The New York Times’ dirty history regarding the Holocaust

She’s a high school senior, but damn! if she doesn’t give a stunningly good talk about the way in which the New York Times, despite knowing about the Holocaust, not only downplayed it, but effectively kept American policy away from helping Europe’s besieged Jewish population:

There is no anti-Semite worse than a Jew.  (See als0 Liberty Spirit’s J’Accuse!)

Hat tip:  Richard Baehr

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    There’s no anti American worse than an American. Well, maybe if you include Canadians, Brits, and Aussies too. (The Anglosphere thinks it knows us so well because we speak English. I, personally, don’t speak English. I speak a different language)

  • David Foster

    Actually, Punch Sulzberger converted to the Episcopal church….I wonder why? Three hypotheses:
    1) After deep study, he became convinced of the truth of Christianity.
    2) He was emotionally moved by the beauty of the story of Jesus Christ.
    3) He was trying to suck up to those he perceived as making up the Establishment.

    • lee

      I looked up “Punch” and Junior, on Wikipedia (which I know, I know, take anything on Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt), and it didn’t mention that he actually converted. It said he married Putz’s mother in a civil ceremony, and they divorced when Putz (which I think is much more apropos than “Pinch”), was five. And that Putz was raised in “his mother’s Episcopal faith.”  

      • Ymarsakar

        It’s not wikipedia. Take anything anyone says, like authority, as a temporary truth, if truth it is. Then recheck it later, constantly and omnipresently.
        What people tend to do is to make assumptions and then program those assumptions in as core values. So long as you don’t do that, what you believe about your sources won’t be set in rock and inflexible.

  • Ymarsakar

    The Roosevelt administration, along with FDR, is getting “de-constructed” old style as time goes on.
    Which I can’t really feel sad about. After all, Thomas Jefferson is a slave owner and Washington told lies, as the Left tells us. If we can’t have our legends and our ideals… then neither can those Fs we call the Left keep theirs.

  • Ymarsakar

    The press are only responsible for one thing: publishing the works of the individuals that refuse to obey authority. Referencing the end of the speech.
    As an organization, the press only exists to serve the goals of their Masters, those too corrupt and evil to hold individual free will as an asset. Like poison gas, people use it only to deter the other side’s poison gas usage. It’s not particularly because it will win the battle.
    One might as well expect a gun to leap up and defend us from zombies, as expect a press, a publishing tool, to defend anything in the free world. Which ain’t as free as people thought it was given the Left’s enslavement policies.
    The role of the press is to publish. They are merely a tool. Highlighting them as some kind of protection or institution… is merely a symptom of a much larger disease.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I guess the New York Times was just doing to the Jews in WWII what it did to the Ukrainians in the Soviet Union.


    The NYT mirrored the FDR administration.

  • Ron19

    Good advice when reading comments.

  • jj

    As regards the religion situation: it’s New York, folks.  The power structure going back to the day it started has always been Protestant.  Hendrik Hudson founded it, and the Dutch kept it until 1664 when Peter Stuyvesant surrendered it to the English, so it went from being Lutheran to C of E/Episcopal.  Therefore the top end of the social structure has, for most purposes, always been Episcopal.  Old families, old money.  (Much of it so old it disappeared long ago and the Forbes operation doesn’t even know it’s there, so can’t count it and stick the owners on a list.) 
    These are the people – names like Van Rennselaer, Whitney, Van Riper, Phipps, Sargent, Howe; you know – with whom the Sulzbergers think they run.  They see themselves as top end community leaders, therefore a natural part of that group.  Which, in fairness, I suppose in many ways they are.  Pinch’s pop (are public nicknames like “Punch” and “Pinch” features of Judaism?), certainly was raised among the scions of those folks and since that’s what he was mostly exposed to, he married a shiksa.  Which did not last.  Arthur Jr. (Pinch) was indeed raised primarily by his mother, so went that way, insofar as he went any way.  (Which is not shocking.  Judaism comes through the female, and his momma wasn’t Jewish, ergo: him either.) 
    So while I’m first in line to dislike the Sulzberger deal, I’d hesitate a second before putting the arm on them for that sort of climbing.  Other sorts of climbing: sure.  Did they aspire to hang around with the old established power structure?  You bet.  Was that group 98% Episcopal?  Yeah, it was and is.  (There is Catholic power in New York too.  The Rectory behind St. Patrick’s where Tim Dolan and his forerunners live has for a century or more been known as “the Powerhouse.”  It’s a different sort of power the Zirish and Italians wield. 
    Anyway, I’d hesitate to accuse them of being embarrassed of being Jewish and attempting to be something else.  I suspect Jr’s upbringing contributed to his deal, it’s natural.  My own blue-eyed blonde wife is the product of an Italian mother and ancient family from Tuscany; her father thinks he’s Jewish.  She’s been Catholic every minute of her life.  So I understand Pinch’s inclination to be Episcopalian.  It seems natural enough to me, if for no other reason than that our lives as kids are smoother if we do what mnomma does!
    As for the Holocaust, everybody knew what was going on.  Churchill knew it, FDR knew it – everybody above the rank of “man on the street” knew it to some degree or other by the end of 1940.  The question was: what are you going to do about it?  Today our reaction is automatic, but it was politically tricky back then.  It would be trickier now.  If our congress was the democrat congress of 2007 and we were bombed by Country X, would we declare war on anybody but Country X itself?  Would we include Country Z, Country X’s ally on the other side of the world – who did not bomb us?  Grant me leave to doubt it.  Doing something about the Holocaust, or anything else Germany was up to, was not easy.

  • cerumendoc

    This is not to denigrate the comments of the presenter.  But, what to do is another matter.  
    To note a comment in Max Boot’s book–War Made New–a dropped bomb in WWII missed it’s target by about 2500 feet.  A circle with a diameter of about a mile.  Therefore, the 1000 bomber missions were to cover that mile wide circle so as to destroy everything in the circle.  Therefore using level bombing methods would have wipe out the death camps including the very people you are trying to save.
    In a similar fashion, trying to bomb a track with bombers such as the B17 and B24 would meet similar results.
    The only bombing options were to bomb out railroad marshaling yards or to resort to dive bombing.  Probably the best of the lot was the SBD Dauntless of Midway fame.  But, it had a combat radius of about 500 miles and relatively slow.  It work in the vast expanses of the Pacific.  Working and surviving over the European land mass is probably a very different matter.
    Ultimately, winning the war as rapidly as possible was the best we could do to help the Jewish inmates of these concentration and death camps.  Did we have the technology to accurately bomb these camps without killing its Jewish inmates; problematic at best.  What we grew up with since Desert Storm of bombing accuracy that can thread a needle simply did not exist at the time.
    Could we have hindered train movements in Europe and therefore the delivery of Jewish victims to these camps?  We were already bombing railroad marshaling yards routinely; a task to which B17’s were well suited.
    Could we have focused dive bombing tasks to curtail the ‘activities’ at these concentration camps?  Perhaps.  But, that would have created a specific tasking to have the aircraft, crews and training to carry out a very specialize attack program.  Would FDR have approved?  Well, he didn’t act, prior to the war to bring these Jewish victims out of the cold–so I’d rather doubt he’d have specifically targeted the concentration camps with specialized equipment.