Origins of "Kiruv"

Honest Litvak writes in response to Merkos Shlichus 5711

"A historical view of Judaism shows that they were not the first. Rav Hirsch made Kiruv an "official" part of his agenda as he was involved in engaging the non-frum, same for Rav Salanter and Rav Kook and Rav Sonnenfeld."

You don't seem to get it. Rav SR Hirsch made this his agenda by means of polemics and other writings, not by going out to be Mekarev people. He hoped that his writings (!!!) would be sufficient to persuade others. This has been done throughout the ages,as I mentioned re R' Saadiah Gaon, R' Yehudah Halevi, Rambam etc. etc. with their writings.

The "lecture-tours" of Rabbis Salanter, Kuk, Sonnenfeld etc. were just that, hoping to bring a "hisorerus", but again not dealing with people directly. One who can be said to deal with people directly was the mediaeval (!) R. Mosheh of Kutzi, author of Sefer Mitzvos Godol (Sma"g), who was the innovator of mivtza tefillin, to put on tefillin with people (as he writes in his intro). As for R. Yossef Yoisel of Nevardok, yes, indeed, he made a wide and succesful campaign to found talmud-torahs/yeshivos in Russia during the first world war, and sending his students all around to bring children into them - more often than not without their parents' consent. But this can be said to have been done already earlier by the Rebbe Reshab among the Sefardim, sending his shluchim there. I have no doubt that others did the same still earlier,in various places and various times throughout the ages. As I said earlier, every truly religious Jew who takes seriously the Kol Yisroel areivim etc. etc. would feel compelled to do whatever he can in this regard, so that we cannot talk re who was first etc.

The kiruv-work as an organizationl effort, dealing with people directly, families and individuals, part of an official program going out into the streets, campuses, groups, homes etc. - as we know it today - was most definitely an innovation of Lubavitch. Again, as stated, it was officially opposed by pretty much the full span of the orthodox establishment (roshei yeshivos) for the reasons mentioned, until they saw the success (and some would argue nowadays - once they had augmented and fortified their own circle and felt safe). And even now, there remains a vital distinction: to this day, none, I repeat NONE, goes to places, towns etc., where they would have to do the ground-work to establish a base for religious life. They move only into towns where these are existing already, more often than not founded by Chabad. Aish Hatorah is notorious for not going even into places like that unless they see first a solid basis for financial sustenance, to raise local funds not only for their local institution but also beyond that for their "headquarters." I challenge anyone to name a single presence of Aish that does not fall into this category.

Dovid says "Also Lubavitch targeted frum Poylishe Chasidim, with their Lithuanian style Yeshiva." I don't deny that, but the same applies to the other Yeshivos, including Nevardok before they started their network of talmud-torahs for others. R. Yossef Yoisel made it an essential part of his agenda to infiltrate existing yeshivos to establish there his derech in mussar. For details see the excellent history of the Mussar-movement "Tenu'as Hamussar."

So we are back to square one, the blatant attempt at revisionism, with irrelevant arguments about earlier generations.