It cannot be denied that Bolshevism actually conforms in a notable degree to the specifications contained in the protocols, which I have already summarized in the preceding chapter. Shall we, then, conclude that the charge is proven and declare the case closed, or is it necessary to examine the evidence further and more critically? I think that a very brief period of honest reflection will convince any fair-minded and intelligent person of the injustice of the rendering of a verdict holding the Jews responsible for Bolshevism upon the basis of such evidence. Let me direct the attention of my readers to a coincidence of dates which once more directs suspicion against Prof. Sergei Nilus and against the alleged stolen protocols. I have already pointed out that in 1903, in the first edition of his book, Nilus did not use the alleged protocols, though he claims that they had been in his possession for two years prior to that time. That this is a suspicious circumstance will, I think, be readily conceded by the open-minded. In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic party was split into two factions, and the word "Bolshevism" came into use as the designation of the policy of one of these factions. In 1905 the first Russian revolution took place. In the period between the split in the Social Democratic party in 1903 and the outbreak of the revolution in 1905 the leaders of the Bolsheviki had been active in formulating and propagating their theoretical and political views. During the revolution a sharp conflict occurred between the Bolsheviki and other factions of the Russian Socialist movement, and the Socialist press gave much space to the controversy. It will be seen from this brief historical sketch that when Nilus published a second edition of his book, late in 1905, he could find in the Russian Socialist press all the materials for such a general description of Bolshevism as that contained in the protocols. Of course, if we believe that the documents are genuine, that they are authentic translations of documents actually stolen in 1896, delivered to Nilus in 1901, and by him first made public in 1905, we have simply a coincidence of dates. I submit, however, that there is not a shred of credible evidence that the documents were so obtained by Nilus, or that they existed in 1896, 1901, 1903, or at any date earlier than 1905, the year of their first publication. I submit, furthermore, that it is highly probable that the passages in the alleged protocols which are now hailed as conclusive evidence that the Bolshevist policy had been formulated as early as 1896, were in reality written after 1903 and in the light of already published accounts of Bolshevist theories and tactics. There is not a thing that we know about these documents and their history which does not point directly to the conclusion that they are forgeries.