A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 25, 2009, October 25, 2010, October 25, 2014, and October 25, 2018. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Zinoviev letter was a gimmick. I do not believe that it can be described as 'instrumental in the election victory of 1924'. By the time it was published, the government was already falling apart, having exhausted its policy proposals, the Liberals (upon whom Labour was electorally dependent) was moving away from the government, and it was naturally a short-lived experiment, essentially a reaction to the protectionism of the Conservatives. Where 'Red' influence was important, the government's decision to withdraw its prosecution against J.R. Campbell was much more important in this respect. The reason that the Zinoviev letter was seen as instrumental in the 1924 election result is that it has entered Labour mythology as a convenient explanation, pointing to Tory 'dirty tricks' to justify the outcome.
From what I understand from our history classes, the Zinoviev letter has been confirmed as genuine by the opening of russian archives. If not that then I'm pretty sure there isn't a clear division in those who support in either side... Can someone add a neutrality issue tag? Moshe Gordon 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I did. 98.20.26.113 ( talk) 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Deep Throat
Does anyone else find it remarkably annoying that the author spends most of a paragraph describing how the Gill Bennett investigation came about, but never mentions any of it's conclusions? Why mention it if it's conclusions aren't worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.100.81.192 ( talk) 21:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following
because it is incomplete. It probably refers to the historian Christopher Andrew, mentioned frequently for example in this article. It might be turned into something better and referenced, and returned to the article.-- Rumping ( talk) 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Zinoviev letter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Zinoviev_Letter{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Zinoviev_Letter{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf5/fco_pdf_zinovievletter1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf5/fco_pdf_zinovievletter2{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf5/fco_pdf_zinovievletter3{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf5/fco_pdf_zinovievletter5When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Zinoviev letter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article says : "If true, it [= the Zinoviev letter] was a deeply offensive interference in British politics to the detriment of the Labour Party." This seems unclear to me. If the letter was true, its disclosure was detrimental for the Labour Party, but the interference in itself was not. Marvoir ( talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a famous cartoon (Low I think) of the 1929 election, which the Conservatives lost. Baldwin, Churchill and a few other leading Tories are shown sitting looking glum as the election results come in, saying to one another "It looks like Mr Zinoviev has missed the post this time." Might be worth posting if somebody can find a usable copy. Paulturtle ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)