Wow, Did The Guardian Say That Back When?

[Annie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/digitalarchive/story/0,,2210224,00.html

Digital archive
Blind optimism


As Hitler shouted his way up the political ranks in Germany, the Guardian and Observer misjudged the extent of his early influence, writes Sir Ian Kershaw

Wednesday November 14, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Adolf Hitler addressing the gathering of his staff chiefs at the Nazi demonstration held on the Reichsparteitag area in Nuremberg, Germany, in September 1933
Adolf Hitler addressing the gathering of his staff chiefs at the Nazi demonstration held on the Reichsparteitag area in Nuremberg, Germany, in September 1933. Photograph: AP


By the time the Nazi party came to prominence by winning 107 seats (18.3% of the votes) in the Reichstag election of September 14 1930, British newspapers could not ignore Hitler and his movement. But, as Brigitte Granzow showed long ago in her book, A mirror of Nazism, the reportage was replete with distortions and misinterpretation.

In an article on September 21 that year, the Observer echoed the widely held belief on the left that Hitler was the creature of big capital. It saw the real dangerman not as Hitler, but as the media tycoon and leader of the German National People's party, Alfred Hugenberg. The "Hugenberg manoeuvres", it stated, had aimed to promote both Communists and Nazis as a vehicle to weaken the organised working classes. "Hugenberg, and not Hitler, will ultimately call the Nazi tune."

A week later, the newspaper dismissed Hitler as "dramatic, violent and shallow", and "a lightweight", seeing him as "not a man, but a megaphone" of the prevailing discontent, fronting a militarist reaction, which would mean the destruction of peace. The newspaper went on to claim, remarkably, that Hitler was "definitely Christian in his ideals", and, even more strangely, that these matched the ideals of German Catholics.

The Guardian thought on September 25 1930 that the exclusion of the Nazi party from Reich government, given its electoral success, was not in the best interests of German democracy and that their involvement would "in the long run ... help to perpetuate this democracy".

On the very day that these views were published, Hitler told a court in Leipzig (where three young army officers with Nazi sympathies were on trial for preparing to commit high treason) that his movement would come to power legally, but that it would then shape the state as its members wanted it, and that "heads would roll".

The Guardian maintained its view, however, that Hitler, "while full of the verbiage of revolution", was "no revolutionary leader". It claimed that he lacked courage, and that his baleful threats before the Leipzig court raised unnecessary fears, while his assurances of proceeding legally had hardly been noticed. It dismissed him on September 29 1930 as "the ranting clown who bangs the drum outside the National Socialist circus". Few things, the newspaper had remarked three days earlier, were less likely than that Hitler would gain sole power in Germany.

By 1932, as the crisis of German democracy deepened, British newspapers devoted far more attention to Nazism. Even now, however, underestimation of Hitler was commonplace. The Observer, still on February 21 1932 seeing Hitler as no more than a demagogue propped up by financially powerful nationalists, reversed course following his candidacy for the Reich presidency in March, when it wrote (March 20 1932) that it would be wrong to regard him "as a mere agitator and rank outsider". Here, as in the Guardian (which still implied on March 30 1932 that Hitler was no more than a charlatan), the emerging view was that he was a "moderate", who might possibly develop into a statesman, but could not control his own violent and unruly movement.

This related also to anti-semitism. The Observer, in its article on March 20 1932, hinted that attacks on Hitler's anti-semitism exaggerated the danger, adding: "It must not be forgotten that the major part of the German Republican Press is in Jewish hands."...

 

[DeadCanDance]

You went to a ton of effort to post this, but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not a mind reader or anything.

 

[William Joyce]

Not sure, either...

The whole "there are Hitlers everywhere" neocon argument? The Guardian was wrong about Hitler, so we should bomb Iran? We must be reminded daily how bad Hitler was, because those goyim can never get uppity? Who knows!

This related also to anti-semitism. The Observer, in its article on March 20 1932, hinted that attacks on Hitler's anti-semitism exaggerated the danger, adding: "It must not be forgotten that the major part of the German Republican Press is in Jewish hands."...

As true then as it is today. It's not "anti-semetic" to point out the truth.

 

[Annie]

Not sure, either...

The whole "there are Hitlers everywhere" neocon argument? The Guardian was wrong about Hitler, so we should bomb Iran? We must be reminded daily how bad Hitler was, because those goyim can never get uppity? Who knows!

This related also to anti-semitism. The Observer, in its article on March 20 1932, hinted that attacks on Hitler's anti-semitism exaggerated the danger, adding: "It must not be forgotten that the major part of the German Republican Press is in Jewish hands."...

As true then as it is today. It's not "anti-semetic" to point out the truth.

Gee and I thought you would clear it up. The point was it was posted in Education/History, emphasis on learning from history.

1. Anti-semitism is once again on the rise and being ignored, once again.
2. The Guardian hasn't learned a damned thing in over nearly 80 years.

 

[Doug]

The thing I found most interesting in this article was an early example of a familiar Leftist argument: Hitler was the creature of Big Business.

They still argue this today, although it is false.

 

[AllieBaba]

Gee and I thought you would clear it up. The point was it was posted in Education/History, emphasis on learning from history.

1. Anti-semitism is once again on the rise and being ignored, once again.
2. The Guardian hasn't learned a damned thing in over nearly 80 years.

I was booted from a writer's message board because I stated, repeatedly, that people who are constantly carping about "neo-cons" are actually anti-semitic at heart.

I was seen as a hater, I guess, because I recognized something the left participates in and likes to pretend is something other than what it is.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting. A similar article could be written about Dick and his faithful sidekick George - that they really were not considering war with Iraq long before enough fear materialized to make war a reality. That they did weigh all the evidence concerning WMDs and really thought armageddon was just around the corner. Consider the so called 'liberal' New York Times the Guardian, in my example, it all fits. So I guess really, reading into the minds of the evil and/or inept is a poor art. Someday another naive naif will post how the NYT was unable to judge the poor incompetent's real intent. And so it goes....

And hopefully, just hopefully, that will be the last time as maybe the fourth estate will start doing its job again. Maybe.