the head of “the worst hooligan gangs”; the principled humanist was meting out forced labor for “ ‘economic espionage’ and other fantastic crimes”; the pacifist and draft dodger was haranguing the troops and leading “large military detachments”; and, most strikingly, The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. Having joined the mob of other advocates and professionals of “revolutionary justice” representing younger and crueler nations, he is keeping, coldly and efficiently, as if they were regular statistics, the bloody count of the new victims of the revolutionary Moloch, or standing in a Cheka basement doing “bloody but honorable revolutionary work.” 120 The Jewish argument for Jewish “collective responsibility” (Landau’s term) was the same as Shulgin’s. Given what Bromberg called “the old provincial passion for seeking out and extolling the Jews famous in various fields of cultural life,” and especially “the shameless circus around the name of Einstein,” one had no choice but to adopt the murderers too. In D. S. Pasmanik’s words, “Is the Jewry responsible for Trotsky? Undoubtedly so. Ethnic Jews not only do not renounce an Einstein or an Ehrlich; they do not even reject the baptized Heine and Boerne. And this means that they have no right to disavow Trotsky and Zinoviev. . . . This means reminding the Polish hypocrites, who incite pogroms because of the murder of Budkiewicz, that the head of the Bolshevik inquisition, Dzerzhinsky, is a full-blooded Pole, and reminding the Latvians that, in Soviet Russia, they played the most shameful role of bloodthirsty executioners—along with the Chinese. In other words, we honestly admit our share of the responsibility.” 121 This position proved unpopular (though not entirely sterile). 122 It proved unpopular because it implied that everyone had something to apologize for but provided no universal gauge of culpability; because “an honest admission” seemed to depend on the universal demise of hypocrisy; because neither Shulgin nor “the Latvians” were in a hurry to do their part; because the pogroms had been specifically anti-Jewish while the Bolshevik terror was flexibly antibourgeois; because the Nazis would come to power within ten years; and because national canons consist not of “special, striking, or remarkable” deeds (as Jan T. Gross argues), but of pride-boosting and shame-suppressing tales of