The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >   Reply to this topic

Churchill - Jews Partially Responsible For Holocaust

Torontonian
post 13.Mar.2007, 02:22 PM
Post #16
Joined: 7.Jul.2006

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


VHW:

We (including myslef) mostly do look different. Some of us do thinks differently, we have our own traditions and background - and yes we refuse to be absorbed. And it is "OK". We accept that and like it and have nothing against that.

And sometimes being "the same" - resulted in things that are not so good...

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, prgans, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

The Merchant of Venice


Go to the top of the page
+
VikingHumpingWitch
post 13.Mar.2007, 02:41 PM
Post #17
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 21.Dec.2005

I'm pretty sure we're agreeing, Torontonian. I am not sure what Fattie Winston meant by 'absorbed' but if means abandoning your own traditions in order to follow those of your host nation then I don't agree that it is necessary.

Providing people follow the laws, I don't care how they dress, who they worship or how they think.
Go to the top of the page
+
Benzed
post 13.Mar.2007, 03:00 PM
Post #18
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 1.Nov.2005

Yes, Winston Churchill did nothing to assist the defeat of the Nazi hun. "Brave" Neville Chamberlain would have sorted things out in a far superior manner, despite mere whispering of the name "Adolf" causing his trousers to turn brown.
Go to the top of the page
+
Torontonian
post 13.Mar.2007, 03:06 PM
Post #19
Joined: 7.Jul.2006

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
I'm pretty sure we're agreeing, Torontonian. I am not sure what Fattie Winston meant by 'absorbed' but if means abandoning your own traditions in order to follow those of your host nation then I don't agree that it is necessary.

Providing people follow the laws, I don't care how they dress, who they worship or how they think.


I agree with you...the thing is about this article is

1. Mr. Ford (- who in TL express his antagonism to Jews as the biggest threat these days to bring this article
2. Mr. Ford (-who in TL suggested that Jews should look into themselves of why they have been hated - like blaming a rape victim) is as always not brining the whole picture:

"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 then goes on: "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."

Elsewhere, the article is sympathetic towards the Jewish people and it is clear Churchill disapproves of their persecution.

He ends by urging the British people to stand up for the Jews.


Winston Churchill made many mistakes in his life - also wrt yo the "Jewish Question". He made silly comments, he did not bomb Auschwitz when asked and also came up with this comment- that he later refused to publish.

BUT, he was no anti-semite. He was a drunk and a brut. BUT when Britain needed someone to extract the best out of Britishness, he demonstrated what he was really made of. If you look for bad examples in people history you will find - we are all human. The difference is the positive echo we leave behind after we are long gone. Winston Churchil approach to Jews was favourable and his contribution to Britain, Freedom, Literture and thought is something I could wish to myself. And if he ate a bit and had couple of shots od cherry in the morning as an eye opener...if I had to lead Britain at that time I would probably start with a hefty dose myself.
Go to the top of the page
+
Benzed
post 13.Mar.2007, 03:18 PM
Post #20
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 1.Nov.2005

QUOTE (Torontonian)
BUT, he was no anti-semite. He was a drunk and a brut. BUT when Britain needed someone to extract the best out of Britishness, he demonstrated what he was really made of. If you look for bad examples in people history you will find - we are all human. The difference is the positive echo we leave behind after we are long gone. Winston Churchil approach to Jews was favourable and his contribution to Britain, Freedom, Literture and thought is something I could wish to myself. And if he ate a bit and had couple of shots of cherry in the morning as an eye opener...if I had to lead Britain at that time I would probably start with a hefty dose myself.[/b]


Perfectly said.
Go to the top of the page
+
VikingHumpingWitch
post 13.Mar.2007, 04:43 PM
Post #21
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 21.Dec.2005

Unwitting is an interesting word. I don't think Churchill would have thought he was an anti-Semite and neither do I, but I think he is being unwitting racist in assuming that if someone looks and is a bit different then they are partly responsible for being persecuted. I think the only people responsible are those who think that anyone who isn't exactly the same as they are needs to be persecuted.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Alex-sweden*
post 13.Mar.2007, 05:58 PM
Post #22


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

Hmm, this sounds pretty ugly to me. So if they'd all just been willing to be good little blond Germans then they wouldn't have been slaughtered in their millions? Well how silly of them.

Strikes a clanging great parallel with the treatment of a certain minority group today...

Should immigrants have be to absorbed? If we don't all retire to a small red house in the country to drink snaps and eat sill at midsommar, would we all be partly responsible if the native Swedes decide to rise up and kill us all?


I don't think you can really compare the treatment of muslims today, to the treatment of jews in Europe around the time of the Nazis.

Firstly, terrorist atrocities weren't being carried out in the name of Judaism, disrupting and ruining millions of people's lives. Ok, it's not all muslims, but we never saw riots and demonstrations in the streets after terrorist attacks, like we did after the publishing of about 6 drawings :? ...

It's not all muslims, but I think they should try and make more of an effort to distance themselves from what some crazy loonatics are doing in the name of their religion...

The fact that around 800,000 of them in the UK openly admit that they want the UK to become Islamic, doesn't help them and the way people see them either...

Anyway, back to the topic...

I completely agree with Torontian :wink: when Britain needed someone to extract the best out of Britishness, he demonstrated what he was really made of
Go to the top of the page
+
High Priestess Kang - Slu...
post 16.Mar.2007, 03:07 AM
Post #23
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 14.Jul.2006

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
Britain's most over-rated PM turns out to have been an anti-Semite afterall:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/10/0...2.7mxzo1K0.html

They are apparently different, and don't want to assimilate!


This is bullshit information. Aaron and I cleared the air on the myth last May/June.

*points to the corner of the room where ABC and Word Up chill and advises Trowly to take a seat*
Go to the top of the page
+
*Stander*
post 16.Mar.2007, 07:41 AM
Post #24


Firstly, there is no clear evidence that Churchill was an anti-Semite, although it may be said that he was imbued with common Anglo-Saxon prejudices towards non-Christians and non-Whites. Like others he identified disproportionate Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Party, particular amongst its higher echelons. However, these Jews were quickly purged by Stalin, and later (post-1945) those that were involved in the early Marxist-Leninist governments of the Warsaw Pact states (e.g. East Germany) were also purged; indeed, shortly before his death, which was "by all accounts natural," he was planning yet another pogrom against Soviet Jewry. Other than his suspicion at their refusal to assimilate and their over-representation in Communist circles, Churchill never really concerned himself with them; at heart he was a committed British Imperialist, who recognized the twin dangers of Bolshevism, Fascism and National Socialism early on. If Great Britain had the resources and international support to invade and defeat Francoist Spain and the Soviet Union and had done so in 1943 and 1945 respectively, he would have saved the West, the Spanish people, and tens of millions of Central-Eastern Europeans much grief
Go to the top of the page
+
jim747
post 16.Mar.2007, 09:03 AM
Post #25
Location: Umeå
Joined: 12.Aug.2006

Churchill's best and most accurate quote...

Golf...Ruins a good walk.
Go to the top of the page
+
Torontonian
post 16.Mar.2007, 11:26 AM
Post #26
Joined: 7.Jul.2006

QUOTE (Stander)
Firstly, there is no clear evidence that Churchill was an anti-Semite, although it may be said that he was imbued with common Anglo-Saxon prejudices towards non-Christians and non-Whites. Like others he identified disproportionate Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Party, particular amongst its higher echelons. However, these Jews were quickly purged by Stalin, and later (post-1945) those that were involved in the early Marxist-Leninist governments of the Warsaw Pact states (e.g. East Germany) were also purged; indeed, shortly before his death, which was "by all accounts natural," he was planning yet another pogrom against Soviet Jewry. Other than his suspicion at their refusal to assimilate and their over-representation in Communist circles, Churchill never really concerned himself with them; at heart he was a committed British Imperialist, who recognized the twin dangers of Bolshevism, Fascism and National Socialism early on. If Great Britain had the resources and international support to invade and defeat Francoist Spain and the Soviet Union and had done so in 1943 and 1945 respectively, he would have saved the West, the Spanish people, and tens of millions of Central-Eastern Europeans much grief


100% correct.
Go to the top of the page
+
Torontonian
post 16.Mar.2007, 09:20 PM
Post #27
Joined: 7.Jul.2006

And now for the truth and facts (Ford will not like):


Churchill was not an anti-Semite

British leader did not write the alleged anti-Semitic article, nor did he publish it. Churchill Center responds

Richard M. Langworth Published: 03.15.07, 18:12 /


A lifelong supporter of Zionism and the Jewish people, Winston Churchill is now being accused of anti-Semitism on the strength of an alleged article of his, making the rounds on the internet.




Informed of a 1937 article draft in the Churchill Archives, accusers say it proves Churchill's lifelong sympathy for the Jews was hypocrisy - that Churchill was, ipso facto, a closet anti-Semite.



The allegations began with an article in Britain's The Independent: "Uncovered: Churchill's Warnings About the 'Hebrew Bloodsuckers'" on 11 March 2007.


"The 1937 document, 'How the Jews Can Combat Persecution,' was unearthed by Dr. Richard Toye, a Cambridge University historian," The Independent states. "Written three years before Churchill became Prime Minister, the article has apparently lain unnoticed in the Churchill Archives at Cambridge since the early months of the Second World War.



"Churchill criticised the 'aloofness' of Jewish people from wider society and urged them to make the effort to integrate themselves... Churchill says: '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 then goes on to criticise Jewish moneylenders: 'Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a "Hebrew Bloodsucker," to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.'"




"Dr Toye said: 'I nearly fell off my chair when I found the article. It appears to have been overlooked...It was certainly quite a shock to read some of these things and it is obviously at odds with the traditional idea we have of Churchill.'"



We at The Churchill Center would have fallen off our chairs too - if Churchill had written such words. But Churchill did not write them. Nor did he publish them. Nor did he approve of them.



Now, the facts

"How the Jews Can Combat Persecution" has not "lain unnoticed since the Second World War." It was "unearthed" nearly thirty years ago by Oxford historian and Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert, poring through the million documents in the Churchill Archives Centre.



Twenty-six years ago, Gilbert actually reprinted the letter conveying the draft of this article to Churchill, in Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 3, The Coming of War: Documents 1936-1939 (London: Heinemann, 1982), page 670.




The author of "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution" was Adam Marshall Diston (1893-1956), whom Gilbert's volume identifies on page 190:



"Born in Scotland. Served in a Highland Regiment, 1914-18. Joined the Staff of Amalgamated Press after the war; subsequently Assistant Editor of Answers, and acting Editor (1934)... A Socialist, he joined Sir Oswald Mosley's New Party in 1931. Unsuccessful New Party Candidate for Wandsworth Central in the 1931 election (where he polled only 424 votes out of a total of 11,647, and lost his deposit); he never stood for Parliament again."




Churchill briefly employed Diston to write rough drafts for the popular press. While drafts for Churchill's weighty histories, such as Marlborough and A History of the English Speaking Peoples, were prepared by distinguished historians such as Bill Deakin and Keith Feiling, Diston drafted some of what Churchill called his "potboilers," which supplied much of his income in the 1930s. Indeed, says Sir Martin Gilbert, this article "was the only serious subject Diston was asked to tackle, in which he went over the top in the use of his language."



Diston's membership in Mosley's fascist party suggests his sentiments. Indeed, in his letter conveying the draft to Churchill, he recognized them: "Mrs Pearman (Churchill's secretary) did not tell me for what paper it was wanted. If it is for a Jewish journal, it may in places be rather outspoken. Even then, however, I do not know that that is altogether a bad thing. There are quite a number of Jews who might, with advantage, reflect on the epigram: 'How odd, Of God, To choose, The Jews.'"



Diston's draft departed drastically from the article guidelines Churchill had sent him only three weeks earlier: "Obviously there are four things. The first is to be a good citizen of the country to which he belongs.



The second is to avoid too exclusive an association in ordinary matters of business and daily life, and to mingle as much as possible with non-Jews everywhere, apart from race and religion.



The third is to keep the Jewish movement free from Communism.



The fourth is a perfectly legitimate use of their influence throughout the world to bring pressure, economic and financial, to bear upon the Governments which persecute them." (Companion Volume 5, Part 3, 654). All those sentiments are typical of Churchill. and certainly do not smack of "Shylock," or people who "look different." Winston Churchill was among the least conscious of how people looked of anyone in his generation.




Interviewed March 11th by London's The Sunday Times, Sir Martin Gilbert said Churchill refused to have Diston's article published because it was not his work and did not reflect his views. Gilbert added that Dr. Toye, the lecturer who "found" the article and includes it in a new book, Lloyd George and Churchill, must have failed to consult Companion Volume V, Part 3, which describes it: "I'm amazed. My book would have been on the same shelf in the same library. I immediately recognised the name of the article."



Not only did Churchill not write about "Hebrew Bloodsuckers." He refused even to subject Diston's draft to his usual heavy editing and revision, which he traditionally did before submitting an article to a publisher. (See footnotes on the drafting of "King George VI," Companion Volume 5, Part 3, 519.)



Subsequent correspondence in the Churchill Archives, from March 1940, has Charles Eade, then Churchill's editor for his war speeches, suggesting that Diston's "rather provocative" article be published in the Sunday Dispatch. Kathleen Hill, forwarded his proposal to Churchill with a note: "I cannot trace that this article on the Jews has ever been published. You originally wrote it for the American Magazine Liberty about June 1937...However, the article was not published as Colliers objected to any of your articles appearing in a rival magazine." (Churchill Archives, CHAR 8/660/32.)



It has been suggested that the piece was not published only because of Colliers' objections. But that opinion was Mrs. Hill's, not Churchill's. While she might have remembered Collier's objections, Churchill was never one to fail to place a good story. Yet, after reading Mrs. Hill's memo, Churchill himself wrote across the bottom: "better not." Mrs. Hill in turn informed Eade: "Mr.Churchill thinks it would be inadvisable to publish the article." (Churchill Archives, CHAR 8/660/31.)



Clearly, both in 1937 and 1940, Churchill did not want this article published. As William Manchester wrote, Churchill "always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of his pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity." (Manchester, The Last Lion vol. I, Boston: Little Brown, 1982, 843-44).



The feet of clay school

Not long from now, we may assume, The Independent's story or portions of the Diston draft will be dredged up out of context as proof of Churchill's hypocrisy. There is an element in modern discourse that seeks always to deconstruct time-proven institutions, societies and leaders. No matter how positive their record, their least peccadilloes are seized upon as proof that revered institutions and individuals are no better than the villains of history: that "we" are no better than "they." Call it the Feet of Clay School.




Winston Churchill is particularly susceptible to such accusations. Thanks to the massive archive he left us, ably marshalled and made available to one and all by the faithful Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill is in the relatively unique position of being subject to criticism not only for his most personal thoughts in his most private letters, but even for articles he never wrote.



Leave aside Churchill's lifelong support of Zionism. Forget his legion of Jewish friends, from Sir Ernest Cassel to Henry Strakosch to Bernard Baruch, who stuck by him when it took courage to do so, often bailing him out of financial misfortune. Omit the fact that his official biographer is also a leading Holocaust and Jewish historian. Churchill was a friend of the Jews because, as a moral man, his sense of justice was revolted by persecution. "How can any man be discriminated against," he once asked, "purely because of how he was born?"



But Churchill was not an uncritical friend. He once observed that most Bolsheviks were Jews, but added (in a phrase usually omitted by the Feet of Clay School) that the reason for this was that they were also the most persecuted minority in Europe. (See notes on Churchill's 1920 article "Zionism vs. Bolshevism," Finest Hour 128, page 43.)



In November 1944, Churchill was outraged by the killing of his friend Lord Moyne (Walter Guinness), the Minister Resident in Cairo, by members of the terrorist Stern Gang.



In a statement to Parliament, Churchill said: "If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease, and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch." (See Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill vol. VII Road to Victory, 1050).





An under-appreciated quality of Churchill was his consistency. If his principles were offended, the offenders were chastised, no matter who they were. He never paid the slightest attention to "public opinion"; Political Correctness would be lost on him. And yet Churchill could always be counted upon, at the end of any debate, to come down on the side of justice, right and freedom.



"I never felt that he was going to spring an unpleasant surprise on me,"

said Sir Martin Gilbert, reflecting on his forty years of biographical research with the historian Max Hastings (Finest Hour 65). "I might find that he was adopting views with which I disagreed. But I always knew that there would be nothing to cause me to think: 'How shocking, how appalling.'"



Richard M. Langworth is the editor of Finest Hour, The Journal of Winston Churchill
Go to the top of the page
+
FR
post 17.Mar.2007, 01:01 PM
Post #28
Joined: 22.Oct.2005

QUOTE (Torontonian)
Yes, they do not want to assimilate. And how does it bother you? Thy are very much willing to integrate but want to keep their identity. BTW, they are doing it very well.

As for being a Zionist:

definition: philosophy of Theodor Herzl, late nineteenth-century German Jewish author of Der Judenstaat (1896). Herzl theorized that growing hatred of Jews in Europe and the slow assimilation of Jewish culture into wider European culture could only be stopped by the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

He was right. Some called him a dreamer but it happened. After 2,000 (!) years in exile the nation was re-born in it's homeland. Smoething with no parallel in history.

.. and it pisses the hell out of Jew haters like Trowbridge H. Ford. All-n-all, job well done!

A proud Zionist.


Please don't forget, Torontonian, that I am an ethic Jew, if you want to put it that way, in a family of Zionists. I think Zionism is ridiculous and I think one's identity as whatever can be retained wherever without the need for a separate country. Wanting segregation is apartheid (see Group Areas laws). Apartheid was a dumb idea. Zionism is a dumb idea, imho.
Go to the top of the page
+
Torontonian
post 17.Mar.2007, 01:12 PM
Post #29
Joined: 7.Jul.2006

QUOTE (FR)
Please don't forget, Torontonian, that I am an ethic Jew, if you want to put it that way, in a family of Zionists. I think Zionism is ridiculous and I think one's identity as whatever can be retained wherever without the need for a separate country. Wanting segregation is apartheid (see Group Areas laws). Apartheid was a dumb idea. Zionism is a dumb idea, imho.


An idea that works is not dumb because you don't think one needs to retain a country. As long as all the nations of the world want to retain a country, as a Jew myself, I prefer to protect myself and have a country of my own...when Jews did not have a country of their own they suffered by being excluded.

Not to mention how hypocritical of you...moving from South Africa to the big U.S.A - have you asked the U.S.A to dismentle? Any European Countries? France? Sweeden? no...just Israel...in the meantime you are invited to move to Saudi and also ask them to dismentle their country - I suggest you bring your own rope.
Go to the top of the page
+
FR
post 18.Mar.2007, 12:57 PM
Post #30
Joined: 22.Oct.2005

QUOTE (Torontonian)
An idea that works is not dumb because you don't think one needs to retain a country. As long as all the nations of the world want to retain a country, as a Jew myself, I prefer to protect myself and have a country of my own...when Jews did not have a country of their own they suffered by being excluded.

Not to mention how hypocritical of you...moving from South Africa to the big U.S.A - have you asked the U.S.A to dismentle? Any European Countries? France? Sweeden? no...just Israel...in the meantime you are invited to move to Saudi and also ask them to dismentle their country - I suggest you bring your own rope.


Israel is not stopping Jews' problems. In fact, they may be worse for the existence of Israel. How hypocritical of you to favor the creation of your own country, but you refuse to live in it. Instead, you choose the security of Toronto.

Is France a theocracy? Sweden? As I have said before, I favor the free movement of labor, not the protection of national borders and discrimination against whoever and whatever.

Btw, I have not called for dismantling Israel, but may have called for not creating at the time, if I were alive at the time. I do think Zionism is foolish. It's foolish because it does not accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish. You are living evidence of that.
Go to the top of the page
+

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: