• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Winston Churchill: 'Jews 'partly responsible' for troubles

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Winston Churchill: 'Jews 'partly responsible' for troubles'

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=54121

Agence France-Presse
Last updated 09:54am (Mla time) 03/11/2007

LONDON -- Britain's Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicized 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.

He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.

"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity."

"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."

Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.

"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.

The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.

At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.

Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
considering all the talk that has been going around about "reasonnable accomodation" fior those who have immigrated to our country / countries, I find this article very pertinent and quite "a propos"....
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,161
Points
1,160
geo said:
... I find this article very pertinent and quite "a propos"....

Apropos for today?

Is it your supposition that Mr. Churchill’s unpublished comments of 70 years ago should be viewed as a justification for a harder line against a policy (either formal or informal) of accommodation for visible minorities in our country or elsewhere?  Are you ascribing to a view that Churchill, when he wrote the article, was right?

Look at it in context.  Most of us are familiar with Winston Churchill only as a great historical figure.  Few here will dispute that he was a stalwart presence in England during World War II and was an implacable enemy of Nazism at a time when many were in despair over the potential outcome of that conflict.  He was truly one of the greatest orators of all time, giving strength to his nation just through his words.  He was equally as good a writer, winning the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953.  But like many men who achieve greatness, he was also flawed. On the one hand, he was a great and legendary Statesman, not just in England but in much of the civilized world. On the other hand, he could be regarded as a callous and petty bigot.

But that in itself is not surprising, because Churchill was a man of his times.  You must realize that the events that brought him to the pinnacle of his success and worldwide celebrity occurred when he was 65 years old (1940 when he was named Prime Minister).  Though one of the greatest men of the 20th century, he was actually a product of the 19th century.  A true Victorian, he was born in 1875.  A member of the “English” upper class, he was educated at Harrow and Sandhurst.  Also an adventurer, his short (by today’s standards) period of Regular Army service lasted from 1895 to 1900, mostly serving in the wars of ‘Empire’ of those days.  Churchill was an “Englishman” who believed in King and Empire.  Those who were not English were lesser mortals, be they Jew, African, Indian or Irish.

Perhaps there was a reason that this particular article of Mr. Churchill was relegated to his files and went unread until a researcher uncovered it.  In addition to being told that it was “inadvisable” to publish the article, perhaps Sir Winston, upon reflection, decided that it was wrong.


edited to correct years of Regular Army service
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's visible minorities continue to be just that............

You could replace Jew by Muslim and the document would not lose it's sense, meaning or pertinence.

How far do you go with accomodation?
If we install ourselves in a country, should we be expected to do in Rome as the Romans do?  Should we expect Romans to do in Canada what Canadians do (whatever that is supposed to be)?

People say that Iraq was invaded to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.... but, should the defenition of democracy be formulated by us or them?

In our pursuit of democracy, should we ally ourselves with scoundrels?

I continue to respect Mr Churchill as the great man he was... the appearance of this article does not diminish my respect of him or his deeds.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,161
Points
1,160
geo said:
You could replace Jew by Muslim and the document would not lose it's sense, meaning or pertinence.

And it would still be wrong and “inadvisable” to publish.  Anytime prejudice is publicly justified, it is wrong.

I continue to respect Mr Churchill as the great man he was... the appearance of this article does not diminish my respect of him or his deeds.

I concur.  He is greatly deserving of thanks and respect for his deeds as the wartime leader of the British Empire.  He was undoubtedly the right man, at the right time, for the right job.  If he had been a politician like so many of his contemporaries, he would not have been able to set aside his prejudices and recognize as he did the threat posed by Hitler.  Luckily, Churchill foresaw that Hitler would not be content with just being an opposition against the Communist threat from the Soviet Union and thus Churchill spent his years “in the wilderness” attempting to sound the alarm.
http://www.malakand.blogspot.com/
….In my view, one man made all of the difference in preventing these horrible scenarios: Winston Churchill. Throughout the thirties, in fact, from as early as 1933, he warned his countrymen about Hitler. In this period, he was scorned and mocked by his own party; he was called a warmonger, an anachronism from another age; indeed, it was not uncommon for detractors to question his sanity. He was systematically excluded from holding office under Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, relegated to the backbenches of Parliament. He relied on a network of civil servants and military contacts for his information about the Nazi's military build up and Britain's shabby military preparedness. With this information he constantly warned Parliament and the British people of the need for action or of the impending doom. Today, we see these speeches as possessing unequalled eloquence and courage; at the time, however, they were considered by most to be the grandiloquent rantings of a washed-up man.



 

R.O.S

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I am not surprised by this article, but disapointed. Canada too cannot be proud of its past either as we (as the Brits) did not allow Jewish refugees to come from Germany, and out PM Mackenzie King had publicly agreed with Hitler on the treatment of Jews as second class (before the war). To say it is the fault of the Jews for their treatment is disgraceful and disgusting...
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
580
R.O.S said:
I am not surprised by this article, but disapointed. Canada too cannot be proud of its past either as we (as the Brits) did not allow Jewish refugees to come from Germany, and out PM Mackenzie King had publicly agreed with Hitler on the treatment of Jews as second class (before the war). To say it is the fault of the Jews for their treatment is disgraceful and disgusting...

Mackenzie King said that?! Can it be quoted or some sort of proof? I very much agree with everything else you say.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
well.... we agree to dissagree cause, I do not consider Churchill's words to be prejudiced on their own.  Some people might chose to apply them in order to push a racist / prejudiced agenda but.... that might be construed to be twisting his words to an incorrect meaning.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
942
Points
1,060
geo said:
well.... we agree to dissagree cause, I do not consider Churchill's words to be prejudiced on their own.  Some people might chose to apply them in order to push a racist / prejudiced agenda but.... that might be construed to be twisting his words to an incorrect meaning.

I agree, geo. We've become so PC, that it's near impossible to discuss immigration, race or another culture without being branded a racist. If you don't subscribe, letter and punctuation, with the great liberal cultural diversification model, you're nothing better than an ignorant bigot in the eyes of many who can't look beyond their own nose.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,622
Points
1,090
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.

This is the part of the article that strikes a chord.  i think it is very pertinent to today's society.  Persecution can be unwittingly invited.  By wanting to remain different, persecution can and will happen.  Just look at the whole Hijab mess in Quebec.  I'm not saying this is right.  Just a fact. 

Thanks for a look at that article.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Hijab in Quebec
French in Canada / Anglo in Quebec
Black in Canada
Jewish / muslim in Canada
Turban & Kirpan in the schols
Sikhs & Women in the RCMP
etc.........

What is reasonnable accomodation and what isn't?
(no one will have 100% same answer to this question)
 

eerickso

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
What is reasonable accommodation?

Is it giving up your bus seat so that two women dressed head to toe in black sheets can sit next to each other?
Is it finding another place to snack besides the study room because some students are voluntarily starving themselves?
Is it going for a Sunday walk and saying "hello" to two young men with half a dozen women walking 50 feet behind them?
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,622
Points
1,090
Reasonable accomodation is anything really as long as it doesen't violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  So if someone chooses to wear something for religious reasons then hey fill your boots.  But if we are talking about things like honour killings or genital mutilation then you better be willing to follow the rules set up here or face the consequences.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,622
Points
1,090
eerickso said:
What is reasonable accommodation?

Is it giving up your bus seat so that two women dressed head to toe in black sheets can sit next to each other?
Is it finding another place to snack besides the study room because some students are voluntarily starving themselves?
Is it going for a Sunday walk and saying "hello" to two young men with half a dozen women walking 50 feet behind them?

Have you felt that your rights were viloated by any of these actions?

For question 1: Seems like a polite thing to do.  I doubt you would be forced to do so.
For question 2: Individual choice really, up to you.
For question 3: Again up to you.  No one forces you to say "hi"

 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,622
Points
1,090
eerickso said:
Repulsed maybe, violated no.

Indeed.  And understandably so given the way you were raised.  This, i think is what Churchill was referring to.  Unwittingly attracting persecution. (I'm not saying you are persecuting them).  But it's the fact that they are different that makes people want to persecute them for their beliefs.

We cannot expect to have new Canadians completely change their belief system (cultural or religious).  What I think we are seeing or will see is that the children of these people and their children will adapt better (having been raised here).
 

eerickso

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
So, what you are saying is that, eventually, next generations will  become different and less traditional than previous generations? If this is the case, should we be encouraging newcomers to keep their beliefs or encouraging them to accept other ideas.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
942
Points
1,060
eerickso said:
So, what you are saying is that, eventually, next generations will  become different and less traditional than previous generations? If this is the case, should we be encouraging newcomers to keep their beliefs or encouraging them to accept other ideas.

We should be doing neither. Let them make up their own minds.
 

eerickso

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
I agree, but I think newcomers are encouraged to keep their beliefs by both the government and the communities that they belong to.
 
Top