Churchill was not an anti-Semite
Richard M. Langworth
Published: 15.03.07, 18:12
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
44 Talkbacks for this article
1. whatever whatever. in the end we win, so who cares.
susan ,   israel   (03.15.07)
Israel should arrange for the UN SC to declare that every person in the world is anti-Semitic from birth and that each person can be issued a God Goy Certiicate if he/she passes a test every 5 years. Administered by Israelis, of course. That person would be on a Can Fly List [CHOSEN WORLD - OUR WAR ON ISLAM AND OUR OWN FREEDOMS] Eh?
3. Churchill, where are you now?!?!
4. Not anti-Semitic. He just didn't like Jews.
Yacov ,   Ashkelon   (03.15.07)
Could have bombed the Reich Chancellery. Didn't do it. Could have bombed the rail lines to the concentration damps. Didn't do it. Could have bombed the concentration camps. Didn't do it. Could have allowed European Jews into Britain. Didn't do it. Could have allowed European Jews into Palestine. Didn't do it. Churchill was not anti-Semitic. He just didn't like Jews.
5. Churchil was no anti-semite
Jewish Canadian ,   Ottawa, Canada   (03.15.07)
I never thought for a second that this "unpublished article" was Churchill's. Anyone who has researched his works, speeches and books and actually read them would know that he was a friend of the Jewish people and of the Zionist movement. Comments posted here to the contrary are based on ignorance, obviously.
6. Maybe he wasn't anti-Semitic (it's a BIG maybe) but...
Michael Steiner   (03.15.07)
...he wasn't "pro-Semitic" either. He was a typical right-wing Tory Establishmentarian teabag who did everything with the ultimate goal of extracting/effecting the greatest advantage/benefit for the English Establishment. If he had to trample over millions of people (including his own, q.v. "lower" "classes"), so be it. He didn't write the article ascribed to him; his ghostwriter did. But he certainly saw and read the article (his annotations prove it), which leads one to believe that he concurred with its anti-Semitic sentiments.
7. With friends like Churchill who needs enemys
Whether he wrote the letter or not is imeterial.The facts speak for themselves. In 1948 the British goverment did not lift a finger to help Israel win the imenent war. They expected the Arab armies to solve the Jewish problem in Palestine. Illegal imigration had to be a reality. Most defencive posts were left in Arab hands. The Brittish never left Palestine on their own accord. Churchill take responcibility for your goverments deeds.
8. 'You ought to give Jerusalem to the Jews." W.C.
JJ   (03.15.07)
"You ought to give Jerusalem to the Jews. It was they who made it famous." - Winston Churchill
9. Churchill loved Jews more than you could dream
Ilan ,   Ariel   (03.15.07)
Steiner you are really pathetic. Beyond belief pathetic. You drip hatred towards Jews three times a day and then have the nerve to defame Churchil?
10. Clearly sympathetic to Jews
Scott ,   La Jolla, CA   (03.15.07)
In Churchill's capacities in dealing directly with the Arab side regarding the fate of Palestine and Jerusalem, he repeatedly turned down petitions to limit or ban Jewish influence or growth, remarking that the Jews presence would materially improve the lot of the Arabs. Much to the chagrin of the Arabs. He was a friend to us, as well as being way ahead of his time.
11. Criticism
Josh   (03.15.07)
Even as I read this article I must ask the question that many do not. What was his intent? The fact of the matter prophets and G-d himself would be called an anti-semite for simply levying a criticism against Israel and the Jews, yet we study the writings of people like David, Hezikeil, and so on. Even Moses criticized the Israel nation calling them "stiff necked" which was not something to be proud of, yet many are. To be a Jew is to be secure in what you choose - life. Too often the "anti-semitism card is played. If Israel is weak and susptable to other nations, it because our leaders and we have broken with the Torah. In the Baalam story, we learned that something such as having majic in our tent weakens Israel. Anti-semitism exists and on a greater scale than many know. I as a convert know the dark tales and finger pointing that goes on in "Churchin groups". Fact is anyone who choose "death" is set against those who choose differently. A dati man knows how much as secular man tries to convert him more than a Jesus freak. This drawing away from Torah appears to be a major component in the "great humilation" and prophecies of Torah and the end of days. People are choosing their own suffering rather than loving G-d. We are to be a light to all nations, and from criticism of men like Churchill, we should gleen what is important. That is to say the cricism and shadows can teach us about the light and the path. One must not be afraid or insecure when they look in the mirror. To become a better person and better nation it requires self examination. I could rant about my experinences but G-d protects those who love him and that which falls on the heads of those who do wrong according to Torah has been historically written. If what you read in Torah is blindsiding you, then you should listen to cricism. How can two lead thousands to battle, except if the hand of G-d had done it. If we want peace and the world to come to Israel for answers, we need to shape-up under Torah guidlines and lay of the pride of being a stiff necked nation. In this life we should be on our best behavior and choose life. If a single Jew misbehaves, cheats, lies, or degrades his fellow, it comes back on us as a nation of judges who "shall remove evil" from our midst. Churchill was a politician - he called it like he saw it from a goyim viewpoint and it appears he genuinly wants the Jews to be like other nations - who amoung the goyim doesn't want this? Choose life or choose death. G-d is testing Israel with its choices.
12. Churchill
David ,   UK   (03.15.07)
I always understood that Churchill was against the Jews. Didn't he boast about 'with a stroke of a pen' he reduced the land alloted to the Jewish State in the Balfour Declaration and gave most of it away? This tragedy led to the end of the British Empire and more importantly created today's mess. Please clear this up for me
13. Words or Facts
Tracy W   (03.15.07)
The fact is that Churchill did almost nothing to help the Jews in distress during the war. Didn't allow refugees into the country, didn't bomb the crematoria or the railroads leading into them, didn't even speak out loud enough against the genocide taking place. No matter what historians say in his favor, those facts will remain forever as proof of Churchill's and the British people's true feelings for the Jews. Poetic justice: they are being now swamped by foreign cultures, and it's too late for them to do anything about it.
14. Josh # 11
charles ,   petach tikva   (03.15.07)
You wrote : ...but god protects those who love him . We have seen this "protection" during the Shoa . Most of the victims , or a great part , were "good" religious people . And where was their protection ? How can you write such a disgusting thing ? You probably , as a convert , did'nt loose family members . I lost many , i have the right to talk .
15. I don't care if Churchilil was an antisemite
Daniel ,   Formerly Israel   (03.16.07)
The man did so much for the survival of the free world (including Israel) during and after his term as PM of Britain, that I am willing to forgive him a little, maybe even a lot of antisemetism (all of which so far is alleged). During the 1948 war nobody had time to help either side. But Britain has remained Israel's staunchest ally throughout its history, it has been truer than the united states. And considering that zionists carried out terror attacks against the British to force them out, that many Jews in Britain during the Cold War were working for the Soviets, and that Israel has more than once wasted all the efforts Britain had made to help it (by for instance ending the Sinai war and not capitalizing on the hard-fought political victory Britain and France handed it after the six-day war) a little resentment towards Israel from British (and French) leaders is not surprising.
16. Thanks for setting the record straight
Simon K. ,   Los Angeles   (03.16.07)
Leftists are trying to rewrite the history of western civilization by destroying all of our heroes. They can't take away their great accomplishments, so they dig up dirt about their personal lives. In the US, they have denigrated George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln...and the list goes on. Even if Churchill did write criticisms of Jews, it would not make him less of a great man in history.
17. Churchill and Netanyahu
Max ,   USA   (03.16.07)
B. Netanyahu has spoken on various occasions about the greatness of Churchill's leadership, but now the article that appeared a few days ago has convinced many people that Churchill was an antisemite. Was the revelation of this 1937 article politically motivated to hurt conservative leaders like Bibi?
18. Chlurchill
SLC ,   Falls Chlurch, USA   (03.16.07)
Re # 7 Mr. Rubin is seriously in error in his accusations against Churchill. The fact of the matter is that Churchills' Conservative Government was ousted in 1945. The actions Mr. Rubin attributes to Churchill were perpetrated by Labor Prime Minister Clement Attlee and his foreign minister, Ernest Bevan.
19. Michael Steiner: you sound like a broken record (again)
ramallah mahdingdong   (03.16.07)
20. We have to get over this need for heroes
Judy Y ,   Los Angeles   (03.16.07)
Churchill was a good leader but he was not perfect and he was not a friend of the Jews. Enough of Churchill. Now Israel seems to be waiting for a hero to lead them out of the mess it's in. The situation is deteriorating very dangerously but most Israelis continue to wait for someone to lead them into a state of unity, of preparedness, of self-confidence and pride in their country. What Israelis do not take into account is that they themselves have the power to effect changes, the power of numbers and the power of ideas. This is not the time to wait for a charismatic leader. You have democracy, you have the votes, you can go out there and demonstrate until the government caves in and calls for a new election. You have the right to demand the best in the leaders you choose. They have to do your bidding, not follow their own private personal interests. They are there to serve their country, not their own personal interests. You have the power. It's up to you whether you use it or whether you sit back waiting for that leader who may not appear on time.
21. You people are dreaming...
Michael Steiner   (03.16.07)
You extoll Churchill as some sort of savior and man of immense character and scruples who brave rose to the challenge of defending the free world when no-one else would. What tripe. For starters, read #4. And then try to understand that Churchills ONLY motive was only ever his beloved English Establishment. If he could have found a way to retain their wretched empire and the English world dominance, he would have--even if it had meant letting Hitler murder us and others by the million. I don't think hated us but sure didn't particularly like us either.
22. Churchill's one HUGE mistake
EGW ,   vancouver canada   (03.16.07)
Churchill was NEVER an anti-semite, quite the contrary. The only problem I have is that he handed over almost completely unpopulated (absolutely empty) Trans-Jordan to a rag-tag bunch of about 900 lazy, dirty bandits led by Abdullah, who, were on their year long crawl from the Hejaz to Syria, to "attack" (I doubt it) the French, who'd kicked out Feisal (Laurence's "friend") from Damascus. Churchill was so perturbed by possible problems with France that he actually flew out in a rickety old plane to stop the "invasion", and to bribe Abdullah, who accepted with alacrity. Can you imagine?? A huge and costly error.
23. #4 Yacov...you need to knacov this talcov
Spinner ,   World   (03.16.07)
So what if Churchill didn't like jews...NOT EVERYONE HAS TO LIKE JEWS!!!! But that said...enough to make it look like a majority and it has the perception of all!! A few bad apples make the bunch look bad!!! Like you, Linda Rivera, Kyle, DR, Marcel and Gabriela for instance here on these talkbacks for YNET. If I didn't know about Israel the way I do and been there to get the full experience. I would say jews are a people who do nothing but prejudge others not like them...ie goyims!!! You speak as if the "others" are below you!!!?? How is that possible? You die the same way everyone else dies and were NOT the ONLY people persecuted in the holocaust!!!!! Get over it and quit treating the Palestinians the way the Germans treaded you 60 years ago!!! Being anti-jew or anti-Israel DOES NOT make you an anti-semite!!!!
24. #4
Adam ,   Manchester   (03.16.07)
What a simplisic view of Churchill's relationship with the Jews; try and do some research finding out why and world views of what everyone else was doing etc Do this instead of taking the acts/omissions of Churchill as isolated incidents without reason, but as acts of just not liking the Jews or even anti-Semitism. If is wasnt for Churchill Britian would have certainly been successfully invaded, the US probably would never had entered the war (Churchill's strong American connections helped this tremendously and there was no 'stepping stone' in Europe to launch an invasion); USSR would have collapsed under the pressure of the entire Wehrmacht and SS against it; the Mufti would have been given a free hand in killing the Middle eastern, Mandate Palestianian Jews - Results - Nazi Europe now! No Israel! Us not having this correspondence!!
25. #7
Adam ,   Manchester   (03.16.07)
Another person who shoots his mouth off withour research!! If you do your research, Churchill lost his wartime Premiership before the end of WWII in 1945 and wasnt Prime Minister again until the 1950s!!! Clement Atlee's left wing, Labour, anti-Zionist government took over!!! Bevan, the foreign secretary, strongly opposed recongnising a Jewish State and only Harry S Truman and the US's recognition meant the rest of the Western World recognised and gave legitmacy to Israel's existence. Churchill, at the time, appealed on numerous occassions to the Labour Government to be positive about a Jewish State. He sometimes used the term 'Zionist gangsters' to describe the Irgun and Stern Gang after attacks on British Troops and used the 'Palestinians' (in those days ironically Jews) to use more legitimate, political methods. He was certainly not anti-Semitic when he visted Mandate Palestine in the 1920s; he loved the idea of a Jewish State and NOT as has been allegated against Balfour that he wanted to get Jews out of Britain.
26. #23
Adam ,   Manchester   (03.16.07)
Comparing the treatment of Jews by Nazis and 'Palestinians' by Israelis shows a lack of knowledge of what happened to Jews in the 1930s and 1940s nunder Nazism and what has been perpurtrated by 'Palestinians' and how Israelis have treated them since 1948. Please show me evidence of Israeli gas chambers/ medical experiments on Palestinians/ Death Marches/ Israelis using the bodies of Palestinians to make furniture and fill cushions/ the 'Rehovot' Laws (Nuremburg Laws (sic)) etc as well as evidence of Jewish 'terrorism' against in German citizens in the 20s/30s/40s etc You idiot......
27. Like #4 another simplistic view of Chuchill's wartime......
Adam ,   #13   (03.16.07)
28. Churchill and the Jews
Richard Toye ,   Cambridge, UK   (03.16.07)
Sir, Richard M. Langworth suggests that the only evidence that Churchill tried to publish the article ‘How the Jews Can Combat Persecution’ under his own name in 1937 is Kathleen Hill’s retrospective minute of 12 March 1940. He further suggests that Hill’s account in that minute was inaccurate. In fact, other materials in the Churchill Papers support her version. Here is the full chronology, so far as it can be established, of the article’s history in 1937, following the point that Adam Marshall Diston, Churchill’s ghost-writer, sent in his draft on 10 May. 18 May 1937. Nancy Pearn of the literary agency Pearn, Pollingham & Higham, which is handling the article, writes to Violet Pearman, Chucrhill’s private secretary: ‘This will confirm the fact that, as arranged with you on the telephone, I have informed our New York office that although Mr. Churchill has actually written the article on the Jewish question, he now finds that “Collier’s” object to him appearing in “Liberty”.’ Pearn also states that she has asked the New York office to inform her firm of what the consequences of this were likely to be. (CHAR 8/546/35) 9 June 1937. Pearn writes to Churchill: The newest information from New York suggests deadlock. Collier’s will not give way on their claimed right to make the first offer for any Churchill article, even when, as in this case, another publication has offered a definite commission for an article on a specific topic. Pearn believes that Liberty is justified in its claim that, as they had suggested the topic, the article could not be used by Collier’s or any other US paper. Pearn asks if Churchill feels that the situation makes it impossible to accept the Liberty contract. She suggests that if so, Strand magazine might provide an alternative, British, outlet for the piece; she has recently negotiated with them for a piece by Lloyd George ‘on another aspect of this same question.’ She has mentioned this to Reeves Shaw, editor of the Strand, who is interested and would like to see the article. She asks if Churchill is willing to let him see it. (CHAR 8/546/37) 11 June 1937. Churchill replies to Pearn. He states that he has a contract with Collier’s for at least six articles in the course of the year and, although the contract does not forbid him to do so, he feels inhibited from writing for any of its competitors without its permission. On the other hand, he does not mean to offer the article on the Jews to Collier’s. He has already done his six articles and doubts if they would want more this year. ‘I am perfectly free to write for the Strand, and if Mr. Reeves Shaw is interested in the Jewish article, I could send it to him. It will probably have to be lengthened.’ (CHAR 8/546/38). 14 June 1937. David Higham, of Pearn, Pollingham & Higham, writes to Churchill: ‘Your letter of 11th June 1937 arrived just after Miss Pearn left for a short holiday. I appreciate the American situation over this article. As for “The Strand”, we have interested Mr. Reeves Shaw in the Jewish article. Will you therefore send it to him as you suggest.’ (CHAR 8/573/2) At this point the paper trail goes cold until March 1940, when Hill summarised this history, adding the detail that Strand never published the piece ‘because apparently of an article which Mr. Lloyd George had written for them on the same subject at that time.’ (CHAR 8/660/32) (See David Lloyd George, ‘What Has the Jew Done?’, Strand Magazine, April 1937). Undoubtedly, then, Churchill actively sought publication of the article in 1937. Particularly significant is his letter of 11 June, as it shows his personal involvement. Why would Churchill, if he disagreed with the contents of the article, suggest that it be longer? Yours, Richard Toye Homerton College Cambridge UK
29. #11 right to talk
Josh   (03.16.07)
Get off your leftist-horse - we all have a right to talk. For you wre gereem in Egypt! I have not seen many adhering to the incesant plee from Moses that the converts be treated as equals. You right now are treating me as an unequal. I have a voice for Torah too and as a returning fallen Jew (christian) - a voice as a Jew. Do you really not notice your excuse making. History speaks for itself. It was not only Jews that died. (6 m Jews and 7 m others) By the way my grandfather who was enobled by the House of Hapsburg (line of David) and fought for a Jewish funded revolt to defend the kingship, defeating Napolean for two years. He is listed in the Encyclopedia Judaica. The word "religious" can be viewed every day - and just being religious or doing ceremonies or waiting till Yom Kippur to correct your ways again this year does not make you good. One should be good everyday and not wait. I have been bilked by many kippah wearing "religious" and still remain surprised how distant even the most religious are from the actual stories and words Moses communicated. Truly they are not listening to the words of the "Shmah". Did you know that Jesus (Hasus) spoke to the Jews in temple when he came to punish the fallen Jews and he told the Jews in Temple that one day the followrs (Fallen Jews now Christians' legacy) would kill them ("good" Jews in a corrupt about to be destroyed Temple) for his name sake. Lasty G-d doesn't want empty cerimony nor corrupted religious practices. We see by the Torah prophets that "good" men suffer because the leadership (including the San Hedrin) have led the Jews to unkowingly sin. Hence the need for a red heffer (for unkown sins) and also the loss of the Temple by the hands of religious people. Also the loss of the Temple shows us that, no, the Jewish leaders had not taken the advice of the Prophet and continued to mislead the Jews causing them to continue to recieve curses in disporah. I have also sat and listen to survivors of the Shoah speak and you can hear of many miracles and protections that G-d gave to the disporah Jews. Sadly you may also hear stories of how some choose belongings over escape. In the states the Christians have a saying "Only the good die young" and I will say you see it very often that the best and brightest are taken. I can also say that in Torah there is a curse that if you take on another god (making you not "good") that your best and brightes will be taken. Dispite how "good" society sees you as a "good" Christian. So when you say that Torah and the hand of G-d did not exist in the Shoa, I would argue that you don't know enough about Torah and how we as a nation suffer for not following Torah in context of what G-d intended.. It is a painful thing - we should be self-examining instead of finger pointing and using words like "good" or "rights" when all we need to do is follow Mosses and G-d - not "religious" who ignore what they want and take words out of context (just like Gan Eden story) to make up legends and add forbidden laws to Torah. Laws that make "good" men suffer.
30. On the need for heros
Josh   (03.16.07)
Polliticians have always been just that - politicians. Even from the first king, Isarel was warned that they would cheat. lie and take. If you have a politician as a hero, you're deluded. Propaganda is the only reason why any of these become heros. How many think they are heros when they were in office? Washington was a terrible military expert and helping Brittish citizens to betraying their Brittish government. Taxes was the reason? Abraham Lincoln led a war about taxes and controlling the money supply. Churchill stood by as jews were being exterminated and G-d knows what eles. Nixon? Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton? George Bush? Arnold Schwartzneger? JFK? Yitzhak Rabbim? Lets color in tommorow's hero. They are politicians who are expected to make the right choices, not be heros. Seldom do they.
Next talkbacks
Back to article