(edit title) Churchill - Jews Partially Responsible For Holocaust Options

[*Guest*]

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!

[Faithless]

Yeah, well Churchill said a lot of dumb things, as well as a lot of shrewd stuff. As well as doing some pretty dumb stuff (Gallipoli).

People should be allowed to be different.

[*Guest*]

Well, Faithless, I am reading about all the dumb things he said and did during the Spanish Civil War.

And I recommend that posters read Antony Beevor's The Battle For Spain, though I do think that the author is still a bit biased towards the Brits, and against the Soviets.

Still what did Churchill ever do or say - besides when Britain was backed up against the wall by the Nazis - that had much merit at all?

[Faithless]

I havent read his Nobel prize winning book, but he made up some catchy phrases. Im pretty sure he was no illiterate.

besides when Britain was backed up against the wall by the Nazis

I dont think we should refer to that part of his life as a beside point...

[Yendor]

It does not matter what i think or believe in. I will not in anyway, shape or form be in denial over the Holicaust because doing so is against the law in some countries and i can be put in prison for a very long time. So i tell you now that the Holicaust DID happen. Are you happy now?

[FR]

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!

I think this is what I have maintained all along. I read the New York Times articles of the time and that was the sentiment in Europe on both the Axis' and Allies' side. This is why I am not a Zionist, but perhaps Jewish Zionists are simply proving Churchill's point that Jews don't want to assimilate. Who knows. Live and let live is what I prefer. I don't see Jews trying to convert their neighbor as Christians do. Perhaps Christians try to assimilate too many others.

Ramblings while on travels in the third world... see ya later.

[*Guest*]

I certainly don't consider Churchill's role as War Leader as beside the point - it was the only good thing he ever did, and he should be seen for just that rather than he was some all-knowing prophet. He was basically just a rather right-wing Tory who thought he could pull off coups on the international scene while keeping the lid on domestic social reform.

And only his career as War Leader occurred because his impulsive ways were restrained by others, espcially General Alan Brooke, a most underrated figure, who stopped things like Britain starting a war with Franco in 1943, and Operation Unthinkable after the cessation of hostilies with the Soviets.

Churchill, in sum, lived long enough for serious criticism of him to be largely forgotten - perhaps Emperor Tony's only hope in ths history books.

[Muttlestar Galactica]

S'funny, when I read the article I saw no evidence of Churchill's alleged antisemitism.

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

The concerns and views he raised do not seem so different to those raised today regarding immigrants into Sweden and other Euro countries:

"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."

I'd like to read the original article in it's entirety, so as to be sure of context and tone.

Therefore i'm off to find it then.

[Braderunner Rennuredarb]

Churchill, in sum, lived long enough for serious criticism of him to be largely forgotten - perhaps Emperor Tony's only hope in ths history books.

As do most leaders...

A perfect example of this is Thomas Jefferson - not polititcally crucified for owning slaves until a few years ago. Now they are going around yanking his name off of schools because somehow some people find it insulting.

"Dr." Martin Luther King is another example on the other side - if you took a nice long look at his life...I doubt that anyone would want a school named after him either. Then again...it would be political suicide to go after him because he is such a recent figure.

:shrug:

[*Guest*]

I think that you are too easy on Jefferson, and too hard on MLK.

As I understand the complaints about Jefferson, he endorsed America's expansion westward in the name of crops, especially King Cotton - what only strengthened the slave system at the expense of America's indigenous peoples - rather than allow the South to develop more like the North.

And MLK, no matter what his private life was, paid for his whole life in trying to help the remnants of what Jefferson helped wrought.

[Braderunner Rennuredarb]

As I understand the complaints about Jefferson, he endorsed America's expansion westward in the name of crops, especially King Cotton - what only strengthened the slave system at the expense of America's indigenous peoples - rather than allow the South to develop more like the North.

ZOMG - we agree on something here! One of the things I love to debate is about the causes of the US Civil War. This is not the forum of course, but most fools cant see Northern oppression of the South...much like wanting to keep your little brother in diapers as he is reaching his teens.

And MLK, no matter what his private life was, paid for his whole life in trying to help the remnants of what Jefferson helped wrought.

Anyone who points out the problems in MLK's life is immediately chastised as racist. That reminds me of problems with the church - people who disagreed with a priest were decried as heretics. :shrug:

Hipcocricy - I hate it.

[Torontonian]

I think this is what I have maintained all along. I read the New York Times articles of the time and that was the sentiment in Europe on both the Axis' and Allies' side. This is why I am not a Zionist, but perhaps Jewish Zionists are simply proving Churchill's point that Jews don't want to assimilate. Who knows. Live and let live is what I prefer. I don't see Jews trying to convert their neighbor as Christians do. Perhaps Christians try to assimilate too many others.

Ramblings while on travels in the third world... see ya later.

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.

[*Guest*]

This just shows how demented Torontonian is.

I link an article, showing that most-overrated PM Winston Churchill was a bit of an anti-Semite, believing that they were different, and wanted to stay that way - what justified partly The Holocaust.

Instead of this being addressed, Torontonian only attacks me, as a pissed-off Jew hater who is angry about their wanting not to be assimilated.

Actually, this is an most erroneous view as the reason why European Jews, especially German ones, were most vulnerable was because they almost all wanted to be good Europeans of the appropriate sort.

And in posting this message, I was only acting as a messenger, not a hater of anyone.

[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?

[Faithless]

*coughs innocently*