Part II
This lack of placing Churchill's comments in their historical and intellectual context comes to a boil when Sutton accuses Churchill of arguing; quite correctly I might add, that 'Zionism and Bolshevism are competing for the heart of the Jewish people' while being 'preoccupied' with the role of the Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution and the existence of a 'worldwide Jewish conspiracy.' (29)
What Sutton is trying to say; in somewhat garbled fashion, here is that Churchill is not so concerned about Zionism, but rather sees Bolshevism as an international danger that must be stopped at all costs. Sutton implies this is an inconsistent view by alleging by implication that Churchill should have focused on both Zionism and Bolshevism to be consistent with his thesis about a 'worldwide Jewish conspiracy'.
However the lack of context is damning here precisely because; as Sutton should have noted when talking about the distinction between 'national' and 'international' jews Churchill draws, he tells us that Churchill is drawing only in part on Nesta Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' in that he; unlike Webster, believes Zionist jews to be 'national jews' (or the better class of jew in Churchill's opinion) and Bolshevik jews to be 'international jews' (or the worse kind of jew in Churchill's opinion).
The 'international jewish conspiracy' that Churchill talks about is not a Protocols of Zion type scenario where all jews are controlling the world or trying to in a mass conspiracy, but rather a smaller much more compact part of jewry that is seeking to bring about an atheistic communist world-order via the medium of Bolshevism in Russia and the; then fresh and frequently jewish lead, (30) attempted Marxist revolutions in other countries. (31)
What Churchill sees in the article is more or less what jewish academic anti-Communist Frank Meyer saw when he wrote about the centrality of dedicated cadre to the Communist international cause and how these; often jewish, individuals were trained to act and operate. (32) This argument of Churchill's is largely derived from the literature of the time (33) and is an accurate characterisation of how Marxist groups operated before, during and after the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917. (34) To wit: that Marxist parties aligned with the Third International were part of a disciplined, conspiratorial attempt to spread the Bolshevik revolution around the world.
Churchill's opposition to Bolshevism stems from three basic factors that Sutton does not mention:
A) Religion in so far as Churchill was a devout; if rather pedestrian, Christian and; like many at the time, could not sympathize with a revolution that was not only devoutly atheist but also engaged in possibly the single largest destruction of religious infrastructure since the Edict of Theodosius.
B) Class in that Churchill was an aristocratic scion of the Duke of Marlborough (also called Winston Churchill) and as such under a Bolshevik-style government he would not only lose everything he possessed as part of the hated bourgeoisie, but also quite probably his life as many French and Russian aristocrats had learned to their cost within living memory.
C) Patriotism in that Churchill; for better or for worse, was a devoutly jingoistic partisan of the British Empire and as such held fairly extreme views on how it was a force for good in the world and that it was its great burden to bring civilisation to all the corners of globe. Bolshevism directly undermined this by demanding the so-called 'emancipation' of all 'oppressed workers' and asserting that this bringing of civilisation was in reality nothing more than a conspiratorial rationalisation for the capitalistic exploitation of less advanced civilisations and peoples.
Thus Bolshevism flew in the face of everything Churchill believed and held dear.
In direct contrast Zionism did not (35) in so far as the jews had been strong partisans of Britain during the Great War and we even have some evidence to suggest that the perfidious Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which must always be seen in the hypocritical context of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 [to carve up the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France] and British promises to the Arab rebellion under Prince Faisal and T. E. Lawrence [better known as 'Lawrence of Arabia']) was in fact a direct bribe to the jews of North America to prod President Wilson; (36) along with the assistance of the 'false-flag' Zimmerman telegram, into; what Donald Day styled as, singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' as he sent American youth to their deaths in a war that was not their own let alone anything to do with them per se (after all the Allies were simply desperate having slaughtered a large proportion of their own men). (37)
Zionism was to Churchill a 'national movement' of the jews that if nurtured; he thought, would become a useful British client kingdom in the Middle East allowing the British Empire to have a secure base from which to dominate the region and potentially also disrupt and later attack French hegemony in Lebanon and Syria. Churchill's thought on this score was not something to be viewed as unusual among conservative politicians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as Joseph Chamberlain famously offered the Zionist movement the opportunity to colonise Kenya as a 'new Israel' rather than the then Ottoman province of Palestine.
This also famously nearly split the Zionist movement right down the middle as here was an offer of territory, but yet that territory wasn't the alleged jewish homeland of history. The homicidal jewish chemist Chaim Weizmann lead the opposition to the proposal, while the more imaginative and less hidebound jewish author and novelist; Israel Zangwill, lead the charge for Chamberlain's proposal. (38)
This is a historical lesson that anti-jewish activists today should remember in that jewry is no monolith and that if the jews are prone to one thing above it all: it is being argumentative. Causing jews to fight amongst themselves is a relatively easy to thing to do and the modern foe of all things jewish must utilize this historical tool to best advantage if they wish to succeed against the modern incarnation of the jewish problem.
If we thus place Churchill's support of Zionism and opposition to Bolshevism in symbiosis with each other it is clear that once again the three factors of Churchill's life come into play as a reflection of each other. With Churchill's religious views giving support to Churchill's messianic personal justification of Zionist ideas and policies (while feeding Churchill's religious opposition to Bolshevism), while Churchill's class would benefit from the success of Zionism as it would lead jews away from 'atheistic Bolshevism' and thus diminish the threat of Bolshevism; in Churchill's view, to his personal possessions, status and life. Patriotism meanwhile gave Churchill his real politik and rationalising justification for his support of Zionism (in creating a British client kingdom of jews in an unstable part of the world) while also feeding his anti-Communism by Bolshevism's well-known opposition to the 'colonial mission' of the West in civilizing the world (so-to-speak).
Sutton thus creates a false dilemma by asserting that Churchill's two views on Zionism and Bolshevism are contradictory as in the sense understood by Churchill's thought process; which is made manifestly obvious by actually reading Churchill's article, they are quite literally a case of 'good jews' fighting 'bad jews' for the soul of the jewish people and either the 'national jews' would win and all would be right with the world or the 'international jews' would win whence the world would be doomed. This; of course, once again synthesizes the two rival views of jewish history at this time with the element of the negative, grasping jew taking vengeance (the 'international jew') taken from the anti-jewish historical tradition and the put upon, exploited jew who only wants to be left alone and contribute to the world (the 'national jew').
So therefore there is simply not contradiction in Churchill's thought as Sutton's claims by implication but it is rather an apparent figment of Sutton's imagination.
Sutton then gives us a historical anecdote from the aforementioned Henry Wickham Steed; a British publicist and author, who was a long and somewhat trenchant critic of the jews until he; like so many critics of jews in the same period, got proverbial cold feed during the anti-jewish ripostes of the 1930s and publicly repudiated his views. (39)
Sutton correctly quotes Steed's earlier second set of memoirs to the effect that in March 1919 Steed happened to meet the famous Colonel Edward House who; according to Steed, (40) was disturbed over Steed's vocal and article criticism of the Bolshevik Revolution and most particularly the jewish role in it. House was at this time arguing for the opening up of economic relations with the Soviet Union (which is the partial subject of Sutton's book and a generally large gap in the scholarly literature on the Soviet Union) as a rational economic power (one is reminded of Lenin's famous aphorism [I paraphrase slightly] that the Communists will hang the Capitalists with the rope the latter sell them) while Steed was arguing; as was commonly done at the time, (41) that the Bolshevik revolution had been brought about by jewish and German interests which was now being used for the purpose of bring about a world controlled by jews.
Once again the intellectual debt of Steed to Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' is clear in that this precisely the argument that Webster makes where she asserts that an atheist jewish world order; facilitated by what she called 'Judeo-Masonry', would rise out of the ashes of Russia if action was not taken to check it. Steed's argument focused on the role of Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg: both famous jewish financiers happily basking in the self-fostered legends; much as did the even more famous Rothschild family, of their own power in world affairs.
It is here that Sutton decides once again to create a strawman argument by citing only two pieces of evidence for the view propounded by Steed; i.e. that jewish financiers had had a major hand in assisting the Bolsheviks in the takeover of the former Russian Empire, and Churchill none of which are cited by Churchill, Steed, Webster or Wichtl. Sutton's citation of the State Department file (42) is correct from what I can ascertain: however in his analysis of the document we see what can only be described as Sutton's irrationality when it comes to the matter of jews and Bolshevism.
Sutton claims after a rather short and dismissive paragraph about the role of jewish financier in funneling money to the Bolsheviks that 'the report ends with a barb at “International Jewry” and places the argument within the context of a Christian-Jewish conflict backed up by quotations from the Protocols of Zion.' (43)
There are three very fundamental things that are incorrect in this caricature of an argument from Sutton in that:
A) It bears no evidential weighting or bearing other than on the side of the argument the individual was on whether the author of the report entitled 'Bolshevism and Judaism' fired a 'barb' at 'International Jewry' or not. In much the same that it doesn't detract from the evidential value of a Bolshevik agent's telegrams who denounces the 'bourgeoisie' in them. We have to consider the evidence itself before we proceed to speculate on the man or woman who authored that evidence: Sutton fails to do this and thus argues ad hominem not around the evidence.
B) The idea that the report places the argument in the 'context of a Christian-Jewish conflict' is a misrepresentation precisely because every report that came out of Russia at this juncture tended to do this: precisely because those who were doing the reporting lived in a Christian frame of reference so as such the atheistic war on religion that was going on in Soviet Russia at this point; and the preponderance of jews within the Bolshevik and revolutionary ranks in general, would have never not have been interpreted in as a jewish-lead attack on Christianity as that was more or less precisely what it was. To assert otherwise is to try to and abstract the simple meaning from the evidence in order to avoid having to state it quite so bluntly as I have just done.
C) The report doesn't contain any references; direct or otherwise, to the 'Protocols of Zion' let alone any direct 'quotes' as Sutton alleges. This is a falsehood on his part and particularly odious precisely because Sutton alleges these to have been 'included' in a 1918 report when the English translation of the Protocols of Zion only occurred in 1919 and even Sutton would have had to know the texts intimately to even spot two very dissimilar translations: one allegedly authored by an English journalist lately arrived from Russia and one by a Russian in America one year earlier (bearing in mind the Protocols themselves were circulating in several different forms at this time). (44) Clearly Sutton was neither an expert on the Protocols not was Sutton being particularly honest!
Sutton dismisses the explanatory power of this document by citing another State Department file which gives a series of telegrams in late 1919 between the American Embassy in London and the State Department in Washington D.C. (45) Sutton claims that these 'disprove' the document: however he once again misrepresents their contents as the documents clearly state that the official in London had 'no proof' of the allegations of jewish transactions to Lenin, Trotsky and Bolsheviks, but that he was 're-investigating'. However in his next cable the author doesn't actually state or even imply that these reports are wrong as he merely states that it is 'unwise' to give publicity to these claims, which suggests (looking at the whole diplomatic exchange rather than two small pieces of it) that what the official in London is saying is not that the report 'Bolshevism and Judaism' is wrong; as Sutton implies, but rather that; as he sees it, there is no firm evidence to back it up he can find and thus it would be unwise to publicize (as it is clearly politically incendiary).
In Sutton's next and last piece of quoted evidence he cites another State Department document that he claims is a 'review of a translation of the Protocols of Zion' (46): however immediately we note two very fundamental things wrong with Sutton's alleged picture.
A) The State Department document is from 1913 rather than 1919 (when the Protocols was being widely and properly translated having gained evidential currency through the First World War, the Bolshevik Revolution and the aftershocks of both events) and thus according to Sutton is reviewing an at best fringe and at worst utterly obscure piece of work that for unknown reasons has been 'translated' into a foreign language (presumably English) and then has been judged for unstated reasons to be so much of interest to US Intelligence that a review of it was necessary for the intelligence files of the United States. I suspect Sutton made a typing error and meant 1919, but I cannot prove it so thus I am forced to assume he did really mean 1913.
B) The report makes no mention of the Protocols of Zion and instead talks of 'definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by jews', which is actually referring to the correctly perceived domination of jews in the power politics of the early Soviet Union. The notion of communications passing from jewish leaders in Europe and North America is a bad misreading of the context once again as the 'jewish leaders' mentioned are not the 'Wise Men of Zion' but rather the radical leaders of Europe and North America who were disproportionately jewish and even if they were gentile they were frequently perceived as such both by the population at large and the intelligence services. (47)
Sutton then opines that the references in the communication chain to 'letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world domination' would potentially provide support for the 'unsubstantiated hypothesis' of Judeo-Bolshevism if the letters could be located and authenticated. (48)
Once again however Sutton's reading of the evidence is heavily skewed by his a priori argumentation in so far as Sutton does not realise that the references to these letters is simply a reference to the much ink spilled between revolutionary and general subversive organisations across Europe and North America about the Bolshevik revolution and as such is not so much evidence for a 'Protocols of Zion' type scenario, but does indirectly point out the inherent truthfulness of the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis by indirectly informing us of what we can independently verify: the revolutionary movement across Europe and North America was at this time heavily dominated and influenced by jews.
This is the simpler and less assumption-based hypothesis that Sutton does not seem to even consider as for him everything is related to the conspiratorial activity of monopolistic bankers and capitalists as evinced by Sutton's own; pseudo-Marxian, comment at the end of his attack on the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis that 'the real operators' were deliberately diverting attention onto the jews as a re-generated form of 'medieval prejudice.' (49)
As I have before stated this is a nonsensical attitude as the jews were very clearly involved in the creation, enfranchisement and sustenance of the Bolshevik revolution and to assert that rather than this being the case: it was 'controlled' by faceless 'real operators' is an appeal to mystery and as such has intellectual value as it cannot explain all that happened after one to two years of the USSR's existence.
Thus Sutton's appendix attacking the thesis of Judeo-Bolshevism can be said to not only incorrect, but actually misrepresenting evidence, lacking in vital contextual information, selectively quoting evidence and also reasoning from a conclusion reached a priori. So having thus dissected Sutton's attack on anti-Semitic anti-Communism: we can leave it on side as a debunked attempt to discredit the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis.
References
(29) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 186
(30) On this see Ruth Gay,1992, 'The Jews of Germany: A Historical Portrait', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 240-242
(31) This kind of fear is well characterised in Howard Sachar, 2002, 'Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War', 1st Edition, Vintage: New York, pp. 291-296
(32) Frank Meyer, 1961, 'The Moulding of Communists: The Training of Communist Cadre', 1st Edition, Harcourt, Brace and World: New York, pp. 3-6
(33) For example see R. M. Whitney, 1924, 'Reds in America', 1st Edition, Beckwith Press: New York.
(34) David Kirby, 1998, 'The Origins of the Third International', pp. 15-26 in Tim Rees, Andrew Thorpe, 1998, 'International Communism and the Communist International 1919-1943', 1st Edition, Manchester University Press: Manchester
(35) See Martin Gilbert, 2007, 'Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship', 1st Edition, Henry Holt: New York.
(36) Sachar, Op. Cit., pp. 32-33
(37) John Mosier, 2001, 'The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One', 1st Edition, Profile: London, pp. 303-306
(38) Meri-Jane Rochelson, 1992, 'Review of Joseph H. Udelson: Dreamer of the Ghetto: The Life and Works of Israel Zangwill', AJS Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 120-121
(39) Margaret MacMillan, 2002, 'Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World', 1st Edition, Random House: New York, p. 80
(40) I cannot find any reference to this meeting in the published papers of Colonel House: however it more than likely did occur as it 'reads right' as they say.
(41) For example Donald Thompson, 1918, 'Donald Thompson in Russia', 1st Edition, The Century Co.: New York, pp. 166-167
(42) US State Department Archive Box/File 861.00/5339
(43) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 187
(44) On this see Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion', 1st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.
(45) Sutton, Op. Cit., pp. 187-188
(46) Ibid, p. 188
(47) A good example is Karl Liebknecht who was probably not jewish, but never-the-less has a known possible jewish ancestor. I have covered this briefly at the following address:
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...t-not-jew.html.
(48) Sutton, Op. Cit., pp. 188-189
(49) Ibid, p. 149
----------------
This was originally published at the following address:
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-judeo_20.html