New York Times in 1922: "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine"

[Behind the Aegis]

The New York Times on Tuesday republished its first-ever profile of Adolph Hitler and it seems the newspaper's "reliable, well-informed sources" were not so reliable.

The Nov. 21, 1922 article -- headlined "New Popular Idol Rises in Bavaria" - offers a profile of the 33-year-old leader of the so-called Bavarian Fascisti.

While the paper accurately characterizes Hitler's hatred toward Jews and the popularity of his vitriolic public speeches, the Times also quotes sources who were just a bit off the mark.

The Times wrote: "Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes."

The Times also quoted an unnamed politician who said Hitler was being politically deft for exaggerating his anti-Semitism.

more...

[hr]

Sometimes, one needs to take a person at their word!

[struggle4progress]

1. He was a shrewd power-hungry thug: maybe he didn't care one way or the other what happened

as long as it helped him consolidate his power

The early history of Nazi politicking often involved letting locally-influential people in various communities push their own pet ideas as examples of what the Nazis stood for, until enough people bought into the party, at which point the original locally-influential spokesman was gradually marginalized

There was enough anti-semitism in Germany that anti-semitic propaganda could be useful as an organizing tool: whether or not we can establish that top Nazis were "sincere" in their anti-semitic beliefs, they were certainly cynical enough, dishonest enough, and violent enough that it would have been entirely possible for them to set out to exterminate Jewish populations in Europe just because they found they could buy political support by giving empty housing and other benefits to "native Germans"

[Behind the Aegis]

2. You are correct about "pet ideas" being pushed through.

That, though, is simple politics. One of the underlying currents throughout was anti-Semitism. Once the Nazis gained more power, then the undercurrents became more of the party line. I don't think it would have much mattered, at the time, had that been in plain sight the entire time.

[struggle4progress]

3. I'm no expert on social dynamics. But the Nazi consolidation of power always involved

a significant amount of dishonest maneuvering

In their first years, the Nazis routinely beat the crap out of opponents and then in their press attributed the violent "scuffles" to the opponents, while "lamenting" the "unavoidable" injuries and the disruption of "public order." From the start, some opponents simply disappeared permanently from view, without any official notice, a practice that was finally institutionalized in the "nebel und nacht" directive against the state's official "enemies." But the euphemisms (such as "resettlement in the east&quot employed to cover extermination practices suggest political calculations remained important in Nazi practice until the regime fell; and there seems to have been always a curious paradox between diligent record keeping and a continual process of eliminating evidence of mass crimes once the crime had been carried to completion. What was said to who, and what became public position or remained in private conversation, continued to matter

The anti-semitic traditions of turn-of-the-century Thule societies must have made it easier, after the 1918 revolution in Germany and the end of WWI, to convince German reactionaries and Freikorps elements to buy into "Marxist Jews stabbed us in the back!" theories, aiding rightwing organizing in the 20s; and since many top Nazis joined the party in this era, ideological anti-semitism was endemic in the party. But the night-of-long-knives murders of Rohm and his associates strongly suggests that the inner-circle of the party was always more concerned with power than with the views and lives of their long-time friends, no matter how loyal those friends had been

The official anti-semitism was (of course) "in plain sight the entire time", but in a way increasingly confused by the facts that after 1933 no public disagreement was tolerated (though not everyone at first noticed exactly how opponents disappeared) and that anti-semitism was initially garbed in scientific-sounding nationalist propaganda with an official veneer of civilized rationality. Optimists, as ever, picked and chose what they wanted to believe from the welter of conflicting things they heard, in a manner that should be quite familiar by now to almost any thinking person who has lived in the post-war industrial world: and such optimism was sadly common enough even among many people who later perished at the hands of the regime.

[NaturalHigh]

4. I rarely describe anyone as evil...

but Hitler was evil, and yes, he hated Jews. I don't doubt that he saw them as convenient targets, but he embodied vile, hateful anti-Semitism.

[Oilwellian]

5. How quaint

An American propaganda mill calling out another, with a touch of truth. Could it be the worms are turning?

[jakeXT]

6. I doubt anyone will notice it. /nt

[Orrex]

7. Here's another zinger of a quote:

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Mahatma Gandhi, May 1940