In the 1930s, the New York Times praised Adolf Hitler

It may be worth some perspective here.
It's simple enough to talk about who Hitler was with hindsight - but if you were writing in the 1930's, what would your perspective had been? He hadn't declared war yet, Mein Kampf, despite containing a whole host of outright red flags, wasn't really well written enough to actually garner any attention (it has it now, of course - again, hindsight), and in fact Hitler's Germany was in many respects a phoenix that had risen from the ashes of World War 1.

At the end of the first world war, Germany was decimated. Her people were humiliated and downtrodden, the economy was destroyed, the country had no meaningful international standing to speak of, and for a couple of decades little had changed.

Hitler was something new entirely.
He got the country moving, got the economy progressing in the right direction. He unified the people, gave them hope for some kind of future beyond the tragedy of the past... unemployment plummeted, public works increased tenfold, industry went through the roof... he was instrumental in facilitating the creation of the Volkswagen, ensured the construction of the Autobahn... he created wildlife reserves, enshrined animal rights in law... you can go on and on, but the reality is that if Hitler had died in, say, 1938, he would have been heralded as one of the world's greatest leaders, and mourned accordingly.

So while yes, hindsight allows us now to identify him for who he was (a depraved monster, let's not mince words), it's really only that hindsight that affords us that luxury. We can throw all the moral indignation we like at the New York Times or any number of other publications that praised him, but let's not be ignorant about the reality of our situation.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but what separates you and I from the people in Germany who fell for his allure and followed him all the way to the holocaust?

If we're honest... not much - and that should be a sobering and chilling thought that informs how we view the future.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke

The media is simply the propaganda arm of the ruling class, the media is not truth it's conditioning to win the hearts and minds of the people. Always has been always will be.

a reply to: Awen24

You do have a point. Earlier I mentioned that the US might eventually turn into a dictatorship in the next few decades. I believe it will be a series of events that will lead to that scenario.

Right now we are seeing the genesis of the culture that will produce this future dictatorship. For example, the use of Antifa stormtroopers to suppress free speech and the PATRIOT Act.

If things go bad, eventually people will start wondering whether a dictatorship is a good idea to bring country back on track.

As for the media, it sickens me that they haven't learned their lessons today. Kim Jong Un's crimes against humanity is more well known right now yet the media still ignored it.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Yes they did. There was a short period of time back when Hitler was first gaining power that not only the NYT but ALL the mainstream capitalist media praised him. The great fear at that time was that the communist revolution would spill out of Russia and over into Germany and take over Europe.
So the capitalists, as exemplified by the information conglomerates went out of their way to support anyone who might stop that from happening. This was also the period in which numerous international industrialists gave Hitler financial support to gain that power. Chief among those industrialists was Henry Ford. Yes indeed, western capitalist were all a flutter to find a way to stop communism from ruining their cash cow of an economic system.

Part of the connection was eugenics.

Eugenics became recognized as a legitimate science, in America, in the early 1920s. It made major moves, though, during the 1930s. The movement offered answers as to who was responsible for the social and economic state of the country. The finger of blame was directed at paupers, the "feebleminded," "degenerates" and the "mentally diseased." The Jews were one of the larger demographics targeted, along with Russian and Polish immigrants.

iml.jou.ufl.edu...

Ford was a member along with many in top key positions. Bunch of Clintons and Bushes on there could be relations to the presidents.The Kennedys are the relations for sure. This is a really interesting bunch of info.


archive.org...

I think a lot of us, MOST of us are still enemies of the state.

"I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness." (Fraser's Magazine 7 [1873] quoted in Aristotle to Zoos, Peter and Jean Medawar, 1983 p. 87)

a reply to: Awen24

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” ― Edmund Burke

this is why I am saddened by the youth today maybe even the older folks, seems most of them want to say forget the past let's not look at or remember so we can be happy now.
It would mean not learning and easily repeating the same mistakes looking at it this way. Most of my Family now look at life this way with the rose color all pretty.

a reply to: Awen24
Awen, you make very good points about hindsight, about how perspectives can change and give so little insights on how things were.

I read a book written shortly after the war called'' They Thought They Were Free'', written by a man who asked some of these very questions. He went to the German people and interviewed many people about what they had been thinking, how they had seen Hitler, about the social trends and stuff surrounding them at the time. The book was written back in the 50s so that much of the memories of that time were still fresh for the people who had been there.

I read this book back in the 80s when some of the points you bring up in your post began occurring to me as I wondered could it ever happen again, could it ever happen here.

press.uchicago.edu...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Sea, thank you for that. I tend to forget that whole aspect of the social equation, that those who consider themselves the masters can so easily consider such massive measures of control as are hidden within the eugenics agendas. Certainly we are now on a cusp of making all of that real yet it is now being sold to not only the elites, but the common man as well promising ''everybody'' the chance of adjusting the birth of their children to fit the ''higher'' standards of beauty and brains and abilities.
Who wouldn't give that consideration.

In one aspect it is a wonderful promise to all of us, to ''fix'' our kids before they are born, to take our pills to adjust our attitudes our serums to enhance our minds. And even though part of me likes this, there is the other part of me that knows that there are among us those who would,and will use all of this for their own benefit to the detriment of the rest of us. Thanks for the memory jolt.

a reply to: ketsuko

And certainly, the point you make is valid, there was also at that time acceptance and appoligists in some circles of the Russian experiment. The was no monolithic approach to things. The US was still in the throws of the great depression and among the general populace, the notions of communism were in places flourishing. Yet at it's base, the capitalist system was anti-communist and acted to preserve it's self.

The media, was as I still think it is today was not so much liberal or for that matter conservative. It was pro-status-quo. It was about maintaining the establishment. FDR was a hero to so many Americans that his economic policies and such were seen as they are today as very socialist and I think that to be fact. Yet even at his core, FDR was in favor of the capitalist system, even though he promoted so many of the government run programs and subsidies. He might have nationalized the banks but did not. In some quarters he is seen as having saved capitalism from itself.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

In your opinion why is it that the US media praised Kim Jong Un's sister even though there's widespread info about her brother's regime and the fact she's a high ranking member of the NK government which makes her guilty of association?

The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC News, among others, have faced backlash for articles that borrowed comparisons of Kim Yo Jong and Ivanka Trump from South Korean media, and for using cheery descriptions of North Korean spectators’ “synchronized chants” at sporting events.

www.politico.com...

After the Duranty and Hitler debacle, the media should have at the very least be more careful about who they are reporting on. With the internet, there is no excuse for defending a murderous regime. All they need to do is go to YouTube and watch a documentary about North Korea.

I'm no Trump supporter but he does have a point about fake news.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Sadly, this isn't the first time the media fell for a mass murderer's charms.

I think the truth is that there are some who expected Hitler to win the War. The Nazi outfits were created by Hugo Boss. No accident.

By the third quarter of 1932, the all-black SS uniform (to replace the SA brown shirts) was designed by SS-Oberführer Prof. Karl Diebitsch and Walter Heck (graphic designer). The Hugo Boss company produced these black uniforms along with the brown SA shirts and the black-and-brown uniforms of the Hitler Youth.