became a devout Orthodox Jew. He died in Montreal in 1976. Menachem Mendele is a character in the short stories of the Yiddish humorist Sholem Aleichem. 6 A. Nisnevitz, “20 yor biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 20 May 1948, 3. 7 A. Jenofsky, “Yidishe autonomye gegnt, biro-bidzhan kumpt mit groyse dergraykhungen tsu ir 15-yorikn yubilay,” Vochenblat, 24 March 1949, 5. 8 V. Okorokov, “15 yor yidishe autonomye melikhe’shaft in biro-bidzhan,” Vochenblat, 24 November 1949, 3; V. Okorov, “Biro-bidjan Announces Vast Measures Underway,” Canadian Jewish Weekly, 24 November 1949, English page 8 of the Vochenblat.

1 2 3 4 5

Selected Bibliography

primary sources I have not included a number of archival collections that contained published pamphlets or books that I have listed individually below.

manuscript collections Archives of Ontario, Toronto Joshua Gershman Papers f1412–1, box 1, file 1 f1412–1, box 1, file 2A f1412–1, box 1, file 2B f1412–1, box 1, file 4 f1412–1, box 1, file 5 f1412–1, box 1, file 7 f1412–1, box 2, file 9 f1412–1, box 2, file 10 f1412–1, box 2, file 11 f1412–1, box 2, file 12 f1412–1, box 2, file 16 f1412–1, box 2, file 19 f1412–1, box 3, file 21 f1412–1, box 3, file 22 f1412–1, box 4, file 34 f1412–6–3, box 60, “Yiddish Pamphlets” f1412–7–3–1, box 67 f1412–7–4, box 71, file 1

Selected Bibliography

304

f1412–7–4, box 71, file 3 f1412–7–4, box 72, file 11 Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Archives of Ontario Series 85, Jewish Canadian Papers Labl Basman Papers, 1903–74 f1405, file 085–033, mu 9043.03, msr 8430 f1405, series 085–033, mu 9045.02, msr 8430 Moray Nesbitt (Abraham Nisnevitz) Papers f1405, File 085–015, mu 9003.02 Goldie Vine Papers, 1930–48 f1405, file 085–015, mu 90042.01

baker memorial library, dartmouth college, hanover, new hampshire Vilhjalmur Stefansson Collection Stefansson correspondence, mss 196, box 72, 1947 – ussr-American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidjan (Ambijan) Folder

calgary jewish centre, calgary Jewish Historical Society of Southern Alberta Archive “History of the I.L. Peretz School and the Calgary Hebrew School” binder

glenbow museum, calgary Alberta Institute Archives Abraham Isaac Shumiatcher Papers, call no. M1107 box 9, file 61 box 29, file 176

jewish heritage centre of western canada, winnipeg Fred Donner book box

jewish public library archives, montreal Jewish Canadiana Collection

Selected Bibliography

305

Institutions – icor Institutions – ykuf, jpl Reuben Brainin Collection Group 2, box b, folder 18, “Brainin and the ussr – Lecture Tours (Addresses, Posters)” group 2, box b, folder 27, “Brainin and the ussr – icor – Reports, Minutes” group 2, box b, folder 28, “Reuben Brainin icor of Jamaica Branch (Long Island) – Flyers” group 3, box a, folder “icor – Correspondence” group 3, box v, folder “Kuntz, Charles” group 3, box n, folder “P. Novick” group 3, box x., folder “Wise, James Waterman” group 5, box a, folder 1, “R. Brainin – Outgoing Correspondence (Chronological)”

national archives and reference centre, canadian jewish congress, montreal Canadian Jewish Congress Collection series zb, box 1, “Brainin, Reuben,” file 3, “Brainin, Reuben – Correspondence” series zb, box 1, “Fred Rose,” file 7, “Varia” series zb, box 2, “Brainin, Reuben,” file 3, “Brainin, Reuben – English Press Clippings and Various” series zb, box “Davies, Raymond Arthur,” file 11B series zc, box “United Jewish People’s Order,” file 6, “ujpo and the Padlock Law in Quebec” series zc, file “Biro-Bidjan Committee”

united states national archives, college park, md Federal Bureau of Investigation surveillance files on Ambijan and icor, accessed via the Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts foipa no. 416152, Ambijan

yeshiva university archives, new york Russian Relief Collection box 2, Birobidzhan folder

306

Selected Bibliography

yivo institute for jewish research, new york Kalmen Marmor Papers, 1873–1955 rg 205, mg 495, folder 544, “Icor-korespondents, 1925–1929” rg 205, mg 495, folder 545, “Icor-korespondents, 1930–1937” rg 205, mg 495, folder 585, “Ambidzhan-korespondents, 1946–1950” Philip Sandler Papers rg 420, box 8, file 17, “icor” United States Territorial Collection rg 117, box 57, folder “Icor” 17/16

unpublished works Shloime Perel. “History of the ujpo in Canada, 1926–1949.” Myer Siemiatycki. “Communism in One Constituency: The Communist Party and the Jewish Community of Montreal, with Particular Reference to the Election of Fred Rose to Parliament in 1943 and 1945.” Unpublished paper, York University, Toronto, 1977.

interviews and correspondence Abraham J. Arnold, Winnipeg, 2 February 2001 Morris Biderman, Toronto, 9 June 1998 and 27 January 1999 Joshua Gershman, Toronto, 5 September 1978 Sam Lipshitz, Toronto, 9 June 1998 Florence Vigod, Toronto, 30 August 1996

periodicals The major periodicals I examined were the Ambijan Bulletin (New York) 1943–50; ICOR (New York) 1925–35; “Icor” Bulletin (New York) 1925; “Icor” Buletin (Toronto) 1934–37; Der Kamf (Toronto) 1924–39; Kanader “Icor” (Toronto) 1934–36; Nailebn-New Life (New York) 1935–50; and Kanader Yidishe Vochenblat (later Vochenblat-Canadian Jewish Weekly) (Toronto) 1940–51. I have not included separately in the bibliography the numerous articles appearing in these or elsewhere in the Communist and pro-Communist press. I have also not listed the news stories about Birobidzhan and its support organizations that were published in American and Canadian newspapers and news weeklies. They are all cited in the endnotes.

Selected Bibliography

307

published articles, pamphlets, and books Almazov, Shloime. Mit dem vort tsum folk: Derfarunger fun a lector. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1947. Aman, Dudley Leigh, First Baron Marley. Biro-Bidjan as I Saw It. New York: icor, 1934. Ambijan Committee, Ambijan National Conference on Emergency Aid and Reconstruction for the Victims of Fascism. New York: Ambijan Committee, 1944. – “Prominent Leaders Appraise Birobidjan.” In Birobidjan: A New Hope for Oppressed European Jews (Year Book of the American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidjan, published on the Occasion of the Farewell Dinner Rendered to the Right Honorable Lord Marley at the Hotel Commodore), 34–6. New York: Ambijan, 1936. “Bagrisung fun dr. b.a. victor un rosa victor.” In Unzer shule: Sholem aleichem shule. 25 yor yubl-bukh 1921–1946, ed. Labl Basman, 36–7. Winnipeg: Sholem Aleichem Institute, 1946. Bailin, I.B. “Gina birenzweig un gina medem (aynike kharakter-shtriken).” In A lebnsveg: Oytobyografishe notitsn, ed. Gina Medem, 7–12. New York: Gina Medem Bukh-komitet, 1950. Becker, I.L. “Reuben Brainin in Montreal.” In Tsum hundertstn geborntog fun reuben brainin: zamlung, ed. Nakhman Meisel, 104–6. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1962. Bennett, A.B. “Reuben Brainin – An Appreciation,” Jewish Standard (Toronto), 8, 1 (1937): 5, 42. Biderman, Morris. A Life on the Jewish Left: An Immigrant’s Experience. Toronto: Onward Publishing, 2000. Brainin, Reuben. “Bagrisung fun khaver brainin bay der natsyonaler konvenshon fun icor in marts, 1935.” In Reuben Brainin, Umshterblekhe reyd: Vegn birobidzhan un vegn der sovyetisher layzung fun der natsyonaler frage, 13–14. New York: icor, 1940. – “Bagrisung fun reuben brainin bay der fayerung fun tsvantsig yor sovyetn-farband in hipodrom, new york, in 1937.” In Reuben Brainin, Umshterblekhe reyd: Vegn birobidzhan un vegn der sovyetisher layzung fun der natsyonaler frage, 18–20. New York: icor, 1940. – “Der tsukunft fun der mentshhayt iz eng farbunden mit dem derfolg fun sovyetn-farband. In Reuben Brainin, Umshterblekhe reyd: Vegn birobidzhan un vegn der sovyetisher layzung fun der natsyonaler frage, 21–3. New York: icor, 1940. – “A yor biro-bidzhaner autonomye.” in Reuben Brainin, Umshterblekhe reyd: Vegn birobidzhan un vegn der sovyetisher layzung fun der natsyonaler frage, 15–17. New York: icor, 1940.

308

Selected Bibliography

Budish, J.M. “Di rizige sotsyalishtishe boyung inm sovyet farband.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, 19–23 (Yiddish section). New York: National Executive Committee of icor, 1932. Canadian Birobidjan Committee, A yidishe melikhe vert geboyt in biro bidzhan /A Jewish State Rises in Birobidjan. Montreal: Canadian Birobidjan Committee, 1948. Carr, Sam. The Face of the Enemy. Toronto: Progress Books, 1943. Davies, Raymond Arthur. The Truth about Poland. Toronto: World News Co., 1946. Degras, Jane, ed. The Communist International 1919–1943 Documents. Vol. 3: 1929–1943. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. “Der tsuzamenfor fun gezerd in moskve.” In Ershter yorlekher “icor” almanakh fun filadelfier komitayt/First Annual Almanac of the “Icor” Philadelphia Committee, ed. B. Applebaum, J. Auerbach, B. Rivkin and A. Sokolove, 41–3. Philadelphia: Philadelphia icor Committee, 1927. Dimanshtein, Shimen M. “Di yidishe autonomye in biro-bidzhan.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, 42–5 (Yiddish section). New York: National Executive Committee of the icor, 1932. Donner, Fred. “Thank You!.” In Carnival and Bazaar to Aid the Civilian Population of the Soviet Union. Winnipeg: Jewish People’s Committee, 1944. Epstein, Ab. “Akhtsn yor icor.” In Icor Almanakh: Lekoved 25 yor Sovyetn Farband un 15 yor Biro-Bidzhan/ICOR Almanac: On the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the USSR and of the 15th Anniversary of Biro-Bidjan, ed. Isaac E. Rontch, 46–9 (Yiddish section). New York: icor, 1943. – Farvos ir must zayn a mitglider in “icor.” Toronto: District Committee of the Canadian “Icor,” 1934. – Gezen in biro-bidzhan. New York: icor, 1931. – “Zibn yor icor geshikhte.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, 46–9 (Yiddish section). New York: National Executive Committee of icor, 1932. Epstein, Melech. The Jew and Communism: The Story of Early Communist Victories and Ultimate Defeats in the Jewish Community, USA, 1919–1941. New York: Trade Union Sponsoring Committee, 1959. – Jewish Labor in USA: An Industrial, Political and Cultural History of the Jewish Labor Movement, 1882–1914. New York: Ktav, 1969. – Pages from a Colorful Life: An Autobiographical Sketch. Miami Beach: Block Publishing, 1971. Farband fun rusish-ukrainishe yidn. Mir muzen entferen dem ruf! Toronto: Der farband fun rusish-ukrainishe yidn, [1945]. Fischer, Louis. “The Jews and the Five-Year Plan.” Nation 134, 3490 (1932): 597–9.

Selected Bibliography

309

Greenberg, Hayim. “Why Not Biro-Bidjan?” In Jewish Frontier Anthology, 1934–1944, ed. Hayim Greenberg, 26–33. New York: Jewish Frontier Association, 1945. icor. Barikht fun der amerikaner icor ekspertn-komisye. New York: icor, 1930. – Biro-Bidjan and You. New York: Astoria Press, 1929. – Der rol fun rebonim in kamf gegn sovyetn farband. New York: icor, 1933. – Di ershte trit fun biro-bidzhan. New York: icor, 1929. – Di lage fun di yidishe masn, biro-bidzhan un icor /The Jewish Masses, Biro-Bidjan, and ICOR. New York: icor, 1931. – Far der yidisher kolonizatsye in sovyetn-farband. New York: ICOR, 1928. – Jewish Colonization in Soviet Russia. New York: icor, 1927. – Lomir helfn boyen di prese in biro bidzhan. New York: ICOR, [1931?]. – Report of the American Icor Commission for the Study of Biro-Bidjan and Its Colonization. New York: icor, 1930. – Takeh - ver vet boyen biro-bidzhan? New York: National Executive of icor, 1929. Jaffee, Yaacov S. “Vos far a land iz biro-bidzhan?” Yidisher kemfer, 22 March, 1946, 4–6. Jewish People’s Committee. Dos goldene bukh fun di yidn in vinipeg tsu di heldishe felker in sovyetn-farband - Zolotaia kniga ot imeni Evreev goroda Vinnipega k Geroicheskim Narodam Sovetskogo Soiuza. Winnipeg: Jewish People’s Committee, 1945. – Yidn, tsum gever! Winnipeg: Jewish People’s Committee of the Council for Allied Victory, 1942. Kadishevitsh, M. Biro-Bidzhan haynt. New York: icor, 1932. Kanader “Icor.” Dos land fun fraydiker mi un frayhayt: Vegn der lage in der yidisher oytonomer gegnt un vegn ire perspektivn. Toronto: Kanader “Icor,” 1935. Kanterovitsh, A. Tsvayter 5-yor plan far biro-bidzhan. New York: icor, 1932. Kealey, Gregory S., and Reg Whitaker, eds. RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 1, 1933–1934. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History, 1993. – RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 2, 1935. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History, 1995. – RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 3, 1936. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History 1996. – RCMP Security Bulletins: The Depression Years, Part 5, 1938–1939. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History, 1997. – RCMP Security Bulletins: The Early Years, 1919–1929. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History, 1994. – RCMP Security Bulletins: The War Series, Part 2, 1942–45. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History, 1993.

310

Selected Bibliography

Kuntz, Charles. “Biro-Bidjan in Socialist Reconstruction.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, iii–xi (English section). New York: National Executive Committee of icor, 1932. Mandel, William. The Soviet Far East and Central Asia. New York: Dial Press, 1944. – A Guide to the Soviet Union. New York: Dial Press, 1946. Marmor, Kalmen. Mayn Lebns-geshikhte. 2 vols. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1959. – “Reuben brainin (zikhroynes).” In Tsum hundertstn geborntog fun reuben brainin: Zamlung, ed. Nakhman Meisel, 93–7. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1962. Medem, Gina. A lebnsveg: Oytobyografishe notitsn. New York: Gina Medem Bukh-komitet, 1950. – Lender, felker, kamfn. New York: Gina Medem Bukh-komitet, 1963. – “Nokh amol birobidzhan.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, 66–9 (Yiddish section). New York: National Executive Committee of icor, 1932. Meisel, Nakhman. “Reuben brainin.” Introduction to Reuben Brainin, Fun mayn lebns-bukh, 7-16. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1946. – “Reuben brainin un dr. khaim zhitlovsky.” In Tsum hundertstn geborntog fun reuben brainin: Zamlung., ed. Nakhman Meisel, 136–52. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1962. Michoels, Shloime. “Speech” (translated from the Yiddish by Muni Taub). Canadian Jewish Outlook 22, 9 (1984): 17–19. Milch, Yacov. “Der gilgul fun a neshomeh.” In Tsum hundertstn geborntog fun reuben brainin: Zamlung, ed. Nakhman Meisel, 98–103. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1962. Montreal Jewish Section, Canadian Aid to Russia Fund. Our Answer to Soviet Jewry: Report of Financial Campaign, Montreal Jewish Section, Canadian Aid to Russia Fund/ Unzer entfer tsu di sovyetishe yidn: Aroysgegebn fun der montrealer yidisher optaylung fun hilf tsum sovyetn-farband fond. Montreal: Montreal Jewish Section, Canadian Aid to Russia Fund, 1943 (February). National Executive Committee of “Icor.” Driter natsyonaler tsuzamenfor fun ‘icor’ opgehaltn in filadelfia, dem 30tn un 31tn detsember 1927 un 1tn yanuar 1928. Barikht. New York: National Executive Committee of the “Icor,” 1928. National Executive of the Canadian “Icor.” Der ershter natsyonaler tsuzamenfor fun dem kanader “icor.” Toronto: National Executive of the Canadian “Icor,” 1935. – Far der yid. autonomye gegnt. Toronto: National Executive of the Canadian “Icor,” 1936. National Executive, ujpo. 20 Years Progressive Fraternalism in Canada: Main Reports and Resolutions of the 2nd National Convention of the United Jewish Peoples Order, Held in Montreal, June 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1947. Toronto: National Executive, ujpo, 1947.

Selected Bibliography

311

Nisnevitz, Abraham. “Biro-bidzhan: A fraydiker onzog fur ale yidn iber gor der velt.” In United Jewish People’s Order Second National Convention Montreal, Que., June 20, 21, 22 Nineteen Hundred Forty-Seven, 19–20. Toronto: ujpo, 1947. – Oyf di vegn fun lebn. Toronto: Kultur Komitayt, Faraynikter yidisher folks-ordn, 1953. Noznitsky, Boris. “Zikhroynes.” In Unzer shule: Sholem aleichem shule. 25 yor yubl-bukh 1921–1946, ed. Labl Basman, 17–21. Winnipeg: Sholem Aleichem Institute, 1946. Revutsky, Abraham. “Bira-Bidzhan: A Jewish Eldorado?” Menorah Journal 16, 2 (1929): 158–68. Pomerantz, Gershon. Geshtaltn fun mayn dor. Tel Aviv: Farlag Y.L. Peretz, 1971. Rome, David, ed. Canadian Jewish Archives: Jewish Archival Record of 1935 (New Series, 7). Montreal: National Archives, Canadian Jewish Congress, 1976. – Canadian Jewish Archives: The Jewish Congress Archival Record of 1936 (New Series, 8). Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1978. – Clouds in the Thirties: On Antisemitism in Canada, 1929–1939. A Chapter on Canadian Jewish History (Section 11). Montreal: National Archives, Canadian Jewish Congress, 1980. Rome, David, Naomi Caruso, and Janice Rosen, eds. The Canadian Story of Reuben Brainin (New Series, 48), Parts 1 and 2. Montreal: National Archives, Canadian Jewish Congress, 1993 and 1996. Rose, Fred. Fashizm iber kanada. Toronto: Farlag “Der Kamf,” 1938. – Fascism Over Canada: An Exposé. Translated from the Yiddish by Harry Guralnick. Toronto: New Era Publishers, 1938. – Hitler’s 5th Column in Quebec. Toronto: Communist-Labor Total War Committee, 1942. Sarkin, Sidney. An emes’ter folks mentsh: Michael buhay. Montreal: Old Rose Printing Co., 1944. Schatzov, Lewis. The ICOR and What It Stands For. Toronto: icor, 1936. Talmy, Leon. “Biro-bidzhan 1928–1931.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, 15–18 (Yiddish section). New York: National Executive Committee of icor, 1932. – “A Jewish State in the Soviet Union.” Nation 127, 3288 (1928): 51–2. – Oyf royer erd: Mit der ‘Icor’-ekspeditsye in Biro-bidzhan. New York: Frayhayt, 1931. Tobenkin, Elias. Stalin’s Ladder: War and Peace in the Soviet Union. New York: Minton, Balch and Co., 1933. Victor, Ab. “Icor.” In Icor yor-bukh ICOR Year Book 1932, ed. S. Almazov, L. Talmy, and P. Novick, 148 (Yiddish section). New York: National Executive Committee of icor, 1932.

312

Selected Bibliography

Usiskin, Michael. Oksn un motorn: Zikhroynes fun a yidishn farmer-pioner (di geshikhte fun edenbridge). Toronto: Vochenblat, 1945. – Uncle Mike’s Edenbridge: Memoirs of a Jewish Pioneer Farmer. Translated from the Yiddish by Marcia Usiskin Basman. Winnipeg: Peguis, 1983. Weinper, Zishe. Birobidzhan. New York: Kultur tsvayg baym icor, 1935. Winnipeg Birobidjan Committee. Carnival and Bazaar for the Jewish War Orphans and Refugees in the Jewish Autonomous Region Biro-bidjan, USSR. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Birobidjan Committee, 1947. Yarmolinsky, Avrahm. “Birobidjan.” In Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1941), 372–8. New York: Ktav, 1969 (reprint). ykuf. Ershter alveltlekher yidisher kultur-kongres, pariz, 17–21 Sept. 1937: Stenografisher barikht. Paris: Tsentral-farveltung fun alveltlekher yidish kultur-farband (ykuf), 1937. Yungerfeld, M. “Reuben brainin un khaim nakhman bialik un zayer briv-oystoysh.” In Tsum hundertstn geborntog fun reuben brainin: Zamlung, ed. Nakhman Meisel, 124–35. New York: ykuf Farlag, 1962. Zukerman, William. “A Jewish Home in Russia.” Nation 134, 3488 (1932): 540–1.

secondary sources Articles and Books Abella, Irving. A Coat of Many Colours: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1999. – Nationalism, Communism and Canadian Labour. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973. – “Portrait of a Jewish Professional Revolutionary: The Recollections of Joshua Gershman.” Labour/Le Travailleur 2 (1977): 185–213. Abramowitz, David. “Kindervelt, Kinderland, Naivelt: 74 Years of Progressive Camping Celebrated.” Outlook 38, 55 (2000): 24–5. Abramsky, Chimen. “The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927–1959.” In The Jews in Soviet Russia Since 1917, 3rd ed., ed. Lionel Kochan, 64–77. London: Oxford University Press, 1978. – “Russian Jews - A Bird’s Eye View,” Midstream 24, 10 (1978): 34–43. Altshuler, Mordechai. “The Attitude of the Communist Party of Russia to Jewish National Survival, 1918–1930.” YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science 14 (1969): 68–86. Anctil, Pierre, ed. Through the Eyes of The Eagle: The Early Montreal Yiddish Press, 1907–1916. Montreal: Véhicule Press, 2001.

Selected Bibliography

313

Angus, Ian. Canadian Bolsheviks: The Early Years of the Communist Party of Canada. Montreal: Vanguard Publications, 1981. Arnold, Abraham J. “The Jewish Left-Wing Press in Canada.” Outlook 36, 8 (1998): 13, 30; and 37, 1 (1999): 10–11, 30. – Judaism: Myth, Legend, History, and Custom, from the Religious to the Secular. Montreal: Robert Davies, 1995. Avakumovic, Ivan. The Communist Party in Canada: A History. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1975. Azadovskii, Konstantin, and Boris Egorov. “From Anti-Westernism to Anti-Semitism.” Journal of Cold War Studies 4, 1 (2002): 66–80. Baron, Salo W. The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets. New York: Macmillan, 1976. Betcherman, Lita-Rose. The Little Band: The Clashes between the Communists and the Political and Legal Establishment in Canada, 1928–1932. Ottawa: Deneau, 1982. Bialystok, Franklin. Delayed Impact: The Holocaust and the Canadian Jewish Community, 1945–1985. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000. Black, J.L., and Martin Rudner, eds. The Gouzenko Affair: Canada and the Beginnings of Cold War Counter-Espionage. Ottawa: Penumbra Press, 2006. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Field of Power, Literary Field and Habitus.” Translated from the French by Claud DuVerlie, in The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson, 161–75. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Brainin, Joseph. “The ‘Crime’ of Reuben Brainin.” Jewish Life 4, 4 (1950): 7–9. Brent, Jonathan, and Vladimir P. Naumov. Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot against the Jewish Doctors, 1948–1953. New York: HarperCollins 2003. Browder, Earl. “The American Communist Party in the Thirties.” In As We Saw the Thirties: Essays on Social and Political Movements of a Decade, ed. Rita James Simon, 216–53. Urbana, il: University of Illinois Press, 1967. Buhle, Paul. “Jews and American Communism: The Cultural Question.” Radical History Review 23 (1980): 9–33. Carr, E.H. Twilight of the Comintern, 1930–1935. New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. – What Is History? (The George Macaulay Trevelyan Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge, January-March 1961.) London: Macmillan, 1986. Caute, David. The Fellow-Travellers: Intellectual Friends of Communism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Cherniak, Saul. “Personal Perspective.” In Daniel Stone, ed., Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg, 1905–1960. Vol. 8, Jewish Life and Times, 205–9. Winnipeg: Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, 2003. Clément, Dominique. “The Royal Commission on Espionage and the Spy Trials of 1946–9: A Case Study in Parliamentary Supremacy.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association (New Series) 11 (2000): 151–72.

314

Selected Bibliography

– “Spies, Lies and a Commission: A Case Study in the Mobilization of the Canadian Civil Liberties Movement.” Left History 7, 2 (2000): 53–79 Cohen, Michelle, and Ester Reiter. “Women, Culture, Politics, Yiddishkayt and the Yiddish Arbeiter Froyen Farein.” Outlook 33, 2 (1995): 9–11. Cohen, Naomi W. The Year after the Riots: American Responses to the Palestine Crisis of 1929–30. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988. Connor, Walker. The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1984. Cowan, Trudy. “Yiddishkeit and Music: Edythe Pearlman’s Ninety Years in Calgary.” Discovery: Journal of the Jewish Historical Society of Southern Alberta 14, 3 (2004): 1–3. David-Fox, Michael. “From Illusory ‘Society’ to Intellectual ‘Public’: voks, International Travel and Party-Intelligentsia Relations in the Interwar Period.” Contemporary European History 11, 1 (2002): 7–32. Dekel-Chen, Jonathan. Farming the Red Land: Jewish Agricultural Colonization and Local Soviet Power, 1924–1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Deutscher, Isaac. “The Russian Revolution and the Jewish Problem.” In The Non-Jewish Jew and Other Essays, ed. Isaac Deutscher, 60–83. London: Oxford University Press, 1968. Doroshkin, Milton. Yiddish in America: Social and Cultural Foundations. Rutherford, nj: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1969. Emiot, Israel. The Birobidzhan Affair: A Yiddish Writer in Siberia. Translated from the Yiddish by Max Rosenfeld. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981. Estraikh, Gennady. “Yiddish Language Conference Aborted.” East European Jewish Affairs 25, 2 (1995): 91–2. – “The Yiddish-Language Communist Press.” In Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism (Studies in Contemporary Jewry 20), ed. Jonathan Frankel, 62–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Feuer, Lewis S. “American Travelers to the Soviet Union, 1917–32: The Formation of a Component of New Deal Ideology.” American Quarterly 14 (1962): 119–49. Finkel, Alvin. “The Decline of Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg after 1945.” In Daniel Stone, ed., Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg, 1905–1960. Vol. 8, Jewish Life and Times, 192–203. Winnipeg: Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, 2003. Frankel, Jonathan, “Modern Jewish Politics East and West (1840–1939): Utopia, Myth, Reality.” In The Quest for Utopia: Jewish Political Ideas and Institutions through the Ages, ed. Zvi Gitelman, 81–103. Armonk, ny: M.E. Sharpe, 1992.

Selected Bibliography

315

Frager, Ruth A. “Politicized Housewives in the Jewish Communist Movement of Toronto, 1923–1933.” In Beyond the Vote: Canadian Women and Politics, ed. Linda Kealey and Joan Sangster, 285–75. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989. – Sweatshop Strife: Class, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Jewish Labour Movement of Toronto, 1900–1939. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Frankel, Jonathan. Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862–1917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Gasner, Cynthia. “J.B. Salsberg ‘a Unique Personality.’” Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), 19 February 1998, 3. Geertz, Clifford. “Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, ed. Clifford Geertz, 3–30. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Gellner, Ernst. Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1994. Gentile, Emilio. Politics as Religion. Translated from the Italian by George Staunton. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 2006. Gershman, Joshua. “‘It Should Never Have Happened!’” Canadian Jewish Outlook 15, 2 (1977): 3–5. – “A Letter from Joshua Gershman to the C.C. of the Communist Party of Canada,” Canadian Jewish Outlook 15, 10 (1977): 10. Gitelman, Zvi. A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present. New York: Schocken Books, 1988. – “Introduction.” In The Quest for Utopia: Jewish Political Ideas and Institutions through the Ages, ed. Zvi Gitelman, ix–xii. Armonk, ny: M.E. Sharpe, 1992. – Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics: The Jewish Sections of the CPSU, 1917–1930. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1972. Glaser, Amelia, and David Weintraub, eds. Proletpen: America’s Rebel Yiddish Poets. Madison, wi: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. Glazer, Nathan. The Social Basis of American Communism. Westport, ct: Greenwood Press, 1974. Goldberg, B.Z. The Jewish Problem in the Soviet Union: Analysis and Solution. New York: Crown, 1961. Goldsmith, Emanuel S. Architects of Yiddishism at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: A Study in Jewish Cultural History. Rutherford, nj: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1976. Gonick, Cy. A Very Red Life: The Story of Bill Walsh. St John’s, nl: Canadian Committee on Labour History, 2001. Gorny, Yosef. Converging Alternatives: The Bund and the Zionist Labor Movement, 1897–1985. Albany, ny: State University of New York Press, 2006.

316

Selected Bibliography

Granatstein, J.L., and David Stafford. Spy Wars: Espionage and Canada from Gouzenko to Glasnost. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1990. Guralnick, Harry. “Kanadisher komunistishe partay fayert 50-yorikn yubili.’ Vochenblat, 27 October 1971, 5. Gutkin Harry, with Mildred Gutkin. The Worst of Times, the Best of Times. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1987. Hallas, Duncan. The Comintern. London: Bookmarks, 1985. Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials That Shaped American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hemingway, Andrew. Artists on the Left: American Artists and the Communist Movement, 1926–1956. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Hertzberg, Arthur. The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter – A History. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989. Hollander, Paul. Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, 1928–1978. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, ca: University of California Press, 1985. Israelite Press. “Canadian Jewish Congress Endorses Balfour Declaration.” In The Israelite Press: Centennial Supplement, 1867–1967, 3. Winnipeg: Israelite Press, 1967. Isserman, Maurice. If I Had a Hammer ... The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left. New York: Basic Books, 1987. – Which Side Were You On? The American Communist Party during the Second World War. Middletown, ct: Wesleyan University Press, 1982. Kagedan, Allan L. “Birobidzhan.” Central Asian Survey 12, 2 (1993): 87–94. – Soviet Zion: The Quest for a Russian Jewish Homeland. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994. Klehr, Harvey, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov. The Secret World of American Communism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Klehr, Harvey, Kyrill M. Anderson, and John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Klepfisz, Irena. “Di Mames, Dos Loshn/The Mothers, the Language: Feminism, Yidishkayt, and the Politics of Memory.” Bridges: A Journal for Jewish Feminists and Our Friends 4, 1 (1994): 12–47. Klinghoffer, Arthur J. Red Apocalypse: The Religious Evolution of Soviet Communism. Lanham, md: University Press of America, 1996. Knight, Amy. How the Cold War Began: The Gouzenko Affair and the Hunt for Soviet Spies. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2005. Kolinsky, Martin. Law, Order and Riots in Mandatory Palestine, 1928–35. London: St Martin’s Press, 1993.

Selected Bibliography

317

Krammer, Arnold. The Forgotten Friendship: Israel and the Soviet Bloc, 1947–53. Urbana, il: University of Illinois Press, 1974. Kutulas, Judy. The Long War: The Intellectual People’s Front and Anti-Stalinism, 1930–1940. Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1995. Lambertson, Ross. Repression and Resistance: Canadian Human Rights Activists, 1930–1960. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. Lappin, Ben. “When Michoels and Feffer Came to Toronto.” Viewpoints 7, 2 (1972): 43–64. Laxer, James. Red Diaper Baby: A Boyhood in the Age of McCarthyism. Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre, 2004. Lendvai, Paul. Anti-Semitism without Jews: Communist Eastern Europe. Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1971. Leviatin, David. Followers of the Trail: Jewish Working-Class Radicals in America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Levendel, Lewis. A Century of the Canadian Jewish Press: 1880s–1980s. Ottawa: Borealis Press, 1989. Levin, Nora. The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917. New York: New York University Press, 1988. Liebman, Arthur. Jews and the Left. New York: John Wiley, 1978. Lipshitz, Sam. “Followed by the rcmp.” In The Un-Canadians: True Stories of the Blacklist Era, ed. Len Scher, 123–4. Toronto: Lester Publishing, 1992. – “On a Mission to Poland, Right after the War.” Voice of Radom (Special Commemorative Issue) (Toronto), 1992, 26–8. Lunan, Gordon. The Making of a Spy. Montreal: Robert Davies Publishing, 1995. Lyons, Paul. Philadelphia Communists, 1936–1956. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982. – “Philadelphia Jews and Radicalism: The American Jewish Congress Cleans House.” In Philadelphia Jewish Life, 1940–1985, ed. Murray Friedman, 57–69. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003. Manley, John. “A British Communist mp in Canada: Willie Gallacher Builds the Popular Front.” Communist History Network Newsletter 6 (1998): 6–11. – “‘Communists Love Canada!’: The Communist Party of Canada, the ‘People’ and the Popular Front, 1933–1939.” Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d’études canadiennes 36, 4 (2001–02): 59–86. Margulies, Sylvia R. The Pilgrimage to Russia: The Soviet Union and the Treatment of Foreigners, 1924–1937. Madison, wi: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. McDermott, Kevin, and Jeremy Agnew. The Comintern: A History of International Communism from Lenin to Stalin. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996. McKnight, David. Espionage and the Roots of the Cold War: The Conspiratorial Heritage. London: Frank Cass, 2002.

318

Selected Bibliography

Meisel, Nakhman. “Di letste rayzeh fun dr khaim zhitlovsky,” Vochenblat, 3 June 1965, 5 Mendelsohn, Ezra. On Modern Jewish Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Mendes, Philip. “The Rise and Fall of the Jewish/Left Alliance: An Historical and Political Analysis.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 45, 4 (1999): 483–505. Michels, Tony. A Fire in Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2005. Miller, Jacob. “Soviet Theory on the Jews.” In The Jews in Soviet Russia Since 1917, 3rd ed., ed. Lionel Kochan, 46–63. London: Oxford University Press, 1978. Munck, Ronaldo. The Difficult Dialogue: Marxism and Nationalism. London: Zed Books, 1986. Muraskin, Bennett. Let Justice Well Up Like Water: Progressive Jews from Hillel to Helen Suzman. Richmond Heights, oh: Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, 2004. Nahshon, Edna. Yiddish Proletarian Theatre: The Art and Politics of the Artef, 1925–1940. Westport, ct: Greenwood Press, 1998. Naison, Mark. Communists in Harlem during the Depression. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983. Nemzer, Louis. “The Soviet Friendship Societies.” Public Opinion Quarterly 13, 2 (1949): 265–84. Nimni, Ephraim. Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis. London: Pluto Press, 1991. Paris, Erna. Jews: An Account of Their Experience in Canada. Toronto: Macmillian Canada, 1980. Penner, Norman. Canadian Communism: The Stalin Years and Beyond. Toronto: Methuen, 1988. Pinkus, Benjamin. The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Redlich, Shimon. Propaganda and Nationalism in Wartime Russia: The Jewish Antifascist Committee in the USSR, 1941–1948. Boulder, co: East European Quarterly, 1982. – War, Holocaust and Stalinism: A Documented History of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the USSR. Luxembourg: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995. Rees, Tim, and Andrew Thorpe, eds. International Communism and the Communist International, 1919–43. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998. Reiter, Ester. “Labl Basman (1903–1976).” Outlook 42, 1 (2004): 24–5, 42. – “Secular Yiddishkait: Left Politics, Culture, and Community.” Labour/Le Travail 49 (2002): 121–46.

Selected Bibliography

319

Reiter, Ester, and Roz Usiskin. “Jewish Dissent in Canada: The United Jewish People’s Order.” Outlook 42, 5 (2004): 20–2, 41. Roberts, Geoffrey. The Unholy Alliance: Stalin’s Pact with Hitler. London: I.B. Tauris, 1989. Ro’i, Yaakov. Soviet Decision Making in Practice: The USSR and Israel, 1947–1954. New Brunswick, nj: Transaction Books, 1980. Rose, Ben. “Sam Lipshitz: Champion of the Yiddish Language.” Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), 28 September 2000, 35. – “ujpo Rejoins Congress.” Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), 16 March 1995, 6. Rosenberg, Suzanne. Soviet Odyssey. Toronto: Penguin Canada, 1991. Rosenfeld, Max. “Zhitlovsky: Philosopher of Jewish Secularism.” In “Jewish Currents” Reader, ed. Morris U. Schappes, Louis Harap, Sam Pevzner, and David Platt, 77–89. New York: Jewish Currents, 1966. Ross, Arthur. “Personal Perspective on William C. Ross.” In Daniel Stone, ed. Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg, 1905–1960. Vol. 8: Jewish Life and Times, 210–13. Winnipeg: Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, 2003. Rubenstein, Joshua, and Vladimir P. Naumov, eds. Stalin’s Secret Pogrom: The Postwar Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Rucker, Laurent. Moscow’s Surprise: The Soviet-Israeli Alliance of 1947–1949. Cold War International History Project Working Paper Series no. 46. Washington, dc: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2005. Sabin, Arthur J. Red Scare in Court: New York versus the International Workers Order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Salisbury, Harrison E. American in Russia. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. “Sam Carr Remembered.” Outlook 27, 6 (1989): 10–11 Schrecker, Ellen W. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Schwarz, Solomon M. The Jews in the Soviet Union. Syracuse, ny: Syracuse University Press, 1951. Sebag-Montefiore, Simon. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Shapira, Anita. “‘Black Night—White Snow’: Attitudes of the Palestinian Labor Movement to the Russian Revolution, 1917–1929.” In Essential Papers on Jews and the Left, ed. Ezra Mendelsohn, 236–71. New York: New York University Press, 1997. Shapiro, Frank. Haven in Africa. Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 2002. Shek, Ben Z. “Labl Basman.” Canadian Jewish Outlook 14, 2–3 (1976): 13. Shek, Sol. “A Lifetime in the Labour Movement: Interview with Joshua Gershman.” Outlook 25, 9–10 (1987): 7–8, 10, 37.

320

Selected Bibliography

Shneer, David. Yiddish and the Creation of Soviet Jewish Culture, 1918–1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Shtern, Sholem. “Bageygenishn un shmusen mit Kalmen Marmor.” Yidishe Kultur 43, 5 (1981): 14–20. – Nostalgie et tristesse: Mémoires littéraires du Montréal Yiddish. Edited and translated from the Yiddish by Pierre Anctil. Montreal: Éditions du Noroît, 2006. – Shrayber vos ikh hob gekent: Memyarn un esayen. Montreal: Sholem Shtern bukh fon komitet, 1982. – “Y. Gershman –tsu zayne 75 yor,” Vochenblat, 13 September 1978, 5. – “Z. Weinper–tsu zayn 15tn yortsayt,” Vochenblat, 26 April 1972, 7–8. Smith, Doug. Joe Zuken, Citizen and Socialist Toronto: James Lorimer, 1990. Soyer, Daniel. “Back to the Future: American Jews Visit the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s.” Jewish Social Studies 6, 3 (2000): 124–59. – “Soviet Travel and the Making of an American Jewish Communist: Moissaye Olgin’s Trip to Russia in 1920–1921.” American Communist History 4, 1 (2005): 1–20. Speisman, Stephen A. The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979. Srebrnik, Henry. “An Idiosyncratic Fellow-Traveller: Vilhjalmur Stefansson and the American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidzhan.” East European Jewish Affairs 28, 1 (1998): 37–53. – “Birobidzhan on the Prairies: Two Decades of Pro-Soviet Jewish Movements in Winnipeg.” In Daniel Stone, ed. Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg, 1905–1960. Vol. 8: Jewish Life and Times, 172–91. Winnipeg: Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, 2003. – “Diaspora, Ethnicity and Dreams of Nationhood: North American Jewish Communists and the Soviet Birobidzhan Project.” In Yiddish and the Left, ed. Gennady Estraikh and Mikhail Krutikov, 80–108. Oxford: Legenda Press of the European Humanities Research Centre, 2001. – “Leadership and Control within an American Jewish Communist Front: The Case of the icor.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 16, 3 (1998): 103–17. – London Jews and British Communism, 1935–1945. London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1995. – “Red Star Over Birobidzhan: Canadian Jewish Communists and the ‘Jewish Autonomous Region’ in the Soviet Union.” Labour/Le Travail 44 (1999): 129–47. – “Such Stuff as Diaspora Dreams Are Made On: Birobidzhan and the CanadianJewish Communist Imagination,” Canadian Jewish Studies 10 (2002): 75–107. St George, George. Siberia: The New Frontier. New York: David McKay, 1969.

Selected Bibliography

321

Switzer, Jack. “Chaim Zhitlovsky, Revered Yiddish Philosopher, His Canadian Connections.” Outlook 37, 7 (1999): 24–5. Szajkowski, Zosa. Jews, Wars, and Communism. Vol. 1: The Attitude of American Jews to World War I, the Russian Revolutions of 1917, and Communism (1914–1945). New York: Ktav, 1972. – Jews, Wars, and Communism. Vol. 4: The Mirage of American Jewish Aid in Soviet Russia, 1917–1939. New York: privately printed, 1977. Trachtenberg, Henry. “The Winnipeg Jewish Community in the Inter-war Period, 1919–1939: Anti-Semitism and Politics.” Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal 4, 1 (1980): 44–70. Traverso, Enzo. The Marxists and the Jewish Question: The History of a Debate (1843–1943). Translated from the French by Bernard Gibbons. Atlantic Highlands, nj: Humanities Press, 1994. Tulchinsky, Gerald. Branching Out: The Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community. Toronto: Stoddart, 1998. – “Family Quarrel: Joe Salsberg, the ‘Jewish’ Question, and Canadian Communism.” Labour/Le Travail 56 (Fall 2005): 149–73. Usiskin, Roz. “The ‘Alien’ and the ‘Bolshevik’: The 1919 Winnipeg General Strike, Part 3.” Canadian Jewish Outlook 21, 11 (1983): 10–12, 18. – “Moses Almazov and the Winnipeg General Strike, Part 1.” Outlook 33, 3 (1995): 13–14. – “Moses Almazov and the Winnipeg General Strike, Part 2.” Outlook 33, 4 (1995): 10, 30–31. – “The Winnipeg Jewish Community: Its Radical Elements 1905–1918.” Historical and Scientific Society of Manitoba Transactions 3, 33 (1976–77): 10–21. – “Winnipeg’s Jewish Women of the Left: Radical and Traditional.” In David Stone, ed., Jewish Radicalism in Winnipeg, 1905–1960. Vol. 8: Jewish Life and Times, 106–21. Winnipeg: Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, 2003. – “Unzer chaver sol shek 1901–1989,” Outlook 27, 4 (1989): 21. Vaksberg, Arkady. Stalin against the Jews. Translated from the Russian by Antonia W. Bouis. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994. Vital, David. Zionism: The Formative Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Victor, D.I. (Itzi). “The Life of Dr. Benjamin A. Victor.” Outlook 37, 3 (1999): 11–12, 29; and 37, 4 (1999): 13–15. Walker, Thomas J.E. Pluralistic Fraternity: The History of the International Worker’s Order. New York: Garland, 1991. Wasserstein, Bernard. The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict, 1917–1929. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Watson, Louise. She Was Never Afraid: The Biography of Annie Buller. Toronto: Progress Books, 1976.

322

Selected Bibliography

Weinberg, David H. Between Tradition and Modernity: Haim Zhitlowski, Simon Dubnow, Ahad Ha-Am, and the Shaping of Modern Jewish Identity. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1996. Weinberg, Robert. “Jews into Peasants? Solving the Jewish Question in Birobidzhan.” In Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union, ed. Yaacov Ro’i, 87–102. London: Frank Cass, 1995. – “Purge and Politics in the Periphery: Birobidzhan in 1937.” Slavic Review 52, 1 (1993): 13–27. – Stalin’s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland. An Illustrated History, 1928–1996. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. Weiner, Amir. “Nature and Nurture in a Socialist Utopia: Delineating the Soviet Socio-Ethnic Body in the Age of Socialism.” In Stalinism: The Essential Readings, ed. David L. Hoffman, 243–74. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2003. Weinrib, Lorraine E. “Ensuring Equality: The Role of the Community.” In From Immigration to Integration: The Canadian Jewish Experience: A Millennium Edition, ed. Ruth Klein and Frank Dimant, 69–91. Toronto: Institute for International Affairs, B’nai Brith Canada, 2001. Weinryb, Bernard D. “Antisemitism in Soviet Russia.” In The Jews in Soviet Russia Since 1917, 3rd ed., ed. Lionel Kochan, 300–32. London: Oxford University Press, 1978. Weisbord, Merrily. The Strangest Dream: Canadian Communists, the Spy Trials, and the Cold War. Montreal: Véhicule Press, 1994. Weisbord, Robert G. African Zion: The Attempt to Establish a Jewish Colony in the East Africa Protectorate, 1903–1905. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication of America, 1968. Whitaker, Reg. “Official Repression of Communism during World War II.” Labour/Le Travail 17 (1986): 135–66. Whitaker, Reg, and Gary Marcuse. Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945–1957. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. Worley, Matthew, ed. In Search of Revolution: International Communist Parties in the “Third Period.” London: I.B. Tauris, 2004. Zucker, Bat-Ami. “American Jewish Communists and Jewish Culture in the 1930s.” Modern Judaism 14, 2 (1994): 175–85. – “The ‘Jewish Bureau’: The Organization of American Jewish Communists in the 1930s.” In Modern History: Bar-Ilan Studies in History III, ed. Michael J. Cohen, 135–47. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991.

Index

Bold indicates photographs Aberson, Mark, 135 Abramovitch, Herman, 96, 109–11, 118–19, 122, 124–5, 127–9, 162, 176, 264n5 Abramsky, Chimen, 16 activists: Arbayter Ring, 110, 174; Communist, 78, 119, 159; icor, 48, 76, 78, 94, 96, 110, 113, 135, 162, 193, 260n64; Labour League, 87; non-Communist, 118; Zionist, 4, 83, 131, 174. See also individual activists Agro-Industrial Co-operative Inc., 24 agro-industrialization, 24, 28, 54–5, 57 Agro-Joint, 17 al-Husseini, Amin (Haj), 168–9 aliya. See immigration Almazov, Shloime (Sol), 22, 41, 46, 61–70, 72, 89, 105, 146, 148–9, 188, 227, 252n36, 272n26, 274n35, 288n16; jailed, 73 Ambijan, xiv, 70, 122–3, 150, 184–6, 188, 191, 208, 289n17, 299n23; conferences, 184–6, 190, 208 Ambijan Bulletin, 196, 299n23 Ambrose, Jean, 125 American Commission of Scientists and Experts, 32, 34–42, 44, 52, 250n38

American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidjan. See Ambijan American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (the Joint), 14–15, 20, 21, 24–5, 28, 33, 133–4, 191, 247n8, 270n2 Amter, Israel, 59 Amurzet collective, 38, 52–3 anti-Communist campaigns, 126, 217–18. See also Bennett, R.B. government; Mackenzie King government anti-fascist campaigns, 67–70, 96, 104, 110, 130, 174–5 Anti-Fascist Committee. See Canadian Jewish Congress (cjc), Anti-Fascist Committee anti-Semitism, 286n156; academic, 6; in Canada, 67, 110, 120, 181, 265n12; capitalist, 102, 110, 128–9, 142–3, 199; Communist, 10; Europe, 120; in Europe, 65–6, 146; in Germany (See also Nazi atrocities); Marxist, 227; Soviet solution, 5, 9, 21, 110, 169, 199–200; in ussr, 128, 208–9, 211, 215–17, 219, 222, 227–8, 246n32 (See also executions,

324

Index

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (ussr); Stalin, Joseph) anti-Soviet campaigns, 10, 65–6, 81–2, 198 anti-Zionism, 10, 57–8, 68, 83, 97–9, 228; reversed, 168–9 Arab-Jewish hostilities, 46–7, 52, 120, 223, 228 Arbayter Ring, 4, 134, 157, 244n7; conference, 72 Arcand, Adrien, 110 Arnold, Abraham J., 184, 186, 287n3, 289n13 Aronoff, J., 189 Aronovitch, A.H., 161 arrests: Birobidzhan, 124; Canada, 73, 152, 178, 213, 217–18, 275n3, 279n53, 298n12; Czechoslovakia, 220; ussr, 209, 220, 299n26 Asch, Sholem, 174, 177 Ashkenazi Yiddish civilization, 8–9, 187 assimilationism, 6, 11, 13–14, 29, 51, 110 Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union. See icor (Canada); icor (North America); icor (us) Association for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land. See gezerd Averbach, Meyer, 130 Backall, Moishe, 136–7 Backallinsky, Frumkeh, 164 Bailey, Max, 179, 181, 189–90, 198, 213, 216 Bailin, Israel Ber, 30, 149 Bakhmutsky, Aleksander, 204, 293n60 Balfour Declaration (1917), 12, 48, 58, 72–3, 98 Baron, Salo W., 246n40 Basman, Labl, 78, 89–90, 156–8, 162, 166, 214, 215, 223, 226, 301n48 Becker, I.L., 129 Bekenshtein, V., 82, 258n47

Belarus, 14–15, 21, 23, 26, 33, 61, 69, 103, 153, 178 Bendoff, Y., 86–7, 98, 263n105 Benjamin, L.M., 118 Bennett, A.B. (Archie), 144, 161, 167, 174, 177, 183, 185, 189, 216, 219, 280n71 Bennett, R.B. government, 91–4, 105–7 Bercovitch, Peter, 158, 178 Bergelson, David, 116, 171, 220 Bernstein, Mendel, 108, 115 Berson, H.D., 83 Bialik, Khaim Nakhman, 65, 98, 137–8 Bialystok, 153, 276n9 Bick, Abraham J. (Rabbi), 192, 193, 197, 207, 209, 212, 294n79 Biderman, Morris, 156, 183, 197, 203, 215, 218, 222–3, 226, 299n31, 300n40 Binder, Harry, 183, 213 Birobidjan Appeal to Aid Jewish War Orphans, 189 Birobidzhan, 18; achievements, 153–4, 169, 201, 234, 237–9; administrative rayon, 52; agriculture, 32, 38–9, 230–1, 233, 239–40; appeal, 120, 122–3, 205–6, 258n47; climate, 36, 229; collapse, 247n48; construction, 56–7, 105, 231; history, 197, 204; industry, 42, 230–1, 239–40; jar, 18–19, 92–3, 95–6, 102, 140, 151, 232–4; Jewish culture, 19, 127, 136–7, 169–70, 240–1; and Palestine, 168, 194, 205; parallels with Canada, 30, 34–5, 120; post-war renewal, 204; potential, 33–4, 43, 250n39; socialist nation building, 99–100, 241–2; Soviet investment, 53, 154. See also American Commission of Scientists and Experts Birobidzhan Committee (Montreal), 118–19, 126, 128, 136–7

Index Birobidzhan project: appeal, 11; criteria for success, 34, 42; exposed, 221; gezerd / komerd plan, 29; and Jewish emancipation, 42; non-socialist support, 49–50; objectives, 29; opposition, 17–18, 41, 44–5, 81–2, 141, 225, 247nn47–8; progress, 90, 98, 127; reception, 21, 28, 35, 246n40; Soviet investment, 52, 62, 81, 98, 138, 141, 223, 231–2; vs. Palestine project, 145 Birobidzhaner Committee (Winnipeg), 114 Birobidzhaner Shtern, 53, 79, 222 Birofeld collective, 18, 37, 53 Blick, A., 119 Bloc Populaire Canadien, 179, 181 Blumstein, P., 117 B’nai Abraham Free Loan Society, 76 B’nai Brith, 157 Bolshevik Revolution. See Russian Revolution (1917) Bolsheviks, 14–16, 83 Boraisha, Menachem, 22, 27, 29, 46, 48, 59 Borochov, Ber, 8 Bourdieu, Pierre, xvi Brainin, Joseph, 150, 273n46, 274n35 Brainin, Reuben: and Hebrew press, 139; and icor, 22, 26, 31, 75, 78; on icor, 136; and icor (Canada), 129, 133–7, 139, 140, 143, 145–6; on jar, 140–2; and non-Communist left, 140; ostracized, 144–5; posthumous assessments, 147–50; supporters, 138–40; on ussr, 133, 138, 144–6; and Zionists, 132, 137–8 Brick, Rakhmiel, 84–6 Brodin, Maxim, 126 Brodsky, Barnet, 22, 24, 31 Brodsky, Joseph, 24 Bronfman, Allan, 158–9

325

Bronfman, Samuel, 158, 174 Bronstein, Rose, 106, 129, 162–3, 194, 198, 198–9, 207–8, 211, 223, 280n73 Brooks, Fayvel, 95 Browder, Earl, 70 Brown, Benjamin, 24, 28, 31, 36, 38, 43 Buck, Tim, 91, 108, 126, 182, 202, 207, 264n5 Budish, Jacob Mordecai (J.M.), 22, 50, 186, 189–91, 195, 199, 207, 299n23 Buhay, Becky, 178 Buhay, Michael, 164, 178, 181–2, 213, 218, 254n10, 286n156 Buller, Annie, 275n3 Bulletin (Icor), 22, 24, 192 Burakoff, J., 79 Cahan, Ab, 140 Caiserman, Hananiah Meyer, 130–1, 144, 191, 290n24 California Jewish Voice, 135 Canada Birobidjan Committee. See Canadian Birobidjan Committee Canada-Soviet Friendship Society, 222 Canadian Aid to Russia Fund, 159 Canadian Birobidjan Committee, xiv, 189–92, 196–9, 203, 205–7, 211, 216, 219; conferences, 189–90, 192–4, 196–7. See also Birobidzhan Committee (Montreal) Canadian government, 184, 217–18, 297n7. See also Bennett, R.B. government; Duplessis, Maurice government; Mackenzie King government Canadian Jewish Communist movement. See Communist movement, Jewish Canadian Canadian Jewish community. See Jewish community Canadian Jewish Congress (cjc), 72–3, 100, 130–1, 132, 161, 173–4, 186–7, 280n71

326

Index

Canadian Jewish People’s Alliance (Folks Farband fun Kanader Yidn). See Canadian Jewish Congress (cjc) Canadian Jewish Review, 138, 144 Canadian Jewish Weekly. See Vochenblat Canadian Labour Defence League, 85 Canadian People’s Front, 108 capitalism, 65, 84, 103, 120, 143 Carr, Bessie, 125 Carr, E.H., xviii Carr, Sam (Shloime Kogan), 77, 89, 91, 108–9, 152, 170, 179, 182, 183, 217, 222, 297n9; jailed, 88 censorship, 84, 91–2, 152 Chamberlain, Joseph, 12 Chemerisky, Aleksander, 15, 246n41 Cherniak, J.A. (Alter), 130–1, 296n101 Chicherin, Georgi, 14 Chunn, Margaret, 161 City of Birobidzhan. See Tikhonkaia civilization, Jewish European, 173, 187 class conflict, 46, 48, 100, 108, 142 classes, Jewish: bourgeoisie, 14, 28, 49–50, 67, 88, 100, 189; capitalists, 8, 86, 111; intelligentsia, 6, 22, 144–5, 149, 220; workers, xiv, 6, 8, 48–50, 57, 59–60, 71–2, 107, 119, 179, 203, 244n7 Cohen, Nathan, 187–8, 289n13 Cohen, Zvi Hirsch (Rabbi), 159 Cohl, C., 290n22 Cold War, 209, 212–13, 217 collectives, 25, 36, 53–5, 60, 64, 114, 122, 199. See also specific collectives colonialism. See imperialism colonization: and Jewish culture, 11, 17, 26–7, 31, 38, 82, 134; sites, 28–30, 36, 61, 86, 87, 133, 142 (See also specific sites); socialist, 49, 51, 134–5. See also homeland; settlement, Jewish; specific colonization projects Committee for Medical Aid to the Soviet Union, 161

Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land (komzet). See komerd (Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land) Committee of 15, 114 Communism: Jewish, xviii, 5–10, 72, 224, 227–8, 245n26 (See also Jewish question); socialist core, 226–7 (See also socialism); Soviet, xviii, 72, 226, 228; vs. capitalism, 143 Communist front groups, 6–7, 21, 72, 183, 245n24, 245nn23–4, 257nn38–9. See also specific organizations Communist International (Cominterm), 10, 46, 70, 81, 108, 151, 250n3, 257nn38–9. See also Moscow Communist movement, Canadian, 71, 203, 212–14, 218. See also icor (Canada); icor (North America) Communist movement, Jewish: on anti-Semitism, 142; and colonization, 20–1, 47; historical background, 3–4, 7–8, 10; Mikhoels memorials, 215–16; and rabbis, 65–6; and socialism, xvi, 9; united front, 70; and ussr, 10, 124, 152, 154–5, 221, 227; vs. Communist Jews, 223. See also Jewish movements Communist movement, Jewish Canadian, xiv, 72, 124, 131, 136, 151, 172, 215, 221, 260n62, 261n81. See also Canadian Birobidjan Committee; icor entries; Jewish movements; United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo) Communist movement, world, xiv, 6, 46–7, 93, 104–8, 120, 129, 151, 154, 245n26 Communist Party of Canada (cpc): and Comintern, 81, 257nn38–9; criminalized, 88, 151–2; fundraising, 80, 156; Jewish Bureau, 71, 95, 118; Jewish membership, 183, 254n3; in

Index political mainstream, 175, 177–9, 181–2, 285n140; unionism, 108. See also Labor-Progressive Party (lpp); socialism, Jewish Communist Party of the Soviet Union (cpsu), 10, 46, 81, 130, 140, 201–4; sectarianism, 128, 154 Communist Party usa (cpusa), 250n4; Jewish Section, 21, 48, 50 Coodin, Freda, 96 Coulter, Garnet, 158 Cowan, Jack, 264n3 Crestohl, Leon, 213 Crimea, 15, 17, 21, 23–4, 26, 28–9, 31, 36–7, 43, 60–1, 69, 71, 137, 142, 199 Criminal Code, 105, 107 Criminal Code (Canada), 88. See also Padlock Law (1937) Daily Worker, 137 Darrow, Clarence, 134 Davidson, J. Brownlee, 36–7 Davies, Joseph E., 158 Davies, Raymond Arthur (Rudolph Shohan), 157, 185–7, 288n9, 298n12 death camps. See Nazi atrocities Defence of Canada Regulations, 151, 156 demonstrations / rallies: anti-Semitic, 110; against anti-Semitism, 65, 181; election, 95, 178; pro-Israel, 98, 207; pro-Soviet, 141, 158, 161, 174, 176–7 Der Kamf, 72, 77, 82, 84, 90, 105–6, 254n10. See also Vochenblat Der Vochenblat. See Vochenblat Deutsch, Morton, 145 Deutscher, Isaac, 15 diasporic exile, 8 Dimanshtein, Shimen, 14, 16, 40, 54, 246n42

327

Dimitrov, Georgi, 151 diplomatic relations, 106–7; us / ussr, 67 divide and conquer tactics, 93, 120 Dolgoy, Annie, 78 Dolgoy, Max, 78, 96, 257n39 Donner, Fred, 158, 196, 279n57 Drabkin, M., 126 Dreeze, S., 73 Duplessis, Maurice government, 126, 218 Dworkin, Y., 74 Edmonton Journal, 112–13 Ehrenburg, Ilya, 178 Einstein, Albert, 190 Eisen, A., 290n22 Eisendrath, Maurice N. (Rabbi), 130, 161, 270n61 elections, 106–8, 127 Elentoff, S., 75 Ellis, Sol, 94 emigration, 11, 71, 82, 114, 122, 194, 254n1 Emiot, Israel, 283n120 Epstein, Abraham (Ab.), 22, 31, 52–3, 58–9, 61–3, 73–5, 77–8, 81–4, 92, 108, 251n12 Epstein, Adolph, 115 Epstein, Melech, 17, 22, 23, 48–51, 58, 247n48 Epstein, Shakhno, 22, 171–2 Erenberg, Max, 90, 130 Erets Yisroel, 12, 119, 138, 160, 168–9, 172–3, 199, 201–3, 205. See Palestine Erlick, George, 189–90, 194 Etcovitch, H., 118 Ewen, Tom (McEwen), 102 executions, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (ussr), 216, 220–1, 246n41–246n42, 293n60 Exodus of Europe, 203

328

Index

fascism, 67–8, 70, 99–100, 102–3, 105, 107–8, 110, 120, 143, 171, 265n12 Fefer, Itzik, 153, 171, 174, 175–7, 201, 208–9, 220 Feinberg, Abraham (Rabbi), 183 Feldman, Avrom, 73, 75, 79, 85–6 Feldman, Moishe, 91, 150, 163, 261n74 Fink, Viktor, 16 Fischer, Louis, 17, 123 Fitch, Louis, 159–61, 174, 185–6, 191, 194 Forverts, 33, 50, 52, 67, 140, 153, 155 Frank, Moses, 139 Frank, Solomon (Rabbi), 130–1 Frankel, Jonathan, 244n9 Fraydorf, 15 Frayhayt. See Morgn Frayhayt Frayhayt Gezang Farayn, 119, 147 Frayhayt Gezang Farayn un Mandolin Orkester, 96 Frayhayt Mandolin Orkester, 147 Freed, Norman, 77, 182 Freeland League for Jewish Territorial Colonization, 12–13 Freeman, Alex, 161 Freiman, A.J., 98 Friends of the Soviet Union (fsu), 65, 72, 106 fundraising. See individual fundraising organizations Gallacher, William, 117–18 Gampel, Abraham, 79, 90, 95, 194 Garson, Stuart, 158 Gartner, Emil, 192 Gauld, Alex, 218 Geertz, Clifford, xv gemeinshaft (community), xvi genocide. See Nazi atrocities German Jewish Emigration Council, 13 German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty. See Hitler-Stalin Pact (1939)

Gershman, Joshua (Joe), 23, 77–8, 89, 165, 193, 198; affiliations, 102, 104, 161, 175, 184, 254n10, 280n71, 286n156, 290n25; and Birobidzhan, 92–3, 189, 191, 193, 196, 199, 202, 219; Communism, 4, 223, 226; death, 227; on Palestine / Israel, 201–3, 207, 209; pro-Soviet, 208, 211, 222 Gezelshaft far Yidishe Kolonizatsye in Sovyetn-Farband. See icor (North America) gezerd (Association for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land), 14–15, 17, 29, 32, 54, 77, 116, 120, 138 Ginsburg, Mordecai, 139 Gitelman, Zvi, 4 Glassman, Joseph, 22, 26–7, 31, 49 Gold, Aaron, xvii Gold, N., 194, 290n22 Gold, Simon, 118, 128, 131, 158 Goldberg, B.Z., 22, 26, 29, 31, 144, 156, 167, 170, 191, 196–7, 282n99, 291n32 Goldfaden, Abraham, 201 Goldie Vine Papers, 84 Goldstein, Benjamin (Rabbi), 109 Goldstein, M.Z., 252n25 Golfman, F., 126 Gordon, R.S. (Sid Ostrovsky), 288n7 Gouzenko, Igor, 217 Great Break, 45 Green, Ber, 254n10 Greenberg, Hayim, 225, 290n22 Gromyko, Andrei, 185, 203 Guberman, Louie (Vasil), 191, 290n25 Guralnick, Harry, 198; affiliations, 92, 96, 100–1, 104, 106, 131, 184, 254n10, 287n3; arrested, 275n3; tours, 108–9, 112–13, 115 Gutkin, L., 74

Index Halper, Yitzkhok, 296n101 Halperin, Philip, 74, 90–1, 254n10 Hamer, A., 99 Hammer, Julius, 22 Harris, Franklin S., 36, 38, 40 Harris, Mary, 183 Hartt, Maurice, 181, 213 Hayes, Saul, 187, 288n9 Hebraists, xix, 122, 139, 144, 148, 165. See also classes, Jewish, intelligentsia Hemingway, Andrew, 245n24 Hershbain, Israel, 51, 79, 83–6, 113, 118, 122, 126, 128, 269n57 Herzl, Theodor, 12, 29, 138 Hess, Moses, 8 Hirsh, Maurice de (Baron), 12, 86 Hirshbein, Peretz, 43, 108, 144 Hitler, Adolf, 67, 108–10, 152, 170, 174 Hitler-Stalin Pact (1939), 9, 146, 148, 154–5, 164; defence of, 152 Hofshtein, David, 171, 220 Holocaust, 172–4, 187, 289n13 Holocaust survivors, 173, 184, 188, 205, 212–13, 224, 288n9 homeland, 8–12, 15, 19, 27, 61, 97–100, 125–6. See also Birobidzhan project; Palestine project; Uganda Plan Horowitz, Donald L., 286n150 “Icor” Bulletin, 92, 125 icor (Canada): and bourgeois cjc, 130; and Communist Party, 107; contributions to Birobidzhan, 112, 116; defence of ussr, 106–7; effect of WW II, 162; English-language branch, 117; financial situation, 256n32, 258n42, 267n35; headquarters, 95; and icor leadership, 85, 87–90; liquidationist tendency, 127–8; membership, 95, 259n56; people’s delegation, 118–19; and Poale Zion, 267n31; split with icor (North

329

America), 88; tours, 112–13, 117, 124, 134–5, 140, 197, 203; weaknesses, 121; women, 75, 85–6, 96, 104, 115; youth, 104, 109, 114–15, 125 icor (Canada), branches: Calgary, 97, 108–9, 112, 157, 256n25, 258n42, 259n48, 261n77, 267n35; Cornwall, 97, 267n35; Edenbridge, 86–7, 97, 109, 113, 124–5, 260n50, 263n105, 267n35; Edmonton, 76, 108, 112, 115, 256n25, 258n42, 259n48, 267n35; Hamilton, 76–7, 84–5, 90, 96, 109, 116, 157, 256n25, 258n42, 259n48, 278n49, 367n35; London, 125, 128, 256n25; Montreal, 78, 80, 85, 95, 109, 113–14, 117–19, 128, 134, 256n25, 258n42, 259n48, 261n77, 267n35; Niagara District, 95–6, 109, 115, 258n42, 259n48, 267n35; Ottawa, 75, 77, 256n25, 258n42; Regina, 128, 267n35; Saskatoon, 113, 128, 157, 267n35; Toronto, 75–80, 90, 95, 109, 115, 119, 256n25, 258n42, 259n48, 261n77, 267n35; Vancouver, 76, 82, 90, 97, 108, 112, 256n25, 258n42, 267n35; Windsor, 75, 78, 97, 115, 157, 258n42, 267n35, 278n51; Winnipeg, 73–9, 86, 96–7, 109, 113–14, 119, 127–8, 156–7, 259n48, 261n77, 267n35; women’s branches, 128 icor (Canada) conferences / conventions: (1935), 102, 106–7; (1936), 118–22; (1937), 126–9; resolutions, 47, 51–2, 88, 90, 105–6, 121–2, 182 icor (Canada) fundraising: for Birobidzhan, 112, 116, 147, 190, 192, 194, 196, 206–9, 256n25, 256n31, 259n49, 291n35; for Daily Clarion, 116; for Holocaust survivors, 206–7; for Israel, 206; for Kanader “Icor,” 110–11; for League Against

330

Index

War and Fascism, 116; for Spain, 129–30; for war effort, 156–60, 277n42, 278n45, 278n49, 278n51; for war orphans, 189, 196–7; for war relief, 156–8, 161, 172 Icor commune, 18, 37, 52–4, 57, 60 icor Holding Corporation, 24–5, 28, 74–5 icor (North America), 70; achievements, 69, 103; activities, 43–4, 88; appeal, 88; and Birobidzhan project, 234–6; and bourgeois Jews, 75; and Reuben Brainin, 148–9; Canadian District Committee (icor), 92; commitment to Crimea, 31; commitment to gezerd, 25–6; and Communist Party (cp), 47–8, 83–4; criminalized, 88, 91; enemies, 81–2; factions, 47–9; financial situation, 252n36, 258n42; financial state, 79, 81–2; founding, 21–2; on Hitler-Stalin Pact, 147; investment in Birobidzhan, 35, 44–5, 52, 60–2, 64; and the Joint, 247n8; vs. the Joint, 28; logo, 247n4; membership, xiv, 26, 31–2, 43, 54, 60–3, 70; mission, 127–8; motto, 58; name change, 266n22; names, 247n3; national executive, 54, 60; non-partisanship, 22–4, 48, 50; objectives, 21, 60, 82, 92; opposition, 50, 59; overhead, 137; propaganda, 229–42; propaganda movement, 223; reception, 24–6, 29; support for, 75, 135–6; support for Birobidzhan, 30–1; universal appeal, 136; working class base, 50–1, 93; and Zionism, 27. See icor (North America) icor (North America) conferences / conventions: (1925), 75; (1926), 25, 74–5; (1927), 26–8, 75; (1929), 41–5, 47–52, 59, 79–80; (1931), 57–60, 69, 83–4; (1933), 65; (1934),

67; Canada (1924), 21, 67; Canada (1925), 73–4; Canada (1926), 74; Canada (1930), 80; Canada (1931), 82–3; Canada (1932), 85–6; Canada (1933), 87–8; Canada (1934), 91 icor (North America) fundraising: for Birobidzhan, 33, 45, 63, 76, 79–80, 82, 91, 257n37, 259nn48–9; Canadian contributions, 83, 90; for colonies in Russia, 24–6, 134; for icor, 28, 74–6; North American campaign, 77–81, 83; for striking workers, 95–6; Toronto, 80, 83; Winnipeg, 76, 79–80, 82–3; for workers delegation, 94 icor (North America) organizing: in Canada, 73–6, 79–80, 89–90, 93–4; outside working class, 90; pro-Soviet, 71–2, 166–7; tours, 75–8, 80–3, 97, 104, 108–9, 112 icor (us), 105, 123–4, 134, 144, 191; convention (1935), 100–1, 104–6 ideology: assimilationist, 110; bourgeois, 48; Marxist-Leninist, xviii, 7–8, 13, 142, 215, 226–7; Orthodox, 110; Soviet, 5; workers’, 48–9, 100; icor, 21–3; Zionist, 5, 21, 57, 69, 110 immigration, 56, 118–19, 197, 200, 202, 204–5, 209, 224 imperialism: American, 57–8, 202; British, 58, 73, 98–100, 117–18, 120, 202; Canada, 107; Japanese, 65–6; Zionist, 84, 92 ingathering of exiles, 16 International Workers Order (iwo), 54; Jewish Section, 144, 244n7 Israel, State of, 206–7, 209, 224–5 Israelovitch, Y., 74–5 Isserman, Maurice, 6, 245n23 Jacobs, Sam, 178 Jaffee, Jacob, 225

Index Jenofsky, Abraham, 188, 207–8, 212, 239–40 Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (jafc), 10, 155–7, 171, 174; disbanded, 219; on trial, 220 Jewish Assistance and Social Organization (Yidisher Hilfs Farayn), 159 Jewish autonomous districts, 14–16, 60, 120, 140–1, 232. See also Belarus; Birobidzhan; Crimea; Ukraine Jewish Chronicle, 161 Jewish Colonization Association (jca), 12, 86–7, 124–5 Jewish Committee for Medical Aid to the Soviet Union, 156, 158 Jewish Communist movement. See Communist movement, Jewish; Communist movement, Jewish Canadian Jewish community: in Canada, 72, 147, 159–67, 170, 174, 179, 181, 217, 224; Communists and, 182, 189; icor and, 51, 59–60, 62, 68–9, 93–4, 103, 105, 128, 134; in North America, 4–6, 51, 61, 82; in Palestine, 202–3; ujpo and, 183, 197, 204, 228; in ussr, 9, 45, 141; worldwide, xiv, xvi, 164, 170. See also Jewish nation Jewish culture, 103, 111–12, 124–5, 127, 143, 145–6, 153, 163, 170, 209, 276n11 Jewish Labour Bund, 8, 10 Jewish life: under capitalism, 50, 59, 62, 66, 128; under Communism, 8, 20, 27, 57, 65, 111, 127, 232, 248n16; in Erets Israel, 168; post-Holocaust, 194, 225; regeneration, 133, 168, 188, 195, 236–7; socialist reconstruction, 14, 27, 64, 69, 111, 212–14 Jewish masses: and Birobidzhan, 28–30, 41, 69, 79, 94, 100; under capitalism, 16, 21, 62, 102, 109, 120;

331

icor and, 32–3, 42–3, 50, 52, 58, 60, 62, 64–6, 75, 92–3, 105, 116, 128, 136; liberated, 152–3; in Palestine, 58, 120; in ussr, 17, 27, 63, 67–8, 94, 102–3, 109, 111–12, 119–20, 125–7, 209; workers, 65–6, 68, 84, 94, 211; and Zionism, 57–8, 60, 69, 83, 99 Jewish movements, 8, 106, 131, 183, 186, 220, 224. See also Communist movement, Jewish; Communist movement, Jewish Canadian; Yiddishist movement Jewish nation, 8–9, 16–17, 40, 112, 143, 173, 204–5. See also Jewish community Jewish organizations, us, 21 Jewish People’s Committee, 158 Jewish Post, 134 Jewish question, 16, 27, 65, 67–8, 124, 194, 202, 228 Jewish Soviets. See Belarus; Crimea; Ukraine Jewish Territorialist Organization (ito), 12 Jewish unity, 160–1, 163, 172, 203 Jewish Women’s Labour League (Yidishe Arbayter Froyen Farayn), 72, 80. See also United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo) Jewish Workers Musical Alliance, 144 Jewish Workers’ University, 144 Jewish Writers, Artists and Scientists, 282n99 Kaganovitch, Lazar, 201 Kagedan, Allan, 19 Kahanovitch, Pinkhes, 201 Kalinin, Mikhail, 14–18, 26, 140, 190, 222 Kanader Adler, 77, 147, 155, 161, 261n81 Kanader “Icor,” 92–5, 100, 106, 110–11, 113, 121

332

Index

Kanader Yidishe Vochenblat. See Vochenblat Katz, Moishe, 26, 31, 66, 74–5, 96, 98, 119–20, 123, 134 Katz, Velvel, 95 Kaunas (Kovno), 153 Kazakevitch, Emmanuel, 295n90 Kellock, R.L., 217 Khavkin, Matvei, 124 Kirzner, Paul, 183, 222 Klein, Milton, 160 Klepfisz, Irena, 248n16 Klig, M., 75 Kobrin, Leon, 22 Koch, S., 75, 118, 128, 189 Koldoff, Louis, 122–4, 131 komerd (Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Toilers on the Land), 14, 22–3, 29 Korn, Rachel, 171 Krakower, S., 189 Krassin, Leonid, 14 Krishtalka, Shifre, 164 Krushchev, Nikita, 9, 221–2 Kuldur, 37 Kuntz, Abraham Moses, 22, 24, 260n64 Kuntz, Charles: and Birobidzhan, 32, 35–8, 42–4, 52, 54–5, 57, 63, 79, 81, 145; and icor, 22, 24, 31, 42, 64, 80; and Reuben Brainin, 145, 273n46; tours, 63, 81, 84–6, 88, 90, 100, 104, 113, 117 Kurtz, Aaron, 53, 59 Kvitko, Levb, 220 Labor-Progressive Party (lpp), 177, 213, 222, 278n43; National Jewish Committee, 184, 202, 290n25. See also Communist Party of Canada (cpc); National Jewish Committee (lpp) Labour League, 72, 80, 87, 156, 159. See also United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo) Labour Zionists, 58

landsmanshaften (mutual aid societies), 4, 21, 24, 60, 62, 75 Lapedes, Sam, 73, 77, 86, 88–9, 92–3, 123, 263n103 Lapitsky, Sh., 159, 189–90 Lappin, Ben, 174 Larin, Yuri, 14–15 Larindorf, 15 Laxer, James, 244n8, 300n32 Laxer, Menachem Mendel, 244n8, 300n32 League against Fascism and Anti-Semitism, 130–1 League Against War and Fascism, 104, 116, 270n61 Leb, Chana, 114 Leivick, Halpern, 46 Lenin, Vladimir, 13, 69, 217, 227 Leshchinsky, Jacob, 36 Levin, Jacob, 26–7, 29–31, 34, 47–51, 59 Levin, Max, 31, 51, 196, 207 Levin, Noah, 90–1 Levin, Y., 83 Levitin, A., 73, 75 Lewis, David, 179 liberation, of the Jews, 3, 5, 9, 48, 111, 152–3, 181, 202 Liberty Temple School, 162, 162 Lieberberg, Joseph (Professor), 124 Liebman, Arthur, 72 Lipshitz, Sam: affiliations, 85, 94, 96, 161, 183, 207, 215, 222–3, 226, 260n62, 300n37; on fascism, 171, 181; in politics, 106–7, 298n19; pro-Soviet, 107, 217; tours, 97, 104, 115, 165, 191, 216, 218, 263n105, 284n133, 290n24 lishentsy (déclassé Jews), 33, 56, 125 Litman, Joseph, 74, 114, 122 Litvack, Mila, 84 Litvinov, Maxim, 14, 66 London, Noah, 37

Index luftmensh, 5, 15, 64, 67 Lunan, Gordon, 157, 279n53 Luxemburg, Rosa, 11 Lyons, Paul, xvi, 6 Mackenzie King government, 107, 184, 217–18 Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, 129 MacLeod, A.A., 126, 182, 219 Mandel, William, 210, 294n80 Mark, Ber (Bernard), 153 Markish, Peretz, 201, 220 Marley, Lord, 123, 268n41 Marmor, Kalmen, 4, 22, 48, 54, 138, 144, 165 Marx, Karl, 227–8 Marxism-Leninism. See ideology, Marxist-Leninist maskilim. See classes, Jewish, intelligentsia mass migration, 123, 202 Massé, Paul, 179, 181, 213, 285n149 Maurice, Adolph, 25, 31, 50 Maxwell, Aaron, 211–12 McCarthyism, xvii Medem, Gina (Birenzweig): affiliations, 22, 102, 104; on Birobidzhan, 30–1, 55–6, 63, 105, 169, 200; pro-Soviet, 171, 248nn15–16; tours, 56, 78, 83–5, 109, 264n1 Medem, Vladimir, 8, 30 Medres, Israel, 139, 163, 168, 181, 190 Medres, S., 186, 191 Meisel, Nakhman, 132, 153, 163, 165, 170–1 Melamed, Khaim, 201, 208 Mendelsohn, Ezra, 6, 225 Merezhin, Avrom, 37 Mergler, Bernard S., 194 Meyerson, Moishe, 158 Michels, Tony, 227 Mikhoels, Shloime, 171, 174–5, 175–6, 215–16

333

Milch, Jacob, 148 Minsker, A., 99–100 model commune (Socgorodok). See Icor commune Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. See Hitler-Stalin Pact (1939) Montreal Daily Star, 147 Montreal Jewish Folk Choir, 192–3, 210 Morgenstern, Joseph, 22 Morgn Frayhayt, 46–8, 82, 152 Morris, Leslie, 216 Morris Winchevsky Cultural Centre, 218 Morris Winchevsky School, 90–1, 218, 298nn16–17 Moscow, 6, 16, 18, 20, 37, 46, 93, 156, 215, 222, 225, 228. See also Communist International (Cominterm) Mother’s League (Muter Farayn), 72 Mount Royal Victory Club, 157–8 Myers, Irving J., 159, 190, 193–4, 196, 198, 216, 291n29, 291n35 Nadir, Moishe, 125 Naftali Botwin Company, 129 Nailebn-New Life, xiii, 126, 145–7, 149 Nathanson, Henry, 189 National Council for Canadian-Soviet Friendship, 177, 287n6 national minority rights, 69, 111–12, 119, 141–3, 195 national question, 13, 52, 60, 102, 126. See also Jewish question nationalism, 11, 13, 16, 26, 80, 99, 141–3, 246n41. See also territorialism nationality, Jewish, 8, 13–14, 111, 202, 235–6. See also Jewish nation Nazi atrocities, 146, 161, 170–3, 178–81, 185, 187–8, 232 Nazi Germany, 12, 69–70, 98, 109, 151, 153, 155, 188 Nazism, 109–10, 152–4, 237, 265n12 Nelson, Fina, 179

334

Index

New Fraternal Jewish Association, 222 New York Times, 147 Nisnevitz, Abraham, 74–5, 79, 82–4, 89–90, 96, 101, 106, 116–17, 121, 126, 163, 183, 210, 237–9, 269n58 Novick, Paul, 97–8, 125, 146, 176, 289n16 Noznitsky, Boris, 162 October Revolution. See Russian Revolution (1917) Olgin, Moissaye, 22, 144 oppression, 3, 7, 65–6, 69, 92, 98–9, 120, 263n103 Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ort), 21 Ornstein, V., 74 Ostrobskaya, Chaika, 220 Ostrovsky, L., 186 Ostry, Ethel, 185, 187 ozet. See icor (Canada) Paassen, Pierre van, 138 Padlock Law (1937), 126, 218, 269n57 Pale of Settlement, 7, 11, 16 Palestine, 202–3, 206–7 Palestine project, 46–7, 52, 57–8, 61, 99–100, 141 Paris, Erna, xiv, xvi, 151, 224, 254n3 Passfield White Paper (1930), 58 Pearlman, Louis, 166–7, 187, 281n90 People’s Commissariat of Nationalities, 13 People’s Committee Against Anti-Semitism and Fascism, 131 People’s Relief Committee, 21 Perel, Shabse, 236–7, 302n5 Perel, Shloime, 245n26 Peretz, I.L., 276n9 Pesner, Samuel, 189, 194 Phillips, Lazarus, 156, 179 Phillips, Nathan, 183, 207 Phillips, Paul, 198

Pilsudski regime, 69 Poale Zion, 4, 8, 12, 75–6, 81, 83, 118, 154, 267n31 pogroms, 8, 13–14, 46, 66, 105, 109–10, 128–9, 146, 188, 250n4. See also anti-Semitism; Nazi atrocities Pokh, Harry, 118 Poland, 16, 65–6, 68–9, 102, 120, 152, 170, 186 politics: identity and, 3–4, 7–8, 72, 228; Jewish, 244n9; Jewish Communist, 7; racial, 120; reactionary, 4, 21, 58, 86, 91–2, 147, 168, 181, 216 (See also Bennett, R.B. government; Duplessis, Maurice government; Mackenzie King, William Lyon government); sacralisation, xviii, 3, 226 Pomerantz, Gershon, 119, 172–4, 216, 284n124 population, Jewish: in agriculture, 15; Birobidzhan, 18, 32, 39, 52–3, 60–1, 64, 123, 230; Icor commune, 54, 57, 60; in the Pale, 61; Poland, 16, 59; Tikhonkaia, 62; Winnipeg, 71 Presidium of the Soviet of Nationalities, 14 press: capitalist, 112–13, 123, 147; Communist, xv-xvi (See specific publications); Jewish, 92, 105–6, 153, 155, 198, 200; Yiddish, 29, 35, 40–1, 45, 46–7, 53, 64, 72, 74, 77, 79, 92–3, 116–17, 165, 254n10. See also specific publications Price, Harry, 84, 116, 129, 176 Printers Committee, 79 productivity / non-productivity, 11, 27, 64, 103, 110, 119–20, 125, 138, 170, 246n37 Proletarian Writers’ Circle, 80 Proletpen (Proletarisher Shrayber Farayn), 144, 273n39 propaganda: anti-Arab, 168–9; anti-Semitic, 220–2; anti-Zionist, 154;

Index

335

icor, 148–9; icor (Canada), 125–6; pro-Birobidzhan, 30–1, 33–4, 40–5, 55–6, 59, 81–2, 229–42, 291n32; pro-Soviet, 114, 153–5, 171, 200–1, 209–12, 214, 294n76; pro-Zionist, 169; Soviet, 169, 208–9, 269n51. See also Birobidzhan; Birobidzhan project; individual publications

Russian Revolution (1917), 5, 8–9, 13–14, 59, 113; anniversary celebrations, 62, 66, 85, 91, 94, 111, 113, 126, 211 Russian-Ukrainian Jewish Farband (Der farband fun rusish-ukrainishe yidn), 289n19, 290n22 Ryerson, Stanley, 178

Quebec Committee for Allied Victory, 157

Sachs, A.S., 21, 78 Sack, B.G., 139, 286n154 Salisbury, Harrison, 221 Salsberg, Dora, 220 Salsberg, Joseph Baruch (J.B.), 220; affiliations, 84, 89, 91, 161, 183–4, 222, 226, 260n66; on anti-Semitism, 286n156; and Birobidzhan, 151, 222, 300n32; in politics, 182, 207, 219, 286n156, 298n19; tours, 108, 165, 206, 293n65 Saltzman, Rubin, 22 Salute to the Soviet Union Committee, 161 Saskatoon Star, 113 Sauls, Kiefer B., 36 Schaefer, Jacob, 192 Schatzov, Lewis, 234–5 Schecter, Benjamin, 147–8 Schlossberg, Joseph, 22 Schwisberg, Samuel, 181 Section 98. See Criminal Code Segal, J.I., 149 self-determination. See right of self-determination settlements, Jewish, 5–19; in Birobidzhan, 15–16, 18, 22–4, 56, 59, 61, 154; in Canada, xvi, 6, 108, 178, 181, 213, 224; in rural areas, 11–12, 14–15. See also Belarus; Birobidzhan; colonization; Crimea; Ukraine Shane, Isabel (Bella), 126, 269n56 Shane, Philip, 269n56

Rabinovitch, Israel, 139, 160–1 Raboy, A. (Isaac), 46–7 rallies. See demonstrations / rallies Rapoport, M., 75 Rapoport, Y., 86 Ravitch, Melekh, 216, 219 Red Army, 153, 160–1, 170, 173–4 Reisin, Abraham, 46 Reiter, Ester, xvi resettlement, 122–3, 188–9, 192–6, 199, 268n41, 288n9, 289n17 Resnick, N., 186 Revutsky, Abraham, 35 right of self-determination, 55, 111, 141–3, 200, 202, 236 Rome, David, 71, 140 Rose, Fred, xix, 119, 152, 178–9, 180, 181, 183, 190, 202, 213, 217–18, 285n149, 297n8 Rosen, Charles, 160, 174, 191, 194 Rosenberg, Alfred B., 121, 131, 183, 189, 191, 194, 198, 198, 200, 204–5, 207 Rosenberg, Louis, 161 Rosenberg, Suzanne, 254n1 Rosenfeld, Devora Kofsky, 139, 274n55 Rosenfeld, Samuel, 83, 129, 270n60 Ross, Bill (Cecil Zuken), 278n43 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (rcmp), 100, 130, 217–18, 265n17 Rubinstein, B., 163

336

Index

Shapiro, Harry, 89, 95–6, 101, 106, 115 Shapiro, Ike, 84–5 Sheinin, Cecil (Khaim), 97, 109 Shek, Abraham, 58, 94–6, 102–4, 106, 120–1, 277n38 Shek, B.Z., 226 Shek, Sol, 156, 183, 194 Sheps, Ben, 131 Shochat, Freida, 106 Sholem Aleichem (Sholem Rabinovich), 201 Shtern, Sholem, 121, 149–50, 154–5, 159, 162–6, 168, 183, 216, 226, 301n50 Shumiatcher, Abraham I., 187, 288n11 Sidney, Bill, 77 Siemiatycki, Myer, 285n149 Silver, Frances, 164 Silverberg, Berel, 198 Silverson, Laura Goodman, 156 Singerman, A., 86 Slansky, Rudolph, 220 Smidovitch, Peter G., 14, 36, 80, 108, 132 Smith, A.E. (Rev), 91 Smith, Khaim, 84, 86, 96 Smith, Stewart, 108 Sniderman, Sam, 183 socialism: denounced, 46; Jewish, 4, 7–13, 72, 202, 226, 228; and national equality, 197; and productivity, 27–8; Soviet, 105, 115, 145, 228; vs Zionism, 58, 71–2. See also Birobidzhan project; Poale Zion Sokolow, Nakhum, 133 Somerville, John, 207 Soviet Jews, 17, 113–14, 197 Soviet Russia. See Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (ussr) Soyer, Daniel, 5 Spanish Civil War, 129–30 Speisman, Max, 115–16, 121

Sperber, Marcus M., 159 Spinoza, Barukh, 90 Stalin, Joseph: anti-Semitism, 128, 215, 219, 221, 227, 248n16, 299n26; foreign policy, 70, 151–2; Great Break, 45; and Hitler, 151–2, 154–5; idealism, 158, 169, 176, 215; national policy, 13–14, 33, 185, 203, 205, 211, 241, 258n47; prizes, 211, 295n90; purges, 124, 151, 216, 220–1, 299n26 Starkman, Charles, 183 statelessness, 11, 224 Stefansson, Evelyn, 186 Stefansson, Vilhjamur, 156, 186, 277n36, 287n6 Stein, Yehudith, 166 Steinberg, Isaac Nachman, 12 Steinberg, Louis, 84, 86 Stern, Harry J. (Rabbi), 157–9, 194 Stitt, M.L., 130 Stolnitz, N. (Rabbi), 290n22 Sultan, Joseph, 65 Syrkin, Nachman, 12 Szajkowski, Zosa, 247n8 Talmy, Leon: arrested, 220; and Birobidzhan, 28–9, 31–3, 35–8, 44–5, 52, 54, 60, 63, 85; and icor, 22, 27, 31, 43–4, 47, 49, 59–60, 64, 75–6, 79–81, 83, 137; and ussr, 61 Taschereau, Robert, 217 Taub, Muni, 216 Teminson, N., 73–5 Temkin, Shloime (Sol), 189 territorialism, 3, 11–12, 20, 27. See also nationalism Tikhonkaia, 37, 53, 229 Tobenkin, Elias, 17 Today, 195 Tog, 155 Toller, Ernst, 74 Toronto Daily Star, 81, 123, 175, 289n17

Index Toronto Jewish Folk Choir, 192, 212 Trachimovsky, Y., 86, 90, 93, 99, 109, 117–18, 123, 261n81 trade union movement, 108 Trepel, Elia, 196 Trotsky, Leon, 11, 46, 128 Trout, Yitzhak, 114 Troyanovsky, Alexander A., 126 Tsherniovsky, M., 74 Tsudnovsky, Yetta, 83, 85–6 Tulchinsky, Gerald, xiv Typographical icor Committee. See Printers Committee Uganda Plan, 11–13 Ukraine, 14–15, 23, 26, 33, 69, 103, 111, 120, 178, 199 unemployment, 61, 65, 98, 109–10, 258n47 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (ussr): answer to fascism, 68; appeal, 92, 111, 119–20; attitude towards Zionism, 209; Communist ideocracy, 17–18; Constitution (1936), 127, 169, 211; enemies, 93 (See also anti-Communist campaigns; anti-Soviet campaigns); vs. fascism, 108, 112; invaded, 105, 120–1, 154–5; Jewish debt to, 160, 169–70, 185, 211; and Jewish ideals, 166; logic of, 142; nationality policy, 19, 31, 63–4, 66–7, 105, 107, 119, 147, 169–70, 200, 232, 237; position on Israel, 200, 206, 209–10; positions on Palestine, 203–4, 292n39; slave labour camps, 221, 294n76; support of Arab states, 71, 215, 219, 228, 250n3; threatened, 65, 67, 103, 105. See also anti-Semitism; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (ussr); xenophobia United Jewish People’s Order (ujpo), xv, 183, 184, 197, 219, 222–3, 226,

337

254n8, 299n21; conventions, 197, (1947) Usiskin, Michael, 109, 124–5, 157, 260n50 Usiskin, Roz, 72 Vergelis, Aaron, 201 Victor, Abraham (Ab.), 22, 57, 75–6, 82, 91, 258n45, 290n26 Victor, Benjamin Aaron, 74–5, 114–15, 130, 134, 156–8, 162, 164, 174, 183, 189–90, 193, 196, 213–14, 216, 284n133, 296n101 Victor, Maurice, 266n22 Victor, Rosa, 163, 174, 194 Vigod, Florence, 264n1, 269n58 Vilna, 153, 173 Vochenblat, xv; aid-to-Russia, 155, 158, 169; anti-Palestine, 154, 204, 206; on anti-Semitism, 181; on disillusion, 152; and election, 178, 181; English pages, 287n161; expired, 227; and jafc, 172, 174; pro-Birobidzhan, 153–4, 168–70, 188, 190, 192, 195, 198–201, 204, 208–9, 211–12, 236, 282n107; pro-Soviet, 152–4, 170–1, 176, 188, 210–12, 217, 236–42; on Reuben Brainin, 150; on Stalin, 215–16; and ujpo, 183–4 Vochenblat-Canadian Jewish Weekly. See Vochenblat Waldheim collective, 18, 37, 53, 195–6 Waldman, Y., 76 Walsh, Bill (Wolofsky), 261n81 Walsh, Sam (Wolofsky), 261n81 Wattenberg, Elias (Elye), 22, 24–6, 28, 31, 36, 49, 51, 58–9, 74, 133, 220 Weinper, Zishe, 149, 153, 162, 165, 165, 281n84 Weinroth, Y., 119 Weisberg, John, 125 Weizmann, Chaim, 133, 246n40

338

Index

White Paper (Britain, 1939), 202 White Russia. See Belarus Wilson, M.L., 37 Wine, Sam, 115 Winnipeg Council for Allied Victory, 156, 158, 278n45 Wise, James Waterman, 122 Wise, Stephen S. (Rabbi), 122 Wiseberg, Max, 118, 128 Wolofsky, Hershel, 161, 261n81 Women’s Progressive Club, 80 Worker, 108 workers’ movement, 48, 52, 56 Workers Theatre Group Artef (Arbayter Teater Farband), 144 Workers’ Unity League, 102 working class. See classes, Jewish, workers Workmen’s Circle (wc). See Arbayter Ring World Jewish Cultural Union (ykuf), 162–6, 196, 226, 294n79; conferences, 163–5, (1939), (1942) xenophobia, 124, 219 Yass, Joseph, 189–90 Yevsektsiya, 10, 13–15, 246n32 Yiddish culture: in Birobidzhan, 116–17, 127, 137, 154, 162–3, 166, 201, 212, 234, 237, 240–1; in Canada, 115, 165–6, 168, 174; debt to ussr, 5, 171–2; in Europe, 187, 191; and haskala, 7–8; secular, 3, 7; and

socialism, 168; in ussr, 66, 111, 171, 219–21, 227; writers, 46–7, 219–21, 273n39 Yiddish language, 7, 111–12, 127, 132, 145, 154, 164–6, 201, 241 Yiddishist movement, 71–2, 168 Yiddishland. See Jewish nation Yidishe Kultur, 162–3 Yidishe Vort, 77 Yidisher Hilfs Farayn, 218 Young Communist League, 80 Zailig, Abe, 114, 198 Zangwill, Israel, 12 Zaslavsky, David, 217 Zelinsky, Israel, 89, 106, 122, 267n35 Zelyanski, Y., 82 Zhitlovsky, Khaim, 47–8, 114, 148, 157, 165–7, 167, 168, 170, 281n90 Zhitz, Grigory, 200 Zionism, 82–3; capitalist, 21; and Communism, 5, 9–10; criticism, 132; fascistic, 68, 97–9, 260n64; imperialistic, 58, 60, 98, 133 Zionist Congress, 12 Zionist movements, 8–9, 12, 68, 71, 99, 112, 119, 145, 202–3. See also Poale Zion Zionist Socialist Council. See Poale Zion Zlatin, Zelda, 126 Zuken, Joseph (Joe), 156, 168, 182, 183, 191, 198, 202–3, 213, 216, 278n43, 296n101 Zukerman, William, 17