> The question is, is the quote taken out of context or not? If it is, it is
> either incompetent history or willful distortion of the record.
This is the question, but it isn't the only one raised by the discussion.
The context provided by Baker is the title of the article ("Leon Trotsky, Alias Bronstein"), which is indeed suggestive that what Churchill found to be important about Trotsky is that he was a Jew. There is no further suggestion or insinuation added. In fact, had Baker decided to ponder the question a bit more, he would have had no difficulty in making the case, which he declines to make, that Churchill was an antisemite.
The passage partially cited by Brendon (an excellent historian of the British Empire, fwiw) also chastises Trotsky for having "repudiated" his "race" and "spat upon the religion of [his] fathers". The context for these remarks are to be found in another, with a title that is also worth thinking about: "Good and Bad Jews". In that assay, Churchill posited that while the Jewish race had contributed the wonderful dogmas that provided the basis for Christianity, it was now singularly responsible for Bolshevism, a creed as "malevolent as Christianity was benevolent". This was the basis for his antisemitic ranting about "the International Jews". Another article, importantly titled "Zionism vs Bolshevism", bemoaned this "sinister confederacy" of "International Jews", this "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization", and so on.