Hitler Safe For Jews, New York Times "Well-Informed Sources" Report
The New York Times first article on Hitler's rise was interesting--and horrifying
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But 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.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
This is the first thing the New York Times wrote about the rise of Hitler—unfortunately, the original link is gone, all that’s left is this vox article. It’s interesting to read, interesting the way Hitler, one of the worst villains in human history, is treated as this mere populist—who occasionally fires up the crowds with a bit of anti-semitism. The way they cite “several reliable, well-informed sources,” who “confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded.”
It’s easy to think of Hitler as an inhuman embodiment of pure evil—but for a while, it seems the sentiment was that he was just another politician. Sure, he was more antisemitic than politicians tend to be, but that was just hyperbole, claim the reliable well-informed sources. Quite a surreal read.
Sometimes, evil comes subtly—its malevolence out of sight and out of mind. But other times, evil just abruptly declares hatred of Jews—and only people who think that they’re lying about their true motives disbelieve. I guess one important lesson is that when one declares their open hatred of Jews, it is prudent to believe them.
There's also something here about the contempt for 'ordinary' people held by a certain type of self-appointed 'intellectual'. That NYT writer seemed to think it was fine to lie to the masses, in order to get them onboard with the programme. In a weird way, I blanched at the thought that at least Hitler was being honest while the writer was kind of dark triad or Cluster B.