Churchill 'Antisemitic'?! Seems Exagerrated to Me

Skeptic · 11th March 2007, 07:39 AM

In the Jewish world, there is a bit of a fuss made over a letter written by Churchill in 1937 which says "Jews are partially responsible" (the reporters' words, not Churchill's) to the antagonism against them. The link is here.

I dunno: seems to me like a tempest in a teapot.

First of all it's not even clear Churchill himself wrote it. Second, "they are taking our jobs"--the essence of his criticism, if true--should be seen in context: in the very same letter he praises the Jews as sober and industrious, and calls their prosecution "wicked". Furthermore, he suppressed the letter and didn't allow its publication in 1940.

The most he can be accused of here is insensitivity, but certainly not racial hatered--and, of course, he was writing at a time before "insensitive" became just about the worst possible moral offense.

For the record: with what Churchill did for Jews in helping to defeat Hitler, I wouldn't particularly care if he pissed on a star of david every morning while reading "Der Sturmer". But I don't like to see such an accusation when it seems to have little basis in fact.

geni · 11th March 2007, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The most he can be accused of here is insensitivity, but certainly not racial hatered--and, of course, he was writing at a time before "insensitive" became just about the worst possible moral offense.

Ah Winston "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes" Churchill.

Given where he was born and his upbringing he probably was anti-semtic (or more correctly anti-non british). This was a guy who really did belive in neo-imperialism untill WW2 made it unfashionable.

hgc · 11th March 2007, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

For the record: with what Churchill did for Jews in helping to defeat Hitler, I wouldn't particularly care if he pissed on a star of david every morning while reading "Der Sturmer". But I don't like to see such an accusation when it seems to have little basis in fact.

May we substitute "Stalin" For "Churchill" above?

Darat · 11th March 2007, 09:25 AM

Try to find his 1920s newspaper article "Zionism versus Bolshevism" - gives a lot of insight into his general views.

There is no doubt that Churchill, like many people of his class and generation, was extremely bigoted against many groups so if he he wasn't bigoted against Jews then they were part of a very small group!

Alt+F4 · 11th March 2007, 09:32 AM

I've never heard of the Jerusalem Post, from which the story came from. Is this a legit neutral media sourse? If it is, why does it have a "Christian Edition"? Is the news different for Jews then it is for Christians?

Beerina · 11th March 2007, 11:46 AM

I think what everyone's failing to remember here is that it's legitimate to permanently tar and discount someone for something they did 25 years earlier in spite of decades of effort after that in the opposite direction.

Hence he is an awful man. Nevermind that, if he hadn't existed (and, if more accurately, the current criticizers, the spiritual descendents of Chamberlain had remained in power) Europe would likely have been lost. He must be tarred for ever and ever by people not fit to lick dog **** from his boots.

Skeptic · 11th March 2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I've never heard of the Jerusalem Post, from which the story came from. Is this a legit neutral media sourse? If it is, why does it have a "Christian Edition"? Is the news different for Jews then it is for Christians?

(Puzzled look)

Huh? The Jerusalem Post has been in existence for over 75 years--longer than the state of Israel, in fact. It is, probably, the most prestigious and reliable Israeli newspaper.

Skeptic · 11th March 2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

May we substitute "Stalin" For "Churchill" above?

Churchill wasn't a mass murderer, like Stalin. But, the one good thing the USSR ever did was defeat Hitler--and that does, indeed, count for a lot.

geni · 11th March 2007, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

I think what everyone's failing to remember here is that it's legitimate to permanently tar and discount someone for something they did 25 years earlier in spite of decades of effort after that in the opposite direction.

Opposite direction? No Churchill didn't change direction. He simply noticed new threats (ie Hitler) to british supremacy.

Quote:

Hence he is an awful man. Nevermind that, if he hadn't existed (and, if more accurately, the current criticizers, the spiritual descendents of Chamberlain had remained in power) Europe would likely have been lost.

Doubtful. Chamberlain ordered the largest rearming in british history (the RAF that was involved in the battle of britian was very much Chamberlain's) and is generaly viewed as one of the critial voice in cabinate involved in the descision to continue the war after tha fall of france. He also helped set up the SEO. However his death in November 1940 meant that staying in power wasn't really an option.

Churchill himself was not a very good millitry leader. Great speaches but his descission makeing was poor (see invasion of italy or Gallipoli during WW1).

Indeed Hugh Dowding who was rather critical in keeping Britian in the war basicaly had to ignore Churchill in order to do it. Churchill wanted more planes sent to france. Dowding understood that battle was lost and kept the spitfires in England.

shecky · 11th March 2007, 09:21 PM

I kinda like the War Nerd's take on Churchill.

geni · 12th March 2007, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by shecky

I kinda like the War Nerd's take on Churchill.

Churchill wasn't a Fascist. Their econimic and to an extent command style was really the one he went for.

11th March 2007, 07:39 AM	#1
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Churchill 'Antisemitic'?! Seems Exagerrated to Me In the Jewish world, there is a bit of a fuss made over a letter written by Churchill in 1937 which says "Jews are partially responsible" (the reporters' words, not Churchill's) to the antagonism against them. The link is here. I dunno: seems to me like a tempest in a teapot. First of all it's not even clear Churchill himself wrote it. Second, "they are taking our jobs"--the essence of his criticism, if true--should be seen in context: in the very same letter he praises the Jews as sober and industrious, and calls their prosecution "wicked". Furthermore, he suppressed the letter and didn't allow its publication in 1940. The most he can be accused of here is insensitivity, but certainly not racial hatered--and, of course, he was writing at a time before "insensitive" became just about the worst possible moral offense. For the record: with what Churchill did for Jews in helping to defeat Hitler, I wouldn't particularly care if he pissed on a star of david every morning while reading "Der Sturmer". But I don't like to see such an accusation when it seems to have little basis in fact.

11th March 2007, 08:45 AM	#3
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by Skeptic For the record: with what Churchill did for Jews in helping to defeat Hitler, I wouldn't particularly care if he pissed on a star of david every morning while reading "Der Sturmer". But I don't like to see such an accusation when it seems to have little basis in fact. May we substitute "Stalin" For "Churchill" above?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

11th March 2007, 09:25 AM	#4
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Try to find his 1920s newspaper article "Zionism versus Bolshevism" - gives a lot of insight into his general views. There is no doubt that Churchill, like many people of his class and generation, was extremely bigoted against many groups so if he he wasn't bigoted against Jews then they were part of a very small group!
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

11th March 2007, 09:32 AM	#5
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	I've never heard of the Jerusalem Post, from which the story came from. Is this a legit neutral media sourse? If it is, why does it have a "Christian Edition"? Is the news different for Jews then it is for Christians?
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

11th March 2007, 11:46 AM	#6
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	I think what everyone's failing to remember here is that it's legitimate to permanently tar and discount someone for something they did 25 years earlier in spite of decades of effort after that in the opposite direction. Hence he is an awful man. Nevermind that, if he hadn't existed (and, if more accurately, the current criticizers, the spiritual descendents of Chamberlain had remained in power) Europe would likely have been lost. He must be tarred for ever and ever by people not fit to lick dog **** from his boots.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

11th March 2007, 08:31 AM	#2
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by Skeptic The most he can be accused of here is insensitivity, but certainly not racial hatered--and, of course, he was writing at a time before "insensitive" became just about the worst possible moral offense. Ah Winston "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes" Churchill. Given where he was born and his upbringing he probably was anti-semtic (or more correctly anti-non british). This was a guy who really did belive in neo-imperialism untill WW2 made it unfashionable.

11th March 2007, 11:49 AM	#7
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 I've never heard of the Jerusalem Post, from which the story came from. Is this a legit neutral media sourse? If it is, why does it have a "Christian Edition"? Is the news different for Jews then it is for Christians? (Puzzled look) Huh? The Jerusalem Post has been in existence for over 75 years--longer than the state of Israel, in fact. It is, probably, the most prestigious and reliable Israeli newspaper.

11th March 2007, 11:51 AM	#8
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by hgc May we substitute "Stalin" For "Churchill" above? Churchill wasn't a mass murderer, like Stalin. But, the one good thing the USSR ever did was defeat Hitler--and that does, indeed, count for a lot.

11th March 2007, 03:00 PM	#9
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by Beerina I think what everyone's failing to remember here is that it's legitimate to permanently tar and discount someone for something they did 25 years earlier in spite of decades of effort after that in the opposite direction. Opposite direction? No Churchill didn't change direction. He simply noticed new threats (ie Hitler) to british supremacy. Quote: Hence he is an awful man. Nevermind that, if he hadn't existed (and, if more accurately, the current criticizers, the spiritual descendents of Chamberlain had remained in power) Europe would likely have been lost. Doubtful. Chamberlain ordered the largest rearming in british history (the RAF that was involved in the battle of britian was very much Chamberlain's) and is generaly viewed as one of the critial voice in cabinate involved in the descision to continue the war after tha fall of france. He also helped set up the SEO. However his death in November 1940 meant that staying in power wasn't really an option. Churchill himself was not a very good millitry leader. Great speaches but his descission makeing was poor (see invasion of italy or Gallipoli during WW1). Indeed Hugh Dowding who was rather critical in keeping Britian in the war basicaly had to ignore Churchill in order to do it. Churchill wanted more planes sent to france. Dowding understood that battle was lost and kept the spitfires in England.

11th March 2007, 09:21 PM	#10
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	I kinda like the War Nerd's take on Churchill.
	__________________ "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." - Investors Business Daily

12th March 2007, 06:33 AM	#11
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by shecky I kinda like the War Nerd's take on Churchill. Churchill wasn't a Fascist. Their econimic and to an extent command style was really the one he went for.