In the 1930’s Hitler and Nazism were rising in power in Germany. As the evil of their intentions became reality on the ground, nearly every leader in Europe completely denied the evil in front of their eyes. The drive to think only good thoughts about Hitler and appease him in every way saturated the speech and reports of political and religious leaders, the universities and the press. Not even the invasion of bordering states could disprove the “Hitler is a reasonable man” point of view held by the establishment. Appeasement would make him like them and be reasonable. Peace at all costs was the moral motto.
Since they would not strike while Hitler was weak, the Europeans had to deal with the Nazis when they came to full fighting strength, and it took massive costs of treasure and blood to deal with the problem. The establishment’s peace by appeasement brought great evil.
The parallels between the establishment’s denial about the Nazis then and their leadership about Islam today are frightening. We see that denial of facts in the face of fear is a human trait.
All of these quotes come from William Manchester’s biography William Spencer Churchill Alone.
British leaders would not even believe the intelligence gathered by their own members:
the British government took the remarkable position that the detailed reports from two of its most eminent ambassadors, describing conditions in the Third Reich, were based on misunderstandings, distortions, and unconfirmed rumors.
… [the prime minister] assured Germany’s ambassador to Britain, Leopold von Hosch, that he knew there were no atrocities, no beatings, no desecration of synagogues–that everything England’s own envoys had reported was, in short, a lie.
… [the prime minister’s] silence, his refusal to see, hear, and speak no evil of the Nazi chancellor was characteristic of the response among England’s ruling classes.( Pg 103 )
Hitler was to never be offended:
The real problem was that the most powerful and influential men in Britain were determined not to offend Hitler.( pg 125)
The establishment made love and peace the religion of the state:
Appeasement became evangelical; indeed, for some the line between foreign policy and religion became blurred. [Leadership] denounced Vansittart’s hostility toward the Nazis; Baldwin commented: “I’ve always said you [Vansittart] were a Christian.” “Rage”, wrote Margot Asquith, the widow of the prime minister, “should be met with Christian love. There is only one way of preserving Peace in the world, and getting rid of your enemy, and that is to come to some sort of agreement with him–and the viler he is, the more you must fight him with the opposite weapons than his.” She concluded: “The greatest enemy of mankind today is Hate.” (Pg 101)
The Folly of Truth
Books and facts were never allowed to penetrate the shield of peace at all costs:
Over the holidays he [Prime Minister Chamberlain] read Stephen Roberts’s The House That Hitler Built, a powerful indictment of National Socialism by an eminent Australian scholar, but he wrote his sister Ida: “If I accepted the author’s conclusions I should despair, but I don’t and won’t. pg. 243
What leader of today has read the Koran or the Sunna? Not one leader (except Churchill) in the establishment ever read Mein Kampf:
the appeasers seemed wholly unaware of Hitler’s great design, blueprinted in Mein Kampf and now emerging as an alarming reality. Pg. 242
The press and the BBC radio censored all bad news about the Nazis. They also never connected any dots. Any event that did sneak through the reporting was never part of a pattern of behavior:
Ebbutt’s [British reporter] editors read his stories; they knew what was happening in the Third Reich, though their readers often did not; his dispatches were frequently rewritten or suppressed by Dawson [Times editor], who, after five years of jumping through Hitler’s hoops, merely wondered at the man’s ingratitude. He wrote H. G. Daniels, his Geneva correspondent: “I do my utmost, night after night, to keep out of the paper anything that might hurt their [Nazi] susceptibilities. I can really think of nothing that has been printed now for many months past to which they could possibly take exception as unfair comment.” Pg 144
The establishment was to not to ever make evil specific to the Nazis:
[Leadership told] Tory MPs that if they felt they must deplore totalitarianism and aggression, they must not name names. It was important, he said, to avoid “the danger of referring directly to Germany at a time when we are trying to get on terms with a country. Fleet Street [the British press] cheered. So did Britain. These were men of peace. Pg. 238
The press had a policy of not reporting evil about the Nazis:
Dispossessed by the Nazis, they [Jews] wandered the roads of eastern Europe. Photographs of their ordeal were profoundly moving, but Dawson [editor of London Times] refused to run any of them in The Times; he couldn’t help the victims, he explained to his staff, and if they were published Hitler would be offended. Pg. 399.
The persecution of the Church in Germany did not bother the virtuous Establishment religious leaders and the press. They would cover it up and make excuses:
There was “no persecution of religion in Germany,” said Bishop Headlam, merely “persecution of political action.” Geoffrey Dawson [newspaper editor] published the bishop’s sermons in full while consigning dispatches from his own Berlin correspondent, describing the imprisonment of German clergymen, to the wastebasket. Pg. 311
Notice any parallels? Just exchange Hitler with Mohammed, Mein Kampf with Koran, and on and on. History repeats itself. Our current ignorant and fearful political, religious, media and university leaders have a historical pedigree.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com