Welcome, friend.         Are you ready for a totally unique internet experience?  Here, you are going to be able to explore ideas that you will find interesting, enlightening and sometimes maybe even inspiring, without ever being assaulted with distractions by way of either donation requests, or of extraneous and most often irrelevant commercials!         I have only been able to make this possible, from the day I published my first website in 1996 to this day, by paying the full freight of my WWW mission out of my own pocket, rather than expecting my guests to pay those costs through their donations, or third-party business interests to pay them, through the pasting of their commercials all over my web-pages.

Please click on whichever device that you will be using to explore our websites today:

OR

[ this file's actual name is :]
http:///what-would-Jesus-think.info/
about/NYTimes-PiusXII-editorials.htm

How trustworthy are editorials?

Don't trust the ones written by editors who
value their Catholic faith over the truth!

Prior to the emergence of the internet, and even television, it was newspapers that people relied on to inform them of what was going on in the world. And among papers, none in America was trusted more than "The Gray Lady".
        Ever since the 1960's many historians have been raising serious questions about what the Roman Catholic Church – and in particular about its pope, as the most powerful religious leader in the world at the time – did or failed to do in order to counter the Jewish Holocaust. And for almost as long, the defenders of Pope Pius XII have been suggesting that no amount of historical evidence amassed to prove the contrary can overcome the authority of the editors of The New York Times, who supposedly proclaimed at the height of the Holocaust that "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. . . He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all." (complete text on this page below)

I have learned from long experience not to run from the arguments of those with whom I disagree. By actually following their claims back to their sources to see how legitimate they are, I either learn from them and improve my views, or I find out how weak and/or fraudulent those arguments are. In this instance, what I have found is :

However, unless and until the New York Times defends its own well–earned reputation, by repudiating the use of its name in support of the wrong side of this very important historical debate, silence can very well be interpreted by many as consent.

The Jews didn't get the help
they should have from the American press:

The following critique of the role of the press at the time shows how crucial it was for the press to inform the public of the threat represented by Europe's Fascist regimes, and how difficult that task was, because it was hard for the public to believe that people could be as vicious as some of the press was reporting.
        "The newspaper became the most prevalent medium for informing the people. David Wyman, in The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–1945, emphasized that the American press did little to publicize news of the Holocaust and stir public activism, and he blamed the press as one of the groups which failed the Jews during the war.  Although coverage was sometimes scant and often relegated to inner pages, the information was still available to the American public. During the summer of 1942, newspapers acknowledged the various reports of Nazi atrocities. On June 27, for example, the New York Times published about two inches on page five regarding the Polish government's report, which was also broadcast on the BBC and CBS radio, of 700,000 Jews slain by the Nazis. The article quoted the statement: "To accomplish this, probably the greatest mass slaughter in history, every death–dealing method was employed – machine–gun bullets, hand grenades, gas chambers, concentration camps, whipping, torture instruments, and starvation."   Three days later, a longer article under the headline "1,000,000 Jews Slain By Nazis, Report Says," appeared in the New York Times detailing the World Jewish Congress report. 
        An announcement made by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels on June 12 should have sounded warning bells. In retaliation for Allied air bombings of German cities, Goebbels promised that the Nazis would execute a mass "extermination" of European Jews. He elaborated: "The Jews are playing a frivolous game and they will pay for it with the extermination of their race in all Europe and perhaps even beyond Europe." The New York Times carried this medium–length story on page seven.   If they did not quite trust Goebbels, Americans could have listened to Hitler's speech at the Berlin Sports Palace on September 30. It was recorded on German radio and reported by American newspapers:

After the State Department obtained confirmation of the Riegner report, Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles went to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the American Jewish Congress and authorized him to release the information to the press. On November 24, 1942, Rabbi Wise held a press conference in Washington and told reporters that the State Department had confirmed that two million European Jews had already fallen victim to Hitler's plan of total extermination. While Wyman found that the press conference and its disclosures were not a "major story" – of the nation's 19 most important newspapers, only five placed the story on page one and two did not carry it at all – it was nonetheless widely reported. From that moment on, more news would point to the horrible truth of Hitler's Final Solution. November 1942 marked a turning point, as ignorance turned into awareness. Discovery should have evolved into action, but as the events of the next three years showed, it did not.
        The Refusal to Believe.
        Laqueur (Walter Laqueur, author of The Terrible Secret) depended a great deal on the distinction between knowing and believing to analyze American reaction, contending that despite widespread publicity, the outside world could not come to grips with a tragedy of such an unprecedented nature.  The nature of the news filtering out of Europe left the democratic world floundering for a reference point to grasp its meaning, and finding themselves psychologically incapable of ascribing any such meaning, Americans turned away." [ from http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_5.html ]

In December 1942, when the free nations of the world were just getting organized into "The United Nations", one of their first joint ventures was an official proclamation against the atrocities being committed against the Jewish people by Nazi Germany [ see the actual text in the box below: ]
Front page, Dec 18, 1942 11 ALLIES CONDEMN NAZI WAR ON JEWS United Nations Issues Joint Declaration of Protest on "Cold–blooded Extermination" Special to The N Y Times Washington. Dec 17,  — A Joint declaration by members of the United Nations was issued today condemning Germany's "bestial policy of cold–blooded extermination" of Jews and declaring that "such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom–loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny " The nations reaffirmed "their solemn resolution to Insure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end." The declaration was issued simultaneously through the State Department here and in London. It was subscribed to by eleven nations. Including the United States. Britain and Russia, and also by the French National Committee In London. The declaration referred particularly to the program as conducted in Poland and to the barbarous forms it is taking. Front page, Dec 18, 1942 [ microfiche copy ] [ article continued on page 10 ] – >	page 10, continued from front page (at left) December 18, 1942 NAZI RETRIBUTION WIDENED by (British Prime Minister) EDEN. He warns German people of responsibility, if cruelties to Jews are continued. M.P.'s (Members of Parliament) in silence. Gesture marks approval of allies' declaration. — Canada lines up with movement. Wireless to The New York Times. London, Dec. 17 – To mark their support of the government declaration made by Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden in the House of Commons today against the German persecution of European Jews, the members stood in silence for a few moments. It was also in protest against what one member described as "this disgusting barbarism." Mr. Eden made it quite clear that it was the intention that all persons responsible for crimes against the Jews – whether they were ringleaders or – actual perpetrators of the outrages would be treated alike and brought to judgement. "Members can be sure," Mr. Eden said, "that we will do what we can to alleviate these horrors, but at this stage it must inevitably be slight." Mr. Eden also pointed out the difficulties attaching to the suggestion on the migration of Jews to Sweden or other neutral countries. Members pressed the question of what could be done to help the persecuted Jews, but from the tone of Mr. Eden's replies it could be seen that at present very little can be done to help them. Mr. Eden assured one questioner that the United Nations would broadcast to the German people that Jewish atrocities were not war but murder and that they would be held in some measure responsible if they allowed the German Government to carry out their horrible intention of transporting all Jews, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe." [ microfiche copy ]
London's BBC published a similar news report on Dec. 17, 1942, which contained some additional information, including :         "The House then heard him (Eden) read out the declaration below, which condemned "in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold–blooded extermination" and made a "solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution".         He said the United Nations would try to give asylum to as many refugees as possible but that there were "immense geographical difficulties" as well as security procedures to overcome."

Text of declaration: "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race" "The attention of the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, and of the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler's oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettoes established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.        The above mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny.

Although the allied nations pleaded with
Pius XII to add the Holy See's support
to the declaration, he refused to do so.

This declaration did in spades what the papacy never did, i.e. it spelled out who the victims were, the Jews, and who the villains were, i.e. Germany's Nazis, under the direction of Adolf Hitler.

I have no idea what her point was, because the style of this staunch defender of Pius XII seems to be to shoot all kinds of pellets of information at readers in the hopes of impressing them with her "scholarship". But Sister Margherita Marchione included the following tidbits on page 149 of her Consensus and Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII:

Considering the facts that "the general opinion was that the Vatican was on the verge of doing something more directly to help the Jews" proved to be dead wrong and that Pius did the very opposite of what Rabbi Hertz had pleaded with him to do, if anything, these excerpts undermine, rather than justify Sister Marchione's support of Pius XII.

"The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race," which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was "unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities." One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti–communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.
        The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, "The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye–witnesses." During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the "hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction." The Pope never mentioned by name either the the Jews (as the victims), nor the Nazis (as the villains) .
        { http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html }
        A site by a Catholic apologist makes this interesting admission :  "To prevent retaliation, he (Pius) did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis."  
       Now, if everybody knew that the pope was talking about "Jews" and "Nazis", then why would it make any difference whether the pope said "Jews" and "Nazis" out loud or not?  The answer, obviously is that Hitler didn't mind the pope speaking ambiguously. So long as Catholics weren't put on the spot, and forced by their religious leaders to choose between obeying Hitler and obeying God, Hitler was content to let Pius be Pius, the supreme diplomat who could avoid offending anybody by speaking and writing nothing but ambiguities.
        In a September 1940 broadcast, the Vatican called its policy "neutrality," but stated in the same broadcast that "where morality was involved, no neutrality is possible".  This could only mean that they didn't view mass-murder as a moral issue - which is why the Vatican could be neutral about it! -
        The Pope's indifference to the mistreatment of Jews was often clear. In 1941, for example, after being asked by French Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain if the Vatican would object to anti–Jewish laws, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews. When Pétain's French puppet government introduced "Jewish statutes," the Vichy ambassador to the Holy See informed Pétain that the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with "charity" and "justice."
        "Within the Pope's own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d'affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.
        In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain "neutral," and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German–held lands.
        Robert Wistrich, (the author of "Six Million Crucifixions", notes that "by the end of 1942, the Vatican was among the best–informed institutions in Europe concerning the Holocaust. Except for the Germans or perhaps British intelligence, few people were more aware of the local details as well as the larger picture."
        In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience."
        In the summer of 1942, long after the Roman curia had become aware of the mass murders, Pius explained to his college of Cardinals the reasons for the great gulf that existed between Jews and Christians at the theological level: "Jerusalem has responded to His call and to His grace with the same rigid blindness and stubborn ingratitude that has led it along the path of guilt to the murder of God." Historian Guido Knopp describes these comments of Pius as being "incomprehensible" at a time when "Jerusalem was being murdered by the million". [ "Hitler's Holocaust", Guido Knopp, Sutton,2000, p. 250 ]
        On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, "The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms." Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope's behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.
        Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government–in–exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.
        The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race," which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was "unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities." One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti–communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.

So can we finally bury once and for all the preposterous claim that Pope Pius XII was "about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares (dared) to raise his voice" (against Hitler)?

Normally, conservatives can't express enough contempt for the New York Times but when that "liberal rag" comes to the defense of an icon of theirs like Pope Pius XII, they can't quote the N.Y. Times often enough. Take the famous Christmas Day "editorial" for example:

Dec. 25, 1941     Commenting on the pope's official Christmas Message, an "editorial" on page 24 said: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas . . . he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all . . . no one but the Pope is able to speak aloud in the name of the Prince of Peace. . . the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism . . . he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christmas peace." [ www.CatholicLeague.org/pius/nyt_editorials.htm features the entire text of the editorials.]

Dec. 25, 1942     Commenting on the pope's official Christmas Message, an "editorial" on page 16 said : "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. . . He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all." The Pope's Christmas message was also interpreted in the Gestapo report: "in a manner never known before. . . the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order [Nazism]. It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for. . . . Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews." Perhaps the rest of the world should interpret the Pope's words as they were meant and, undoubtedly, correctly understood by the Nazis." [check original for order of passages]:

On 04/14 /2011, Googling the claim that " is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all" produced "4,040 results". Four years later, the same search produced " 43,800 results " with the following typical examples:

One of the most quoted defenders of Pius XII, Sister Margherita Marchione, writes in her article, "The Truth About Pope Pius XII", at http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/truth.htm :
        "An honest evaluation of Pope Pius XII's words and actions will exonerate him from false accusations and show that he has been unjustly maligned. The Pope neither favored nor was favored by the Nazis. . .
        The New York Times editorial (December 25, 1942) was specific: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all."

• Kenneth Woodward, the 38 veteran religion editor for Newsweek magazine, made a vicious attack on the N.Y. Times in a much quoted March 30, 1998 article, entitled:"Blaming the wartime pope for failing to stop the Holocaust from the Vatican is a neat bit of revisionist history." The article, which can be found http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/nazi02.htm, begins with a quote from the 1941 NYT editorial
  
• That same year, when the N.Y. Times actually tried to correct the record about Pius XII, Pat Buchanan echoed Woodward in his own www.Buchanan.org/blog/pjb-new-york-times-promotes-religious-hatred-266 blog, where he used the "paper's own words" (the 1941 "editorial") to accuse the Times of revisionism, dishonesty and anti–Catholic bigotry.
• In his use of the two editorials in his "Myth of Hitler's Pope" Rabbi Dalin claims that "To listeners in 1941, the pope's Christmas message was understood as a clear condemnation of Nazi attacks on Europe's Jews." (a perception not shared by many of the experts who have studied that period's history.)

  1) I have referred to the above as "editorials" because that's what R C apologists do (but in parentheses) because, unlike what we call "editorials" in our day, i.e. items which are clearly identified as formal statements, by official representatives of the paper, the items in question were more like filler items, meant to fill open space on one of many pages, none of which were set aside as "editorial pages". The only distinguishing features of the pages on which these items were published were the paper's "letterhead" in the left–most column and the "Letters to the Editor" in the right–most columns. (to see what I mean, check out these microfiche pictures of those pages.)
          These two particular blurbs above (the more accurate description) were obviously put there by the same person, most likely a devout Roman Catholic, or a second such person copying from the earlier piece. So it is totally disingenuous for apologists for Pope Pius XII to give the impression that the pope's heroism is backed by the prestige of the NY Times editorial board.
  
      2) By Christmas of 1941, Italy, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France had already been under Nazi control for over a year. During that year, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary became Nazi satellites.  Although they were officially "neutral", the Holocaust Studies article Co–Opting Nazi Germany: Neutrality in Europe During World War II, by Jonathan Petropoulos argues that Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and even Sweden were, if anything, "secret allies" of the Nazis.   So which other European leaders were left with the freedom that the Pope enjoyed to condemn Hitler? Rather than compare his record to that of the leaders of all of these conquered nations, shouldn't his record be compared to that of a free state in western Europe, such as Great Britain ?

  Another preposterous claim
  on behalf of Pope Pius XII :

  Another claim similar to the one above, which is often made by papal apologists – including Pope Benedict XVI – is that "Pope Pius XII did more than anybody else to save Jews."
          Seriously?
          Winston Churchill and Franklin D.Roosevelt and the leaders of the other allied nations led 28 million of their subjects into the battle against the Axis nations, a million of whom gave their lives for the cause. Where do the defenders of the Pope Pius XII get the gall to make such an outrageous claim, when – far from taking the side of the victims of the Jewish Holocaust, "Holy Mother the Church" counted among its many congregants who led and carried out the Nazi holocaust, not just Adolf Hitler, but most of the other top leaders of the Third Reich, as I show at the Roman Catholic leadership of the Third Reich, namely Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hoess, Julius Streicher, Fritz Thyssen (who bankrolled the Nazi rise to power), Klaus Barbie, and Franz Von Papen along with the heads of all of these NAZI countries : Leon Degrelle of Belgium, Emil Hacha of Bohemia–Moravia, Ante Pavelic of Croatia, Konrad Henlein of Sudetenland, Pierre Laval and then Henry Pétain of Vichy–France. and the R.C. priest, Msgr. Josef Tiso, of Slovakia?
          The most that Pope Pius XII managed to say publicly in the 11 years of the Third Reich were ambiguous pronouncements couched in diplomatic language that could mean whatever readers imagined that they meant.
          [ Source of stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Military_deaths_by_alliance.2C_theater.2C_year_-_absolute_numbers_.28millions.29 ]

  

  Inside the Nazi Camp on Long Island

  
  

  Next door to a Germans-only colony featuring streets named "Hitler" and "Goebbels" was a youth camp with swastikas on bunks and Hitler Youth short shorts.
  
          For 14 million American kids and adults, summertime means camp time. Over these next two months, each of more than 14,000 day camps and sleep away camps will initiate campers into their own particular, delightfully kooky, universes. The camps create 24/7 cocoons with their own lingo and songs, rituals, and codes, devoted to mastering computers or losing weight, to becoming better Zionists or learning golf, to recreating Native American traditions or designing software. Eight decades ago, during the 1930s, young German Americans attended Camp Siegfried. Their summer camp immersion entailed learning Nazi ideology, singing German folk songs, and wearing those creepy paramilitary Hitler Youth short-shorts. There they were, goose stepping and Heil Hitlering away, day and night, sleeping in bunks with swastikas emblazoned above the doorways. All this occurred a short walk from the intersection of Hitler Street and Goering Street, in Yaphank, New York, on Long Island, 60 miles from the Statue of Liberty.
  
          "Camp Siegfried" was among the pro-Nazi summer camps affiliated with the German-American Bund, the homegrown organization that by 1941 had 25,000 members. Camp Siegfried was located next to a bigger German colony in Yaphank. Restricted to German Americans, “German Gardens,” as the neighborhood was called, named streets after prominent Germans, which then included Hitler, Goering, Goebbels. The Long Island Railroad even ran an 8 a.m. “Camp Siegfried Special” to ferry visitors from Manhattan. Only in January this year did a federal court invalidate the housing restrictions written into the original contracts which survived the repudiation of many German-Americans’ pro-Hitler orientation.
  
          Considering Hitler’s monstrousness, it’s easy to condemn these Germans as moral pygmies. But Camp Siegfried and the Bund tell a subtler tale. The story begins with the pride uniting America’s largest ethnic group. The benign hybrid turns ugly with the bizarre cross breeding between Nazism and Americanism, including mixing the American summer camp’s carefree innocence with Hitlerian evil.
  
          In America as in Germany, few Nazis were born evil; their wickedness had to be nurtured step-by-step. Hitler cleverly hijacked neutral forces to advance his crimes. The German-American Bund sugarcoated Nazism’s coarseness with nostalgia for the German homeland. Founded in 1935 by the German American Settlement League, Camp Siegfried epitomizes this process. Its brochure promised: “You will meet people who think like you.”
  
          That search for affinities can be lovely, especially during confusing times like the Great Depression. A pre-war visitor could have been charmed by the Bratwurst and beer, the hunting and hiking, the American flag flying high above any German symbols. Seeking, as many Americans do, to reconcile their Old World ties with New World realities, the Siegfrieders – like most Bundists – celebrated George Washington’s patriotic leadership. But they overstretched, distorting who Washington was and what America is by deeming him “The First Fascist.”
  
          Here was the problem. In New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and other centers of Germanness, underlying the German folk movement’s sweet simplicity was the grotesquery of Hitler’s Aryan Volk and its pathological Jew hatred. Nazism turned positive nationalism negative; it was not just seeking a charming, usable German past, but building a menacing future cleansed of Jews, Bolsheviks, homosexuals, blacks, East Europeans – anyone who didn’t look or think “like you,” if you were a zealous German Aryan (or wannabe).
  
          Nazi Germany did not have a monopoly on racism, anti-Semitism, or white supremacy. The Great Depression’s economic earthquake triggered an age of rage, with Jews especially blamed from Left to Right, as populist demagogues like Father Charles Coughlin soothed the pain caused by American modern economic woes with ancestral hatreds. [sic] the Jews move in, the others move out. Would YOU rather have a Jew Colony at your town?” one Bund representative ranted. “Siegfried Colony has long been a eyesore to the lousy Jews and they will just do sabotage of this kind to discredit the Germans.”
          United States - MAY 05: Hedge topiary trimmed into the form of a swastika in Camp Siegfried, a Nazi camp on Long Island.
          John Drennan/NY Daily News Archive via Getty
  
          Fortunately, most Americans rejected totalitarianism and anti-Semitism. Franklin Roosevelt repudiated Adolf Hitler’s and Benito Mussolini’s fascism. Alas, for too many German Americans, it took Hitler’s declaration of war after his Japanese allies bombed Pearl Harbor to recognize Nazism’s evil and choose liberal democratic values over German loyalty. Some tarried longer, refusing to serve in the American army, even spying for the Nazi enemy. The authorities closed Camp Siegfried in 1941, seizing the land until the courts forced the return of this private property. Still, American placidity beat European perversity as Hitler Street eventually became Park Boulevard.
  
          Aware that tens of millions of Americans had German ancestry, Roosevelt highlighted German-American patriotism. Heroes like General Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral Chester Nimitz upstaged the story of America’s homegrown pro-Hitler Bundist fascists. Eisenhower ignored his heritage. He wrote his wife Mamie: “God, I hate the Germans.” He recalled that after touring a German concentration camp, “I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.” The McGill University psychoanalyst and political scientist Blema Steinberg observes that when condemning the German “beast,” Eisenhower made “no mention of his own German ancestry, which may have been too painful to acknowledge.”

  ---

  On December 28th, 1942, 50 leading German-Americans, including the Yankee legend, Babe Ruth, signed a full page advertisement that appeared in 10 newspapers including The New York Times denouncing Hitler’s “policy of cold-blooded extermination of the Jews of Europe and against the barbarities committed by the Nazis against all other innocent peoples under their sway.” The ad recognized “these horrors” as a particular “challenge to those who, like ourselves are descendants of the Germany that once stood in the foremost ranks of civilization.” The American signatories urged their European cousins “to overthrow a regime which is the infamy of German history.”

  

  ---

  The following is the Top left part of
  1941 page, showing so-called "editorial":

  

  The following is the Top left part of 1942 page:

  

  The following is the Top right part of 1942 page:

  

  Take it from Stephen;
  there is much more where
  this came from, at my
  website

  ---

  If ever you are moved to critique,
  support, or enlighten me,
  here's the way to do it :
  
  David@shame-on-the-Roman-Catholic-hierarchy.website