/ Hitler takes power: just so we know where the Daily Mail stood
Here's Lord Rothermere in September 1933, at the time the owner of The Daily Mail, writing in his Australian paper The Daily News (Perth). This is exactly the same article as was also published shortly before that in London in The Daily Mail, but curiously enough, the British version isn't available online, or if it is The Guardian media blog hasn't found it yet.
Now we know who was really lining up with whom in the run up to WW2. Also, just how secure the Mail's foothold is on the moral high ground about anti-semitism.
Thanks to the Grauniad media blog, whence I pinched all this :-)
Before his murdering rampage? This wasn't before.
Yes, lots of people in Britain enthused about Hitler, which puts Ralph Miliband's discomfort in context. And lots of them were anti-Semitic, ditto. But not so many of them combined these attitudes and broadcast them in quite the toxic way that Rothermere does in this noisome article.
Is it really fair to blame a paper today for something written in it 80 years ago? No current member of the editorial staff was in post then.
For example, I forget whether your inclinations are more Protestant or Catholic, but we could denigrate either by pointing to the pact that the Vatican signed with the Nazis, or by referring to Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies".
Another well known point is that quite a few establishment figures and even the odd royal were aligning towards the Nazis. Their apology is part it was to avoid the growth of the far left and prevent a war and partly as they had no idea how evil they were (despite clear evidence of terrible treatment of Jews and others in Germany at the time)
> Is it really fair to blame a paper today for something written in it 80 years ago? No current member of the editorial staff was in post then.
In the context of the Milliband debate it is perfectly fair.
I'm not sure mentioning another couple of sets of revisionist hypocrites really helps the argument.
Fair enough, but in 1933 he had only just come to power. How much did the rest of the world know about him at this time? (I don't know and I'm sure someone , maybe yourself can tell me) . My basic knowledge was that the night of the long knives was internationally known but I wasn't aware the Nazis had been committing atrocities before they came to power in 1933, apart from being antisematic. But I admit I have not ever studied this so could be completely wrong
Any subsequent apologies available from The Mail?
The Catholic Church has, very conspicuously, never apologised for supporting the Nazis in WW2.
The Nazis were a party of intimidation and violence all along. There were concentration camps from 1933 onwards. The "Israelites" whom Rothermere mentions as no longer being goverment spokesmen were very probably in them. Immediately on gaining power Hitler rounded up all the communists and socialists and Jews he could, and put them in camps.
The Reichstag fire in February 1933 was a key moment in the transition to absolute rule.
On a different issue, the Roman Catholic church has apologised repeatedly for its actions, and inactions, during the Hitler and Mussolini years:
I expect the Lutherans have too, though I haven't googled that.
Being an Anglican, I'm not sure my own church has anything to apologise for in this regard...
> Is it really fair to blame a paper today for something written in it 80 years ago? No current member of the editorial staff was in post then.
> Is it really fair to blame a paper today for something written in it 80 years ago?
You're missing the point. The Daily Mail started the game of blaming people today, e.g. Ed Miliband, for the actions of other people a long time ago, e.g. Ralph Miliband. The point is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Then you're playing their game. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think most of the people who are criticising the Mail are smart enough to realise that their views of Hitler 80 years ago are pretty irrelevant today. The point, which many people have explicitly made alongside the discussion of Lord Rothermere's views back then, is that this is about holding the Daily Mail to their own, low, standards. The 1930's views of Lord Rothermere are no more or less relevant than the privately-held views of a 17-year-old Ralph Milliband.
Not as such, Tim isnt making stuff up so is still one step ahead.
Though it did take about 300 years after the founding of the Anglican church by Henry VIII before Jews were accepted as equal citizens. But you're right that Britain was better in this regard than much of Europe.
The mail are illogical and nasty. There is no petard in such circumstances.
> Then you're playing their game.
I'm saying IF it's OK for the Mail to attack Ed M for Ralph M's views, THEN it's OK for me to attack the 2013 Mail for the 1933 Mail's views.
Do try and keep up.
Criticising the published views of a mature adult is very different from mischaracterising the private journal of a 17-year-old.
The RCC occasionally apologises, I'll grant you. But it wants it both ways: it regrets the past behaviour of some of its members, while distancing the organisation itself from them. Not very convincingly...
Rubbish, man. The point being made is not 'you shouldn't buy the Daily Mail because it was an anti-Semitic disgrace by modern standards in the 1930's'. It's 'the Daily Mail shouldn't be bashing Ed Miliband by reference to what his father did in the thirties because a lot of people thought differently then from what we do now'.
As to which, it's a good principle that when you get owned by John Prescott in a debate, you probably weren't on very good ground in the first place.
>Though it did take about 300 years after the founding of the Anglican church by Henry VIII before Jews were accepted as equal citizens.
And unreligious British were better about that, were they?!
You don't need that bizarre justification. Ralph was pro-british and The Mail are nasty distorters and spin leftish patriotism as anti-britishness and that is enough justification in itself for critism.
In politics Ed banging on about his dad was inevitably going to lead to such dirty tricks in return.
Quite likely, yes, since they wouldn't care about the central charges of Christ-killing and Christ-denying. But it's hard to say since the unreligious British weren't in power then (e.g. atheists were not allowed to sit in Parliament for another 30 years after Jews were accepted).
Could that, I wonder, possibly have been because other Parliamentarians got fed up of the atheists always bending back debate, no matter what its official topic, to their own pet obsessions?
Remind yourself of the thread title from time to time, Coel ;-)
> Criticising the published views of a mature adult is very different from mischaracterising the private journal of a 17-year-old.
Criticising someone for the views of their parents is also a bit wrong - Ken Livingstone's parents are Tories for God's sake.
> bending back debate, no matter what its official topic, to their own pet obsessions?
Nope, it was simple prejudice against those who didn't believe in their god (the same root as the prejudice against Jews).
Remind yourself of the thread title from time to time, Coel. Oh, and do try and develop a sense of humour :-0
Sure, but from "where the Mail stood" to "where the Vatican and the German churches stood" is not such a big leap, and from there to anti-Semitism in general. Afterall, the OP was about people in the past being anti-Semitic, wasn't it?
> (e.g. atheists were not allowed to sit in Parliament for another 30 years after Jews were accepted).
Slightly off topic, but in "liberal" USA of A an atheist is very unlikely to get into the Senate and even less likely to ever have a chance of being President
Eh? Who said the USA was "liberal"? It's their biggest political boo-word, isn't it?
> But it's hard to say since the unreligious British weren't in power then (e.g. atheists were not allowed to sit in Parliament for another 30 years after Jews were accepted).
You should check out "Religion and the Decline of Magic" - it has a very interesting chapter suggesting that atheism in early modern Britain could have been very common. Also, not just atheists, but people who didn't *care* about religion. Fancy that!
Dickens hates Brtiain!...just listened to the Now Show (R4) rework of A Christmas Carol.... a short work of genius and the best way to deal with The Mail and the Milliband affair.
How did this thread get onto God Bashing?
The way I see it, is that the Daily Mail used the views of a 17 year old boy to damage a potential future leader of this country.
Can anybody here, hand on heart, say that they still firmly hold all their views and beliefs after decades?
Or has time and experiences helped you form more mature opinions.
Remember this young chap?
He's grown up and moved on from immature childish stunts.
Now how about the views of an adult who's had many years to form an opinion on life?
Surely his views will be taken more in context because he IS NOT 17, as in Lord wotsit.
Another important point is that the DM totally misrepresented Ralph Milliband's views, even as a 17 year old.
Yeah just like Tony Blair FFS.
Paul Dacre loves Alistair Campbell
I've posted on the offical Newsnight youtube video of the fight between Campbell and John Steafel (Paul Dacre's deputy editor /stooge) and een the referee got some blows in on Steafel, who was in the position of defending the indefensible on behalf of someone who AC correctly pointed out was such a coward that he wouldn't appear himself to defend them.
Unfortunately all those comments have been deleted as there were probably too many pointing out that The Daily Mail was founded by someone who enthused over Hitler, sent congratulations to him over the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and so on.
And if you try to paint a picture of the son of someone based on what they wrote when they were seventeen, then it's equally fair to look at what the Great Grandfather of the current owner wrote when he was an adult and a fan of Hitler.
The whole furore tells us far more about the editor of The Daily Mail, and the Editor of The Mail on Sunday, than it does about Ed Milliband. Poison is as poison does, and all the poison, hatred and bile spewed from the Mail
Wow my 1st read of that led to a swift double-take. Tim Chappell's never gonnae read the Bible again? Shockeroonie!
As if we needed telling.
Anyone see Question Time last night?
"Let's have the debate about who hates Britain more, it isn't a dead Jewish refugee from Belgium who served in the Royal Navy, it's the immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting Daily Mail."
To read some of the now deleted comments on the NewsNight video, unfortunately the answer is yes. To some people The Daily Mail is quite moderate, and the fact that Ed Milliband's dad was a Jewish Marxist pretty much proves that Ed Milliband is going to mass-murder people like Stalin and Mao did.
> "Let's have the debate about who hates Britain more, it isn't a dead Jewish refugee from Belgium who served in the Royal Navy, it's the immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting Daily Mail."
Yep. This is the Daily Mail who hounds people to death, preaches about freedom of the press, and publishes paprazzi pictures of famous people's children on it's web-site, despite being opposed to harassment of people by the paps since the paps killed Diana. It also campaigns against the pornification of children, but leers lasciviously about teenage film stars who are under the age of 16 (and then deletes without comment when it's utter hypocrisy is pointed out).
I think many of the British ruling class didn't disagree with Hitler's policies morally, but having so much more hereditary experience as rulers knew they would fail - unlike the newly formed Nazi party.
I think this is an intersesting quote from Churchill (in 1938);
I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations. I am sorry, however, that he has not been mellowed by the great success that has attended him. The whole world would rejoice to see the Hitler of peace and tolerance, and nothing would adorn his name in world history so much as acts of magnanimity and of mercy and of pity to the forlorn and friendless, to the weak and poor.
Since he has been good enough to give me his advice I venture to return the compliment. Herr Hitler also showed himself unduly sensitive about suggestions that there may be other opinions in Germany besides his own. It would be indeed astonishing if, among 80,000,000 of people so varying in origin, creed, interest, and condition, there should be only one pattern of thought. It would not be natural: it is incredible. That he has the power, and, alas! the will, to suppress all inconvenient opinions is no doubt true. It would be much wiser to relax a little, and not try to frighten people out of their wits for expressing honest doubt and divergences. He is mistaken in thinking that I do not see Germans of the Nazi regime when they come to this country. On the contrary, only this year I have seen, at their request, Herr Bohle, Herr Henlein, and the Gauleiter of Danzig, and they all know that.
In common with most English men and women, I should like nothing better than to see a great, happy, peaceful Germany in the vanguard of Europe. Let this great man search his own heart and conscience before he accuses anyone of being a warmonger. The whole peoples of the British Empire and the French Republic earnestly desire to dwell in peace side by side with the German nation. But they are also resolved to put themselves in a position to defend their rights and long-established civilizations. They do not mean to be in anybody’s power. If Herr Hitler’s eye falls upon these words I trust he will accept them in the spirit of candour in which they are uttered.
I can't work out of it's a strong message hidden behind political flattery or whether Churchill actually holds Hitler with some esteem at this point in history?
I think it's the former :-)
I think this speech of Churchill's should be seen in the context of other speeches he made in the House of Commons around this time, in which his tone could not be more different. In this flattering speech he is playing a huge, ironic game, I think, because he knows perfectly well (and sadly) that Herr Hitler is not the kind of man he is describing. The irony surely reaches its peak when he refers to the 'great man'.
> Criticising someone for the views of their parents is also a bit wrong - Ken Livingstone's parents are Tories for God's sake.
And Michael Portillos father was a Socialist
> I can't work out of it's a strong message hidden behind political flattery or whether Churchill actually holds Hitler with some esteem at this point in history?
Gordon has it about right. There is always a strong element of irony in Churchill's addresses to the Germans. He mixes courtly compliments in the tradition of high 19th c. diplomacy with shrewd little nips and cuts.
This is just how diplomats talked in the era of Talleyrand. And no one was more aware of the aristocratic tradition that he'd inherited than Churchill himself.
How about option 3, namely taking the opportunity to make some points of my own?
Since the OP pointed to a Mail editorial from 1933 lauding Hitler, why not point out that earlier in that same year the Vatican had signed a treaty with the Nazis supporting Hitler and gaining lots of privileges for itself by doing so.
This Concordat with the Vatican, signed a few months after Hitler gained power, went a long way to granting legitimacy to the new Nazi regime (not only internationally but also within Germany, which was ~ 40% Catholic, and many of those Catholics took the Vatican lead on accepting the new regime).
This is all, admittedly, not the point Tim was making in the OP, but it's related: "Hitler takes power: just so we know where the Vatican stood".
Please for completeness tell us where the senior power brokers in the other major religions stood.
Incidentally, where *is* Simon4? He was making just the same allegations as the Mail on here but a few weeks ago, and now he's nowhere to be seen. It would be so lovely to have his distinctive contribution.
In the same year, 1933, the federation of Protestant/Lutheran churches accepted Nazi doctrine and formed a pro-Nazi "German Evangelical Church". The pro-Nazi faction won a majority (70%) of seats in presbyteries and synods.
There was, though, a minority Protestant faction opposed to the Nazis, and they split off and formed their own "Confessing Church", and in 1934 issued the "Barmen declaration" disassociating themselves from the "Reichskirche". This faction included people such as Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who ended up imprisoned by the Nazis.
As for the other major religions, well Judaism was opposed (not a surprise), and I don't know what Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism made of the Nazis, if anything, it being rather irrelevant to them.
> Thanks to the Grauniad media blog, whence I pinched all this :-)
And leading left wing fabians were advocating eugenics and extermat the same time. Should we hold Ed Mlliband and his party responsble for this??
> As for the other major religions, well Judaism was opposed (not a surprise), and I don't know what Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism made of the Nazis, if anything, it being rather irrelevant to them.
This topic has been covered umpteen times, I'm surprised you are unaware of the Muslim SS regiments, who were enthusiastic Jew Killers?
The horror we see daily in the middle east, is nothing new, some of the atrocities in 30/40s are just beyond comprehension.
The Mien Kamph translation,is still Popular reading in Islamic countries.
I must admit that I've never really looked into the Islamic angle w.r.t. Naziism, though I'm not surprised that they like the anti-Jewish ideology. Of course they likely haven't read Mein Kampf or Nazi racial ideology very carefully since it takes just as dim a view of the Arab and other races where Islam is prevalent as it does of Jews. Neither are within the "God's highest handiwork" "Aryan" master race.
Of course they were, even right at the top - Edward VII was a Nazi sympathizer, a declared racist. In France the slogan of the right was "Better Hitler than the Popular Front" (the coalition of left wing parties elected there). All over Europe, and further afield in the Americas, many of the wealthy and powerful saw fascism as a way of defending their interests. Rothermere wasn't the only one.
You are being a little economical with the truth here, the Bosnian SS regiment was set up in the context specific to Yugoslavia and the complex and extremely violent situation here, it was not a general case of muslims siding with Nazis. The situation is related to that of the failed Ottoman Empire and the Turkish pro-German sympathy. The Mufti of Jerusalem contacted Hitler to ask for help against the British, but then so did the Stern gang at one time!
For anyone interested in the rather sordid story of this SS regiment there's information here: just type -
into google. Ukc won't accept the actual link as it has a "long word" in it.
> The Mufti of Jerusalem contacted Hitler to ask for help against the British, but then so did the Stern gang at one time!
> Please for completeness tell us where the senior power brokers in the other major religions stood.
Much of the above is complete bollocks, there were many senior members of the catholic clergy who were active anti-fascists. One might start to list them but even the least attentive schoolboy could do so as well..
But a great many weren't, even the previous Pope apologised for his church's attitude during WW2, and he was no rabid lefty. In Spain the catholic church was the prime supporter of Franco, and the main anti-Republican propagandists - death and mayhem was preached from the pulpits of Spain.
...possibly in 1933 things were happening for Germany. maybe at the time it was conceived as good things, however obviously no one new wot atrocities this would lead to some years later and I suspect the daily mail were only reporting the facts at the time as they saw it.albeit wrongly.
Are you saying the daily mail editors journalists today still think hitler was a good guy today and that's reason not to buy the paper?
personally I think the daily star and sunday sport are on the leadin edge of journalism. I will continue to buy and support these papers.
> In Spain the catholic church was the prime supporter of Franco, and the main anti-Republican propagandists - death and mayhem was preached from the pulpits of Spain.
While true, that's also a bit economical with the truth. The Catholic Church was always going to support France because the Republic was anti-clerical and, among other things, nationalized Church properties and required the church to pay rent to the government to use them; forbade public displays of catholicism. During the Second Republic armed mobs targetted the Catholic church burning churches, religious schools and convents. The Catholic Church was also targetted specifically with violence in the Civil war - in the opening months of the civil war 7,000 clergy, monks and nuns were killed by Repuplicans. Despite all this support for Franco by the Church wasn't universal. The church in the Basque country fell in with the Republicans, for example.
> Are you saying the daily mail editors journalists today still think hitler was a good guy today and that's reason not to buy the paper?
> Much of the above is complete bollocks, there were many senior members of the catholic clergy who were active anti-fascists. One might start to list them but even the least attentive schoolboy could do so as well..
My goodness Michael, are you saying the world is a complex place not easily divided into good and evil, black and white?
I am shocked.
Thank you, Bob. That was indeed my point.
however unlike Nazis they were not interested in killing such folk.
You are not wrong:-
"KING EDWARD'S GREETINGS.
Birthday Message to Hitler.BERLIN, April 21.— On his 47th birth-day yesterday Herr Hitler received from the King of England the following message: —
"I am happy to avail myself of
the occasion of your birthday to convey
my sincere greetings, with best wishes
for your happiness and well-being."
Herr Hitler replied thanking His Majesty for his congratulations and reciprocating his greetings."
But then again Edwards name had been changed to Windsor , to hide the royal families German roots, so not so surprising.
All a bit chicken and egg though, if so many ordinary Spanish people hated the church they had good reason. Something else that is rarely mentioned is that although the International Brigades were mostly supporting the legitimate elected Republican government there were also catholic militias who went to help Franco. I once had a chat with an old bloke in a pub who was Irish and he mentioned a friend of his who went to fight in Spain, I thought he meant for the Republicans but no, he said, my mate was catholic so of course he went to help Franco!
Elsewhere on the site
A product review by James Turnbull. James Turnbull at Outside recently took the new Osprey Mutant 38 on a rigorous test in the... Read more
2014 has been a bumper year for climbing publications. Here's a few of the ones that we have either read, or ones that we... Read more
Nick Livesey discovered the mountains of Snowdonia over a decade ago and finally moved there a year and a half ago, quitting a... Read more
Skiing Baffin’s couloirs has been on my to do list ever since I saw Andrew McLean and Brad Barlage’s inspirational... Read more
WINTERFEST 2014 at Outside in Hathersage 6th and 7th December 2014 Outside's ever popular Winterfest event is back... Read more