A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 20, 2008 and November 20, 2011.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Czech Republic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aren't they generally known as the Slansky Trials, not the Prague Trials? -- TheMightyQuill 14:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prague Trials is what I recall seeing in many sources. I understand that Slansky trial was one of the series, correct? If this title is confusing (Prague has a long history), we could rename this article to Prague Trials of 1952 or something like that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Slansky trial" finds 259 pages at books.google.com while "Prague trial" finds only 48 pages. Ahasuerus 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced. Should we use singular and lowercase "Slansky trial"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slánský trial was just one, but they are collectively known as the Slánský trials. Lowercase is a good idea. I'm moving to Slánský trials with redirect from Slansky trial, Slansky trials, etc. -- TheMightyQuill 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevery saw it (nowadays) in plural in Czech language, it is always "Slánského proces" (trial of Slansky). The set of all processed is labeled as "[political] processes of 50s" ("[politicke] procesy z padesatych let"). In English I never saw anything else but "Prague Trials" (and never in Czech). Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official label in 1950s was a long name ala "process with enemies of people and socialism". Unofficially and in newspapers at the time it was "process with gang of traitors around Slansky". Pavel Vozenilek 13:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest book within reach of my desk, H. Gordon Skilling's Czechoslovakia's Interrupted Revolution 1976, refers to them as "the Slansky trials" (as well as the singular when referring to just Slansky's case). Plus there'sAhasuerus's google search above. The official title would be great though. Should we include it in Czech /w an English translation? -- TheMightyQuill 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most official name I can get (on website of ministry of interior, coudn't find the final court sentence though) is "Proces s protistátním spikleneckým centrem Rudolfa Slánského" (clumsily translated as "Process with anti-state conspiration center around Rudolf Slansky"). Several shorter names were used in print or publications. Long names and terms in Czech language subconsciously associate with something important and grave (as witnessed by bureaucratic speak). Pavel Vozenilek 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trials were the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and were part of a Stalin-inspired purge of "disloyal" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as an anti-semitic purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties

There is absolutely no evidence that Jews were targetted for expulsion in East European Communist parties. During Stalin, the Jews Hilary Minc and Jakub Berman remained as top leaders in Poland until 1956. In Hungary, the Jews Matyas Rakosi and Erno Gero were in the top leadership until 1956.

I disagree-

"Jews were purged from the Romanian party and government post in these years, as they were in East Germany and Poland, two other countries where one faction of the party could mobilize popular anti-Jewish sentiment against the Party's own 'cosmopolitans.'...Hans Jendretsky, demanded Jews-'enemies of the state'-be excluded from public life..." - P. 184 "Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945" by Tony Judt

"...Two characteristics marked this trial out from all those preceding it. Prosocutors an witnesses repeatedly emphasized the Jewishness of most of the accused- 'the cosmopolitan Rudolf Margolius', Slansky...the great hope of all the Jews in the Communist Party,' 'representatives of international Zionism,' etc. 'Jewish origan' (sometimes 'Zionist origin') served as presumption of guilt, of anti-Communist, anti-Czech intentions..." p. 186 "Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945" by Tony Judt --Miglewis (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://iseees.berkeley.edu/bps/publications/2009-08-Blumenthal.pdf --Miglewis (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so do I

I recommend Yevgenia Albats book "The KGB A State Within a State" . Albats does an extensive well documented research on KGB col. Vladimir Ananyevich Boyarsky who was the Soviet adviser of the Czech state security organs and the man who kicked loose the Slansky trial. Albats gives some strong proof of antisemitic tendencies in this case and others. The number of Jews amongst the defendants gives us another clue and the migration figures of Russian Jews speak their own language. Albats herself by the way claims to have faced great difficulties enrolling in a Soviet university due to her last name. The fact that some Jews remained in high positions is no proof to the contrary. It´s mainly down to the lack of a "rule of law". A totalitarian state can make rules as it can make exceptions and it can change break or bend it´s own rules at will. Alien Visitor (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

I think the idea that the trial was meant as a warning to opposition within the KSC is way off base. Slansky was not an opposition figure, nor were any of te others in thi group. Clementis was known to b a bit more Western oriented but he was hardly disloyal to the Party leadership. All accusations were staged and invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.216.211 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trial was to create general atmosphere of fear, to discourage everyone from disobeying the Soviet union. Nazgul02 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the book Double Lives by Stephen Koch, Noel Field was heavily connected to the Slánský trials... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little googling, and it seems true... If you have that book, go ahead and write a paragraph or two about it. Nazgul02 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name Noel Field pops up very often during the post war Stalinist cleansings of eastern Europe´s communist parties, in fact so often that it seems doubtful in most cases, that the accused had ever heard that name before they wrote their "confessions". Alien Visitor (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Prague trials.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have attempted twice to fix what was wrong with a section in which it is claimed that the Israeli cabinet discussed putting members of the Israeli Communist Party in "concentration camps".

This is what the International section of this article contained originally, before I first edited it: "The Israeli government considered suppressing Maki, the Israeli communist party, even to the point of throwing communist activists in concentration camps. ^{[citation needed]} Golda Meir and Pinhas Lavon were opposed, and the cabinet eventually decided that Maki was not a significant threat to the political order.^[1]"

Please note that the tag appears before a second sentence, which is the one with the citation. The tag clearly pertains to the claim (which I suspect to be not only false but laughably so) that the Israeli cabinet contemplated putting their domestic communists in concentration camps.

So I said, cite that or take it out. I was reverted, as if claims about concentration camps are normal here and we can all wait a few months for it to get sorted out. I reverted back, as, no if you can't cite a claim about concentration camps, you certainly need to take it out of an encyclopedia.

Then I was reverted again, apparently by someone who thought the citation at the end was what we're arguing about. I don't think we are, though it's hard to check a quote that's in a book I don't have.

I'll be honest, I'm trying to follow the rule of assuming good faith, but I have trouble with the idea that anyone can countenance blathering about concentration camps without feeling the need to cite those who deal in evidence, particularly because anti-Semitism often takes the form of baselessly accusing Jews of doing what they have had done to them. If you are editing in good faith, I'm sure you can understand that worry.

If you can cite sources on this, then do so. Explicitly - if the Wein book says this, quote me the words from pages 161-162 that show this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I kept plugging away at it and found another source which seems to shed a bit more light on the story. It is apparently the case that Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, in the wake of the then-recent anti-Semitic outrages in Moscow and Prague, made a remark that "if there is a need for detention camps" he would establish them. He put this in context by comparing it to when he warned and then authorised firing upon the Irgun for not relinquishing their weapons after the Israel Defence Force was created. That suggests he viewed Maki as a similar threat to state authority, and that he would not hesitate to use state power to stop them - but it also suggests he would issue a warning first. No one was discussing setting up camps in that discussion. Ben-Gurion was saying he wouldn't hesitate to do so, however, if it proved to be required to defend Israel. The reason I objected to this simple Israel-talked-about-concentration-camps characterisation is because all the context was missing. I would accept noting that he did apparently use those words (well, "detention camps", so close enough) and I included a direct quotation of what he said from my source. I also added more context to the fact that he lost the vote 13-7 (it wasn't just Meir and Lavon, 13 of the 20 members of Cabinet opposed Ben-Gurion's view), and I added that Meir and Lavon also saw Maki as a threat to the state of Israel, they just proposed to deal with it in a different way. I also moved this paragraph until after the one about Raphael Lemkin's view of how recent Soviet and Czech actions likely presaged another anti-Jewish genocide, because this was clearly the context in which Ben-Gurion and other Israelis considered the behaviour of Maki, which supported those Soviet and Czech actions. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not provide any direct evidence of antisemitic intent, as opposed to anti-Zionist. The only direct quote in the article describes the accusations as those of Zionism; If the papers cited quote primary sources supporting the claims as they stand those materials should be brought into the article as is, otherwise the sources would have to be qualified accordingly.

"Antisemitic" also needs a standalone verification in the lead as per MOS:LEADCITE and contentious topics practices. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to Protocols of the Elders of Zion seems needlessly inflammatory in particular, should probably be moved under "modern interpretations" Orchastrattor (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]