In “Jews in a Whisper” (New York Times Sunday Review), Mr. Roger Cohen argued that “Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people.” Fair enough, but we then read: “Winston Churchill, no less, argued in 1920 that Jews were part of a ‘worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development.'”

“Zionism vs. Bolshevism”

This quotation is from Churchill’s article, “Zionism Versus Bolshevism,” in the 8 February 1920 Illustrated Sunday Herald. Some quote it to suggest that  Churchill was anti-Semite.

Churchill’s article was an attack on Bolshevism (“a sinister confederacy”) not Zionism, which Churchill mainly (but not always) supported. Churchill mentioned—accurately—that many Bolsheviks were Jews—and also gave a reason: They were people “reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race.” He then named names:

Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany ), and Emma Goldman (United States)…. this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steady growing…. with the exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures are Jews.

But context matters:

To quote these lines out of context from the rest of his article is to misrepresent Churchill. He added that figures like Trotsky comprised only a small portion of Jews—which he calls “the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.”

Similarly to his later indictment of Nazi Germany, Churchill wrote: “Nothing is more wrong than to deny an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.” For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of judging by those same standards. Above all, Jews in every country, Churchill continued,

identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life. A Jew living in England would say, “I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. And in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.

Partial quotations taken out of context distort what Churchill wrote and thought. Above all, no one can seriously use his “Zionism Versus Bolshevism” essay to accuse Churchill of anti-Semitism. Writers need to go to the source, and get it right.

Enemies and Extremists

Mr. Cohen also adds a point given him by a London professor:

A century ago, during the Sidney Street siege of 1911, it was the Jews of London’s East End who, cast as Bolsheviks, were said to be “alien extremists.’’

The Sidney Street siege was attended and conducted in part by Churchill, then Home Secretary.  I can find no contemporary reports emphasizing at the time that the Sidney Street gang were Jews. Articles mentioned “anarchists” and “Latvians,” though only one had a possible Latvian name. They were indeed Russians and Latvia was a Russian province at that time.

Bibliographic Note

“Zionism Versus Bolshevism” as originally published in 1920 contained some egregious typos and errors. The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill (1975) contains a corrected text. Bibliographer Ronald I. Cohen compared the two texts with the original errors in brackets. A copy is available by email from rlangworth@hillsdale.edu.

Egyptians and all that

Good afternoon, I’ve emailed you before. If it’s not too much trouble could you please verify whether Sir Winston actually said this? “If we have any more of [Egyptian] cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter from which they should never have emerged.”

* * *

[Churchill] made a tremendous attack on the Egyptians late at night when A.E. was talking about the troubles with them. Rising from his chair, the old man advanced on Anthony with clenched fists, saying with the inimitable Churchill growl, “Tell them that if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should never have emerged.” He then sank back, exhausted, into his chair. None of this seemed very helpful, but it was most amusing. He talked at great length about the war and about his trips to the Middle East at that time–fascinating reminiscences which obviously interest him more than today’s problems.

Background

King Farouk was widely condemned for his corrupt and ineffectual governance after the Second World War. Egyptians chafed under the British presence in the Suez Canal, and their army’s failure in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Public discontent against Farouk rose to new levels. In December 1951, many Egyptians left the Canal Zone and the British began importing labour to replace them. It was the beginning of the end for Farouk, deposed in July 1952. Four years later came the Suez Crisis.

Like most of Churchill’s cracks about foreign peoples, this was made in private, and had nothing to do with policy. No one contemplated “setting the Jews” on Egypt over discontented Egyptians. (It took nationalizing the Suez Canal to do that: Israel joined the Anglo-French in armed intervention, withdrawing in the face of U.S. opposition.)

Churchill’s line is easy to quote out of context to label him anti-Egyptian (though in this case at least, not anti-Semitic). The spin the writers put on it is varies accordingly. Stephen Ambrose in his Eisenhower biography, says Churchill was “giving advice.” Lawrence James says WSC was “beside himself with rage.” Ponting, who despised Churchill, says it showed “his usual contempt for the Egyptians.” Makovsky says Churchill “often denigrated native peoples fighting imperial British control.” (Ponting and Makovsky apparently never read Churchill’s praise of native peoples fighting outside control from his earliest books to his Second World War memoirs.)

So, A.M., it is appropriate is to accept the diarist’s version. Shuckburgh describes it as a brief outburst from a not-very-interested PM. I think that might be true! Of course, diarists also tend to make revisions in their diaries—especially when publishing them years after the fact.