Here is part two of my interview with Jeremy Havardi, author of  The Greatest Briton: Essays on Winston Churchill’s Life and Political Philosophy, which you can buy now.

‘Turning to Jewish issues, Churchill has been accused of antisemitism. Is this true?

In general, Churchill had a genial attitude towards Jewish people and Jewish causes throughout his life. He admired the Old Testament and its Jewish ethical values, which he viewed as the foundation of Western civilisation. He also recognised the many contributions made by British Jews to their country. More to the point, he condemned antisemitism forcefully throughout his life, reflecting his strong aversion to tyranny in all its forms.

There was one occasion when he did pander to antisemitic sentiment and that was in 1920. He wrote a newspaper article in which he condemned ‘international Jews’ who he claimed were behind the Bolshevik movement. He loathed this movement with all his might and after noting that many of the most important Bolsheviks were Jews, called its leaders ‘these semitic conspirators.’ This was paranoid language beloved of today’s far right (and far left). But while heaping scorn on Jewish ultra leftists, he praised Jews in the same article as ‘most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.’

Is it true that Churchill neglected Europe’s Jews during the Second World War?

Before answering this directly, we need to ask what the anti fascist governments of the world could have done to rescue Jews from the clutches of an implacable dictator intent on destroying them. Their room for manoeuvre was somewhat limited, even if it also true that the Allied governments did not prioritise Jewish suffering for various reasons.

But as soon as Churchill received reports of the Nazis’ mass killings, he vociferously condemned what he called a ‘satanic policy’. When Anglo-Jewry organized a huge demonstration at the Albert Hall to condemn the mass extermination of European Jewry, Churchill sent a message protesting ‘against Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews.’ He also endorsed a policy of retribution in which it was made clear that the perpetrators of the Holocaust would face justice as soon as the war was over. This led to the Moscow Declaration of 1943 in which the Allies declared that they would pursue ‘the ranks of the guilty to the uttermost ends of the earth.’ Churchill could never have been indifferent to tyranny.

Was this just words for words sake?

No, he offered much more than words of condemnation and there were some examples of direct intervention which I cite in the book. In 1942 Churchill approved a request from the Jewish Agency to allow 4,500 Bulgarian Jews (mainly children) to enter Palestine. Sadly this came to the attention of the Germans and the Bulgarian government closed its border with Turkey.

Another notable example is his instruction for the RAF to bomb Auschwitz in 1944 following a request from the Jewish Agency. It was mulled over and passed to the Americans who then rejected it on logistical grounds. Though unsuccessful in these cases, Churchill was at least prepared to act for what he saw as a moral cause.

On another occasion, he insisted to the Spanish Ambassador to Britain that his country open its border with France to fleeing Jewish refugees, a request that was later granted. He also issued a warning to Romania’s leader, Ion Antonescu, that he would be held to account after the war unless he reined in the Iron Guard who were carrying out atrocities against the country’s Jews. These cases show very clearly that Churchill was prepared to intervene when he could to alleviate the suffering of Europe’s Jews.

What was Churchill’s attitude towards Zionism?

He supported Zionism and Jewish statehood for most of his political career, even if it was largely a peripheral concern. He recognised that Jews had a legitimate claim to the Holy Land based on their long standing connection to the territory and its centrality in Jewish religious life. He would often defend Zionism in the most romantic terms, particularly in Parliament where he had to face down his many Arabist detractors.

In the 1920s, as Colonial Secretary, he made a number of decisions that would prove crucial to the future of the Middle East, including the formation of a unitary Iraqi state. Some of his decisions, such as cutting off three quarters of mandate Palestine to form Transjordan, were not welcomed by Zionist leaders and he received criticism from some quarters. Nonetheless he continued to champion Jewish statehood before and after 1948. Indeed he even warmed to the idea of Israel joining the British Commonwealth in the 1950s. He also saw Israel as a useful strategic ally in the Cold War and supported their stance against Nasser during the 1956 Suez campaign.

Did he ever meet an Israeli Prime Minister?

Yes, towards the end of his life, he met David Ben-Gurion, a man he much admired (the admiration was mutual). Churchill described Ben-Gurion as ‘a brave leader of a great nation.’ Many years earlier, he had struck up a friendship with Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first President.

Is it true that Churchill regarded Moses as the Greatest Jew?

He did. In one of his books called Thoughts and Adventures he wrote an admiring essay on the great Jewish lawgiver and paid tribute to Judaism’s ethical monotheism. When he met Ben-Gurion in 1961, the two men exchanged their ideas on who was the greatest Jew. Churchill nominated Moses, Ben-Gurion Jesus.

Are you writing another book?

I am currently working on a study of British war films and how they reflect changing perceptions of English national identity. It should hopefully be finished by the end of this year. I am afraid that I am not quite as prolific as you just yet!

What do you do when you aren’t writing books?

I am a freelance journalist and publish articles in the Jewish News and the religious affairs section of the Guardian. I also teach history and philosophy at an independent school and when time allows, enjoy amateur dramatics, table tennis, philately and radio broadcasting.

Which radio show do you present?

It is called jnetradio.com, an internet radio show with a Jewish point of view. I help to present the politics show on a Thursday evening (9pm to midnight) with my fellow presenters, Tony Honickberg, Richard Millett and Eliot Heilpern. It is a lot of fun and I urge all your readers to tune in. The web address is www.jnetradio.com and listeners should click on ‘Listen Live.’

You can visit Jeremy Havardi’s website here.

Jeremy Havardi is a teacher, journalist and broadcaster. He is also the author of  The Greatest Briton: Essays on Winston Churchill’s Life and Political Philosophy, which you can buy now. In a wide-ranging interview we discussed Churchill’s life, his influence, plus his attitude to Zionism and Israel among many other topics.

Here is part one of the interview…

What inspired you to write this book on Churchill?
I have long been interested in British political history, especially this nation’s prime ministers. But my passion for Churchill was really ignited by my study of British war films from the 1940s and 1950s. Some of those war classics centred on Britain’s Finest Hour and some were inspired by Churchill’s iconic war speeches. After watching many of them, I decided to examine Churchill’s own contribution to the war in more detail and later his remarkable life in its entirety.

What is so different about this Churchill book?
It is a collection of analytical essays on Churchill’s life and political philosophy rather than a biography. Very few such books have ever been written and this one directly tackles the many controversies in his public career. It is the kind of book that people can just dip into for a few minutes a day rather than reading in one go.

Do you really believe that Churchill was ‘The Greatest Briton?’
Yes, equal with Shakespeare whose genius for understanding human nature is unparalleled. As Britons, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to both.

Do you feel that Churchill’s career has a lot to teach today’s leaders?
I do. One of the reasons I wrote this book was to point out that Churchill had tackled many of the issues with which today’s generation of leaders are still grappling. These include a host of domestic questions concerning tax, trade unions, the welfare state, unemployment, crime and punishment and the democratic process generally. Over a period of 60 years, Churchill also tried to resolve conflicts in places as far apart as South Africa, Iraq, Greece, Ireland and Israel. Many of these problems persist today, making a study of Churchill’s statesmanship immensely valuable.

The last US administration cited Churchill after the 9/11 attacks. Do you think this was fair?
I do. Churchill has long been a source of inspiration to the American people, largely because of his vigourous stand against communism in the post war years. But after 9/11, American politicians needed Churchill’s indomitability and sense of moral purpose in order to maintain public morale. That was why they delved into the Churchillian vernacular in the days after 9/11 and why they sought to apply lessons from Churchill’s WW2 leadership.

Did he not have rather negative feelings towards Islam?
Yes, as a young soldier in Sudan, he witnessed a form of Islamic extremism at first hand. In his book The River War, he wrote that Islam was a ‘militant and proselytising’ faith, that it ‘paralysed’ social development and was a ‘retrograde’ force in the world. He was aware of the intolerance of Saudi Wahhabism and condemned its effect on women. I doubt he would have been surprised by the current spread of radical Islam or its toxic effect on impressionable Muslim minds.

What do you feel was Churchill’s greatest achievement?
His war leadership, in particular the period from May 1940 to June 1941, in which Britain fought a triumvirate of enemies without the back up of a superpower. A lesser man might have bowed to Nazi Germany in 1940 but Churchill remained undaunted and led the nation to victory. Another achievement was his consistent opposition to Nazi Germany in the years preceding the war and his prediction that it was futile to appease Hitler.

He switched political parties twice. Does this make him the supreme opportunist?
Not really. He had ideological reasons for leaving the Conservative party in 1904 (free trade) and leaving the Liberals after the 1922 election defeat (the strength of socialist Labour). It is true that he sensed the tide of fortune was swinging away from those parties but his intellectual stance should be viewed in its own terms and not just as a cynical response to changing political fortunes. He often adopted political positions (supporting Edward VIII in the Abdication Crisis, attacking the Munich agreement) even when they harmed his career.

Did he believe in democracy in the modern sense?
Churchill cherished Parliamentary government in which freely chosen political representatives could debate the great questions of the day. He wanted the legislature to hold the government to account, especially during wartime when there was a tendency towards secretiveness. He also believed in ‘liberal’ democracy; that is, that ordinary people had the right to free expression, open justice, a relatively unfettered media and other fundamental liberties in a civilised society. But he did not believe in what we might call ‘populist politics’ where politicians had to frame their policies according to opinion polls, the news cycle or public opinion.

So he would presumably find much to disapprove of in today’s 24/7 political culture?
Indeed. He would have disliked the relentless use of focus groups and spin doctors and what we might call the ‘Americanisation’ of politics. He didn’t want politicians to live in the temperamental atmosphere of public opinion but to lead that opinion in an informed manner. He would also have been horrified by Parliament’s declining influence over the executive in recent decades.

He is sometimes described as a warmonger. Is this a fair charge?
Not really. As a young soldier, he had seen the ugly side of war and realised that any major confrontation between the world’s great powers would cause immense suffering and loss. That is why he strove to mitigate the animosity that existed between Germany and Britain before WW1 and why he sought to deter Germany from embarking on territorial expansion before WW2. He also became the earliest exponent of the ‘summit conference’ between the superpowers during the Cold War because he knew that nuclear war would be the end of civilisation. He was far ahead of his time in this sense. Naturally, once war started, he relished the chance for leadership and for applying his strategic vision to the battlefield. But that does not make him a warmonger.

Turning to the Second World War, did Churchill ever contemplate a compromise peace with the Nazis?
No, though others did. Towards the end of May 1940, with British troops facing annihilation at Dunkirk and with France on the verge of defeat, a series of Cabinet meetings were held in which the prospect of a compromise peace was discussed. Halifax and, to a lesser extent, Chamberlain, warmed to the idea and Churchill had to use all of his skills to argue for continuing the fight. As we now know, his view prevailed. Thank heavens that he had the vision, the courage and the resolution that was so lacking in others.

According to one of the great wartime controversies, Churchill allowed Pearl Harbour to be bombed to force the Americans into the war. Is there any truth in this?
This is a myth, and a somewhat pernicious one too. There is no evidence that Churchill knew in advance about Pearl Harbour though he was aware that the Japanese might attack a range of territories in the Far East. In fact, it is unlikely that the US knew either because they had not fully cracked the latest Japanese naval code. Pearl Harbour was in fact a triumph of Japanese secrecy and planning, as I show in one of my essays.

After the war, Churchill championed a ‘united Europe’? Are Eurosceptics wrong to claim him as one of their own?
Churchill had a great deal of experience dealing with European issues from his earliest days as a politician to his triumphant post war statesmanship. He believed in the loosest sense in what we might call a ‘united Europe,’ particularly if that meant a stable and harmonious relationship between France and Germany. But what he meant by European unity was not always clear, nor did he envisage that Britain would be part of any federal arrangement. This was because Britain had other political and economic commitments, both to the United States and to the Commonwealth.

So he might not have been too happy with the current EU set-up then?
Given his profound belief in British sovereignty, Churchill would have been appalled at the judicial, economic and political powers adopted by the EU at the expense of Britain and fellow member states. He could not have accepted laws and regulations being imposed on Britain by a foreign legislature or by unelected Commissioners.

Coming up in part two: Churchill’s attitude to Zionism and his performance with regards to the Jewish people during the Second World War. Plus – who did he regard as the greatest Jew?

You can visit Jeremy Havardi’s website here.