Jews 'Partly Responsible' For Their Troubles: Churchill

[Purveyor]

The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.

Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.

---

"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.

"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

---End of excerpt---

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/10/070311000812.7mxzo1k0.html

[asthmaticeog]

1. I'd love to know what your point was in posting this.

[Purveyor]

5. Would you now. Care to "speculate"?

[asthmaticeog]

7. Care to answer?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockymountaindem]

11. I don't usually disagree with you, but

I don't see what's inherently anti-Semitic about this. To me it's a post about Churchill not Jews. It reflects badly on Churchill, not us. I'm not upset about it.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockymountaindem]

17. I don't know

It's always interesting to post things that seem to bring down a legendary character. Don't shoot the messenger.

[asthmaticeog]

19. I ain't shooting anyone.

I *AM* wondering why he hasn't answered the question I posed rather awhile ago now. If the shoe fits, yadda yadda.

Oh, sorry, is "yadda yadda" too Yiddish for this thread? I don't mean to offend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. So if I posted it since I am a historian and I find this

to be HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, I am an antisemite?

Gosh, we need to protect the chidren! So what other subjects should historians stay away from?

What other sacred cows (and Churchill is one) should we stay away from?

Should we also ignore that the US had a NAZI party?

What about Prescott Bush financing IG Farben at Aushwits?

Perhaps I should never consider a FORD, since Henry was quite an antisemitc... hold it, he'dualify as a sacred cow

How about Charles Lindberg? Nope sacred cow too...

Hmm I know, FDR himself... talk about sacred cow territory...

[Hardrada]

50. The US still has a National Socialist Party.

Or several I think. Most prominent one now is the National Socialist Movement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Yes we do

but the point of the post was that some people have a problem when we do find some detail that may not be confortable about a loved figure

People forget, these folks ARE people and they are not perfect

;-)

[Jim Sagle]

54. Neither am I , but I don't like the poster's attitude.

Churchill's view was about as enlightened as it got in the 30s. So there could be a valid reason to post this: as a view of history or of Churchill or how far we have come, etc.

But the poster was asked why he posted it, and he answered with snottiness instead of substance.

[Selatius]

55. It's a fact of history. Asking why the OP started the thread is beside the point.

If you don't like fundamental facts of history being tossed around here, you're on the wrong board.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Here is one you will apreaciate

as funny and tragic at the same time

THe movie 300 started running today.

The RW is now claiming that this movie is an allegory to the invasion of Iraq by us

We are the Persians (ain't that funny) and they are the Greeks

Oh never mind that this is about the battle of Thermopylae

"Go tell the Spartans..."

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Huh? I can't even see how that fits a right wing view

I haven't seen the film, but people say the Spartan leader wants to go to war, but his advisers don't want him to. I thought the right wing was saying the Spartans are the Americans (in particular Bush as Leonidas - ha, can't see bush leading his men into battle any time soon), and the Persians are, well, the Iranians. The Persians are consistently demonised in the movie, from what I've heard. Are they actually claiming the movie is designed to glorify the Iraqi insurgents?

[rockymountaindem]

2. That's not particularly surprising

But we should judge him by the standard of his time. Churchill deployed British cavalry units to Mandatory Palestine during the 30s as the undersecretary of the colonies to stop Arab/Jewish violence when others were content to let the problem fester. He also reversed an order of that time forbidding Jewish immigration to the mandate.

People were just a lot more blunt about things back then. I read an excerpt of a speech he made once in 1944 ripping up the Bulgarians of all people in quite explicit language calling them good for nothing. That's just the way it used to be.

I don't want anybody to think that I'm trying to justify what he said, I'm just saying that firstly he was a man of his times, and was probably no more or less racist than his peers. Secondly, people have said worse about me and my peeps, and I'm not going to have a freak-out over the words of a long-gone British politician, even if it is the venerable Winston Churchill.

[Kutjara]

3. Everyone knows Winney was a bit of a bigot.

He didn't have many good things to say about a whole range of ethnic and religious groups. Was he more or less bigoted than his peers? Maybe so, maybe no.

Just because he held Britain together during WWII doesn't mean everything he said or did was scripture. Ask any patriotic Australian what they think about his handling of a little scuffle at Gallipoli.

[babylonsister]

4. WTF? You need to explain why you thought this was worthy of posting, because

I see nothing of value in this vile shit.

[asthmaticeog]

6. I hate to speak for the OP, but I can't help but wonder if he has a problem with the JOOOOOOOOOOOOZ.

We have all the money, don'chaknow. :eyes:

[Purveyor]

8. Odd that the Israeli Newspaper, Haaretz, saw fit to publish this story if it is so "damning"...

Haaretz headline: Pre-WW2 Churchill article says Jews partly to blame for anti-Semitism

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835660.html

[asthmaticeog]

16. Blame haaretz, fine.

YOU posted it here.

[DRoseDARs]

21. And if he had posted the Haaretz article instead, would that have made you look less foolish...

...for having been so quick to judgement? :eyes:

[asthmaticeog]

22. Funny, I don't feel foolish.

Have fun with the name-calling, though.

[DRoseDARs]

23. "It also reflects on the asshole who chose to post it." post #14 by asthmaticeog

Hmm, saying asthmaticeog "looks foolish" is the same as asthmaticeog calling Purveyor an "asshole." Interesting...

[asthmaticeog]

24. Yeah, not so much caring what you think, here.

I'm still waiting for the OP to justify posting this. You, you don't matter so much. G'night. :hi:

[DRoseDARs]

25. That would be the retort of one who loses an arguement and continues to look foolish. n/t

[asthmaticeog]

32. I'm not arguing. Thanks for your input, though. nt

[DRoseDARs]

37. If you're not arguing, then you're trolling and we shouldn't feed you. Begone, pest! n/t

:joke:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DRoseDARs]

45. ...and the horse you rode in on. Bucked you off, didn't it? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

57. You didn't even PUT UP an argument.

[Purveyor]

27. Justify posting this? It is news, running on many of the newswires this evening.

Here is just a small sampling. BTW, I need not justify anything to 'you' so get the fuck over 'yourself'!

Pre-WW2 Churchill article says Jews partly to blame for anti-Semitism
Ha'aretz, Israel - 4 hours ago
A historian has uncovered a pre-World War Two article Winston Churchill wrote about the persecution of Jews but then decided not to publish. ...

Churchill held Jews to blame for persecution
Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
Entitled 'How The Jews Can Combat Persecution' - by the Rt Hon Winston Churchill, it never saw the light of day after Churchill's private office stepped in ...

Churchill held Jews to blame for persecution
Scotland on Sunday, UK - 5 hours ago
Entitled 'How The Jews Can Combat Persecution' - by the Rt Hon Winston Churchill, it never saw the light of day after Churchill's private office stepped in ...

Long lost Churchill paper on Jews uncovered
Reuters.uk, UK - 5 hours ago
LONDON (Reuters) - A historian has uncovered a pre-World War Two article Winston Churchill wrote about the persecution of Jews but then decided not to ...

Long lost Churchill paper on Jews uncovered
Reuters - 5 hours ago
LONDON (Reuters) - A British historian has uncovered a pre-World War Two article Winston Churchill wrote about the persecution of Jews but then decided not ...

Historic Churchill article on Jews uncovered
TV3 News, New Zealand - 6 hours ago
A British historian has uncovered a pre-World War Two article that Winston Churchill wrote about the persecution of Jews, then decided not to publish. ...

[asthmaticeog]

31. And your point?

You've been dodging the issue of whether you agree or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Ok let me throw some ice water in here

it is a fact that these kinds of attitudes were common in the 1930s.

You do not have to agree wtih this in order to KNOW THIS IS A FACT OF HISTORY.

Or are you afraid of a little history?

Unfrigging amazing

[Liberal In Texas]

10. And maybe not...

From the Guardian...

"But when The Observer contacted Sir Martin Gilbert, the eminent historian and Churchill biographer, the implication of anti-Semitism began to unravel. Gilbert, who also has a book out this summer, said the article was not written by Churchill at all, but rather his ghost writer, Adam Marshall Diston. He added that Churchill's instructions for the article were different in both tone and content from what Diston eventually wrote, and pointed out that Diston was a supporter of Oswald Mosley, the notorious fascist and anti-Semite. Churchill had stopped its publication in a newspaper."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2031314,00.html

[rockymountaindem]

12. Oh really?

Mosley was a class A piece of shit. This sounds like a more likely story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. It sounds like one of those stories that will be sorted

that said, the ATTITUDE reflected in the article was very common at the time, all over the Western World

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. This is important; if Churchill didn't write it, and it wasn't published

then it may say more about the business associates of Churchill than himself. Toye's version says Churchill did try to get it published:

The document was originally offered to the US publication Liberty in 1937 but was withdrawn when another magazine for which Churchill wrote objected to him supplying a rival.

Churchill nevertheless tried to have it published in the Strand Magazine, but it declined the offer because it had already taken a similar article from former prime minister Lloyd George, according to Toye.

In early 1940, when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, Sunday Dispatch editor Charles Eade was given leave to republish some of Churchill's old journalism. But when he asked to use this article, Churchill's secretary, Kathleen Hill, wrote to him on March 13 saying it would be "inadvisable".

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=385482007

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

18. Ya know what, ruggerson?

Please post an article that doesn't diminish the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Please post something that gives me confidence that my government isn't just cow-towing to the Israelis and is actually recognizing there are different interests involved.

[asthmaticeog]

20. Did Churchill say anything about Israel? I don't think so. He's quoted as talking about Jews.

[babylonsister]

42. DAMMIT! IT'S CHURCHILL's FAULT. Cwap! nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. You do know that there was no Israel in 1937

and you also realize that at the time the British Government was actually limiting the number of Jews allowed to immigrate into Palestine...

I am sure you knew this and just chose to make this about today

Fact is, as I posted bellow, that this attitude was common in the Europe of the 1930s, (and even the US)

The General Discussion Board is not ONLY about news, but many, many other things are posted here, and this post is historically relevant and important and worthy of discussion

[babylonsister]

36. Trust me, I am educated and have my own opinion, and it doesn't favor

Israel or my (?) government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Then why the meniton of Israel in a thread

about the aparent (which was rather suspected) antisemitism of Winston Churchill?

[LeftishBrit]

60. Self-deleted; posted in wrong place

[LeftishBrit]

58. Since Israel did not exist in 1937, in what earthly way is that relevant????

Unless you are trying to imply that Jews may have deserved to be persecuted in 1930s Europe because a few of the descendents of the survivors ended up voting for the Likud?

That's a stretch, even by the usual standards of anti-Jewish arguments.

[ComerPerro]

15. Lets not forget that most conservatives actually approved of and supported Hitler

including a Bush ancestor

[fuzzyball]

35. also Joseph Kennedy, pilot Lindburg, Henry Ford

and a host of other Nazi sympathisers.

And thank you for posting this thread. It shed light
on a different aspect of Sir Winston, who was great,
just not perfect.

[PhilipShore]

26. Roch Hochhuth, a German playwright accused Winston Churchill of being a war criminal

Answers
http://www.answers.com/topic/rolf-hochhuth">Link



Hochhuth's next play, Soldiers, Necrology on Geneva (1967) criticizes the Allied bombing campaigns as war crimes and Winston Churchill as a war criminal. It also cast doubts about the official British version that the Polish Prime Minister General Władysław Sikorski's death in an airplane clash in 1943 was an accident, and instead claimed that General Sikorski had been murdered on Churchill's orders. Controversy arose in the UK when the mooted premiere at Britain's National Theatre was cancelled, but the play was produced soon after in the West End. The play heavily relied on the work of the young British historian David Irving, who later became notorious as a holocaust denier. Since that time, Irving and Hochhuth have been close friends and in 2005 Hochhuth drew criticism as he defended his friend against being a holocaust denier, calling the charge "idiotic" and Irving "an honourable man". The play received much critical acclaim when revived at the Finborough Theatre, London, in August 2004.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Historically relevant

people should know that this was a common attitude all over the Western World

The break in that attitude, if it even truly came, was the liberation of the camps.

This, as a student of history, is not shocking

Now what should be shocking is that many Conservatives in this country (and in Europe mind you), are now saying that Europe suffers from a "muslim problem" since they also refuse to assimilate

So the rhetoric that was (and some may argue is still accepted) for Jews, is now also part of the Muslim experience... and it is fully part of creating the other

Personally, as a Jew, and a child of the holocaust AND A TRAINED historian, I thank the OP for posting this and raising the issue, just how sread were these feelings in the 1930s and even 40s? What is more, are they still common today?

[rockymountaindem]

29. Thanks for posting

a reasoned response.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Oh you welcome

I cannot help but to be amazed by the responses above

It is as if somebody knocked off a favorite idol, and even suggested that this favorite idol might have a problem with antisemitism. I have some family in the UK, and they changed their name to a less Jewish sounding name in the 1930s, perhaps the people criticizing the post as "non=significant" should ask themselves why they did that?

[DRoseDARs]

33. You must be one of those "self-hating" Jews if you're thanking the OP...

;)

Seriously, it's amazing how quickly people jumped to conclusions without even being arsed to open the damn link and seeing it's a legitimate news article from a major news service, not anti-semitic filth pumped out by skinheads.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I did not have to link on the article

as a Trained Historian who took some coursework in the history of Antisemitism this did not shock me at all

Then again you might be right... after all I am quite critical of Israeli policies at times....

;-)

[PhilipShore]

51. I am a liberal pacifist Jewish Catholic, and have been fascinated...

by the pacifism movements -- in Germany -- that opposed the Nazis; such as in the historical literature about Franz Jägerstatter, and Rolf Hochhuth - and others.


Franz Jagerstatter

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yes, those people were amazing

they are among the minority in any country that opposes the worst of horrors that can be visited by the state...

I fear in decades to come people may speak of folks like Cindy Sheehan in the same way.

[asthmaticeog]

39. Nice straw man. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. nt

[DRoseDARs]

43. And what suspicions would those be? That you don't get the Family Guy reference?

Your loss...

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Did you notice the smiley face?

I did... or perhaps I have a thicker skin

[DRoseDARs]

48. asthmaticeog must have mistaken it for a Nazi swastika...

:shrug: <- I wonder what this looks like in asthmaticeog's eyes...

[still_one]

59. it IS an antisemetic to blame victims of the Holocaust as partly responsible for what happened

Is this really about a history lesson?

[PhilipShore]

63. No, it is historical research into how Nazism affected public opinion -- in fact the exact

opposite of what your implying.

Opposition movements to the Nazis -- started because of the official policies of the powers that be, and "public opinion" which was (pro Nazi) -- and a real problem with pacifists; whom opposed the Nazis.

The Pacifist/liberals of that day were well aware the warmongers (Nazism) as they recognize the warmongers of today (the PNAC/Bush militarists) whom use double talk as a anti-semitic tool, to cause destruction (wars).

[still_one]

64. Bull Shit, Churchill blaming the Jews for what happened to them in the death camps

is antisemetic. Oppostion to nazis only occurred when he started to invade other countries. The world was remarkablly silent as Jews were being removed from their homes in Germany and Europe

[PhilipShore]

67. I disagree

is antisemetic. Oppostion to nazis only occurred when he started to invade other countries. The world was remarkablly silent as Jews were being removed from their homes in Germany and Europe

I understand your frustration -- because you probably get your opinions from the MSM media -- or from official history books -- but the reality is there was a pacifist movement that opposed the Nazis, from ordinary Germans; from day one.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Churchill was a great but flawed character

His war leadership probably saved Britain and Europe from Hitler and his supporters, and thereby ultimately saved the lives of many Jews (and gypsies and other ethnic minorities and political dissenters). I fear to think of what would have become of my country and of Europe as a whole if not for Churchill.

But this doesn't mean that he was perfect, much less that all his associates were perfect (and it does sound here as though someone put words in his mouth). Remember: he was a *Conservative* (mostly! - he did switch parties twice). There are things and deeds that rise above party politics, and such things make me an admirer of Churchill; but he was not immune to party and class politics, and certainly had some of the prejudices that were common to upper-class Tory Englishmen of his time. As a peacetime politician, he was not that great; and in particular his brutal role in crushing the General Strike and miners' strike when he was Home Secretary in 1926 was disgraceful.

So the fact that he may have condoned anti-semitism in associates, or even had some anti-semitic prejudices himself, is not that strange in a man of his class, party and time, with the flaws that we already know that he had.

After the war was over, the people of this country were - rightly - enormously grateful to Churchill for his vital role in the war, and he has - rightly - been regarded ever since as one of our country's heroes. The people also - rightly - defeated him and his party overwhelmingly in favour of Clement Attlee's Labour Party in 1945.
It is an ambivalent complex situation, and the quotes reported here are historically interesting from the point of view of this ambivalent complex situation.

Interesting topic; but I hope no one thinks that these quotes justify anti-semitism, in the 1930s or now!

[still_one]

62. it is your last point, that is it being used to justify antisemitism that concerns me

At least you put it into an historical perspective, not an isolated post that either is trying to create flame bait, or something worse

[PhilipShore]

65. Well, then he was a anti-semitic politician

So the fact that he may have condoned anti-semitism in associates, or even had some anti-semitic prejudices himself, is not that strange in a man of his class, party and time, with the flaws that we already know that he had.

Anyone - at that time - that would not oppose Nazism, was or was de facto an anti-semitic supporter of Germany (A Nazi sympathizer).

I am sort of confused about -- how you seem to imply that hate of Jews "by a politician" was justified. Why?

[pepperbear]

69. If I may....as a Jew....

I found this information quite enlightening. I had no idea that the much lauded leader of a European nation during WW2 would make an anti Semitic remark. That such remarks come to light this many years ago is also astounding.

So I kind of got the point of the OP right away. This is history, just like the fact that the Democratic party used to be the party of segregation.

[LaurenG]

70. This is a flaming thread

[LaurenG]

71. Locking

I am locking this now.

Ohioblues
DU Mod