"The Daily Mail made one of its first campaigns against admitting Jewish refugees fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe. It supported Mosley’s fascist black shirts in the 1930s including the notorious headline ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’. It supported appeasement with Nazi Germany and its owner Lord Rothermere willingly met Hitler and openly expressed admiration for Mussolini.- from London Mayor Ken Livingstone, 22 February 2005.
In July 1933 Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, attacked in its pages the ‘clamorous campaign of denunciation’ being against the Nazi regime. He stated that under Hitler: ‘Something far more than a new government has arisen among the Germany. There has been a sudden expansion of their national spirit like that which took place in England under Queen Elizabeth’. He alleged that prior to Hitler coming to power: ‘Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administration.’ On 1 October 1938, after the Munich agreement, Lord Rothermere telegrammed Hitler ‘Frederick the Great was a great popular figure in England. May not Adolf the Great become an equally popular figure? I salute Your Excellency’s star which rises higher and higher.’ On 28 March 1938, when the anti-semitic policies of the Nazi government were well known, the Daily Mail wrote regarding Jews attempting to flee that regime: ‘To be ruled by misguided sentimentalism would be disastrous. Once it was known that Britain offered sanctuary to all who cared to come, the floodgates would be opened and we would be inundated by thousands seeking a home.’ At that time Jews could leave Nazi Germany and refusal to admit them directly cost the lives of thousands or tens of thousands of German Jews. A Daily Mail editorial in 1940, when Britain was at war with Germany, and Hitler’s anti-semitic regime had been in power for seven years, attempted to pin a moral responsibility for their treatment on the Jewish people themselves writing that ‘They should be careful not to arouse the same resentment here.’"
"Four days before the 1924 General Election Rothermere decided to publish what became known as the Zinoviev Letter [which] urged British communists to promote revolution through acts of sedition. The letter, later discovered to be a forgery, contributed to the defeat of Ramsay MacDonald and the Labour Government.Again:
Rothermere became increasingly nationalistic in his political views and in 1929 joined with Lord Beaverbrook to form the United Empire Party. Rothermere urged the Conservative Party to remove its leader, Stanley Baldwin, and replace him with Beaverbrook. He also argued for a reform of the House of Lords to make it possible for peers to be elected to the House of Commons. This dispute divided conservative voters and this enabled the Labour Party to win the 1929 General Election.
Lord Rothermere disposed of his shares in the Daily Mirror in 1931. He now concentrated on the Evening News and the Daily Mail. In the 1930s Rothermere moved further to the right and gave support to Oswald Mosley and the National Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, Hurrah for the Blackshirts, in January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".
Rothermere also had several meetings with Adolf Hitler and argued that the Nazi leader desired peace. In one article written in March, 1934 he called for Hitler to be given back land in Africa that had been taken as a result of the Versailles Treaty.
Rothermere and his newspapers supported Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement. He was therefore devastated when war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1939. Lord Rothermere died on 27th November, 1940. "
Adolf Hitler, letter to Lord Rothermere (7th December, 1933)Wrapping up with Red Ken again:
I should like to express the appreciation of countless Germans, who regard me as their spokesman, for the wise and beneficial public support which you have given to a policy that we all hope will contribute to the enduring pacification of Europe. Just as we are fanatically determined to defend ourselves against attack, so do we reject the idea of taking the initiative in bringing about a war. I am convinced that no one who fought in the front trenches during the world war, no matter in what European country, desires another conflict.
Lord Rothermere, telegram to Adolf Hitler 1st October, 1938)
My dear Fuhrer, everyone in England is profoundly moved by the bloodless solution to the Czechoslovakian problem. People not so much concerned with territorial readjustment as with dread of another war with its accompanying bloodbath. Frederick the Great was a great popular figure. I salute your Excellency’s star, which rises higher and higher."
"After the replacement of David English as editor of the Daily Mail on 10 July 1992 a party was held in the building of Associated Newspapers. Two accounts of this have been published. In An Unlikely Hero: Vere Rothermere and How the Daily Mail Was Saved, prepared in cooperation with the most senior managers of Associated Newspapers, the author states the following: ‘when David [English] retired as editor of the Daily Mail in order to take over as chairman of Associated Newspapers, he gave a party wherein he and all his editorial staff dressed up like Hitler and various members of the Third Reich. A memorable appearance of the newspaper’s drama critic Jack Tinker as Goebbels brought the house down.’ (An Unlikely Hero p171)The leopard never changes its spots, apparently. Looking forward to a defence of the glorious record of the Daily Mail (now with an "oirish" edition), if anyone should be so stupid courageous as to do so.
Associated Newspapers has disputed some aspects of this account stating that only five persons in Nazi military uniform were present and David English considered the spoof in ‘poor taste’. It does not state who the five were, whether they are still employed by Associated Newspapers, or dealt with the issue of whether Jack Tinker, who was extremely senior writer, made an imitation of Goebbels. What is clear even from Associated Newspaper’s own admissions is that people in Nazi military uniform were present at a party with the most senior management of Associated Newspapers, they were not asked to leave, no apology was made, and no action taken against them."
"A country run by a brutal military dictatorship that had seized power two years earlier and set about "disappearing" thousands of those who resisted it."Yet we are willing to wager that Mr. Fitzgerald would experience difficulty in summoning up similar outrage to what was happening in neighbouring Chile at that same moment. Oppressive military dictatorships in both, yet one made the error of threatening British interests and the other did not. Guess Saddam can sympathize.
"But, more generally, there's no qualification or particular expertise or license one obtains to get to talk about politics on stage, on cable, on the radio, or on the internets. In outlets with barriers like TV and radio, some people magically enter the "pundit club" through various channels. Some people earn their key to face time by being on enough rolodexes. Some people are actually experts in some stuff. But, for a long time punditry has consisted of people who don't necessarily know what the hell they're talking about posing as experts in just about everything. That's not necessarily as bad as it sounds, but it's made better if we strip away the pretense that everyone invited to talk about stuff on the TeeVee is actually an expert."Specifically in an Irish context, one can readily think of certain pundits whose presence on the airwaves or in print in a serious media publication is inexplicable. Why, exactly, should a PR liar professional be allowed hawk his or her services in the guise of providing commentary on political issues of which she has clearly no expertise whatsoever, other than obfuscation and spinning? Why is there still any pretence that the audience on Questions & Answers isn't stuffed with activists and that questions aren't pre-vetted? And on a tangent, just how did members of the Stalinist Worker's Party get away for so long (and are still in situ in some cases) in infiltrating the national media? And why do the numerous Catholic conservative activists in the media go relatively unremarked?
"Msgr Faul first rose to prominence when he marched with the Civil Rights movement in 1968, which was demanding equality for Catholics in the North.
He was criticised by then Primate of Ireland, Cardinal Conway after attracting attention with a pamphlet in 1969 which said the unionist-appointed judiciary "perhaps actively promoted systematic discrimination against the Catholic minority."
He also protested against human rights abuses by the British army and Royal Ulster Constabulary in the 1970s and was also outspoken about republican and loyalist paramilitary violence.
Msgr Denis Faul intervened in the republican H-Block hunger strikes 25 years ago in a bid to save the lives of some of the 10 men who died in the Maze Prison.
He also campaigned for the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four who had been wrongly imprisoned in Britain for the bomb attacks before their cases became high-profile."
"The issue of America's involvement in the crisis is a crucial one. Certain Americans, of course, such as Casper Weinberger, the US Defence Secretary, were splendid from the outset.And that's not all:
But the State Department, at this time, was dominated by Latinos who saw President Reagan's Latin American policy going down the drain. Jeane Kirkpatrick, the American Ambassador to the UN, had even dined with the Argentines on the evening that they invaded British territory.
It took weeks of determined diplomacy by Sir Nicholas Henderson, our ambassador in Washington, before the White House was prepared to declare itself on the side of the British. Moreover, it did so, I suspect, only because Congress and American public opinion had come down heavily on our side. By doing so, it destroyed the support of the South American dictators for Reagan's anti-communist crusade in Central America.
As the Falklands conflict developed, America stopped arms sales to Argentina, but was unwilling to take more effective economic measures. Nicholas Henderson reported that the Americans were not prepared to "tilt" too heavily against Argentina; to do so, they said, would deprive them of their influence in Buenos Aires.
They did not want the Argentine dictator General Leopoldi Galtieri to fall - whereas we saw him as an outright fascist and aggressor. For the Americans, he was a central pillar of resistance to communism in South and Central America - and all the efforts of Reagan and the State Department were concentrated on the crisis in El Salvador.
The United States, it seemed, did not wish to choose between Britain and their interests in Latin America. Indeed, apart from Weinberger and the Pentagon, the Americans were very, very far from being on our side.
If Washington had been in the hands of the East Coast Wasps (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) instead of the West Coast Americans, with their overriding concern for the Americas, things might have been different.
But the State Department, the White House security staff and the president himself were, privately, never wholly committed to our cause. For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes, I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was.
So, the Americans gave every assistance to the United Nations and every other mediator - Brazilian, Mexican and the rest - to bring about a negotiated settlement, on terms which would have been seen as a surrender in the United Kingdom. Then, in the closing stages of the conflict, when we had already lost many ships and men, they leant heavily on us - aided by telephone calls from Reagan to Thatcher - to find some way of saving Galtieri's face. "Magnanimity before victory" became their watch-phrase."
"In many ways, Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies. They had supplied the Argentines with Mirage and Super Etendard aircraft in the earlier years; but, as soon as the conflict began, Mitterrand's defence minister got in touch with me to make some of these available so that our Harrier pilots could train against them before setting off for the South Atlantic. The French also supplied us with detailed technical information on the Exocet, showing us how to tamper with the missiles.Shouldn't a political scientist (and endless self-promoter as a commentator on politics) really be expected to know these things?
It was a remarkably successful operation. In spite of strenuous efforts by several countries - particularly Israel and South Africa - to help Argentina, we succeeded in intercepting and preventing the supply of further equipment to the Argentines, who were desperately seeking resupply."
"Michael Jansen's Bad ReportingFirst off, "assassination" is the accepted description of the targeted killing of a specific individual; which is exactly what happened to the late unlamented Zarqawi (and, advice to Mr. Waghorne: "strike" is a term which gives away the user's knowledge of military matters as coming entirely off American cable news). Dickie can look it up in the dictionary (if he so wants), where he will discover that no such pejorative meaning (as he rests his case on) hangs on the word.
From Iraq, as the good news broke:
Joy filled Baghdad's hot streets, as gun shots sounded through the air, and cars packed with overjoyed Iraqi's roamed the streets. Iraqis were sharing sweets with people outside their homes. Civil organizations paraded as they condemned violence chanting "death to Zarqawi and Saddamites." Thursday's celebrations could be compared to the jubilation in Baghdad's streets the day Saddam Hussein was captured.
Michael Jansen of the Irish Times seems less enthused. Writing the day after Zarqawi overdue demise, at a time when the news was being universally hailed in the English speaking mainstream as a significant success, Jansen ran with the absurdly pessimistic headline "Fears killing may lead to retaliatory attacks". After duly flagging the fact that not even the killing of al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq would squeeze a positive headline out of his column, Jansen choose to prejoratively describe Zarqawi's demise as an 'assassination', as if there had been something illegal or immoral about the overdue killing of that terrorist butcher."
"Nor is Jansen much better on facts. He writes:The BBC:
"Buoyed by the elimination of Zarqawi, Iraq's parliament confirmed the nominees of Mr Maliki to three key posts which were not filled when he presented his cabinet three weeks ago"
but as most will know, the posts were filled before Zarqawi was killed, not afterwards."
"Shortly after the Zarqawi announcement, the Iraqi parliament approved Mr Maliki's nominees for the key posts of defence and interior ministers.Need we add more?
The two crucial roles had remained unfilled despite the formation of a coalition government last month. "
"Jansen concludes, calling the killing "a politico-military and propaganda coup". That he cannot, in a thousand word article, bring himself to join the chorus of relief and approval is genuinely revealing. Jansen's factually wrong and politically charged reporting is only intelligible as the output of a man who genuinely regards the beheadings and bombings in Iraq as the work of a home-grown, quasi-legitimate resistance against foreign occupation, one worthy of some sympathy.A real journalist simply reports the facts, ma'am. That Dickie doesn't accept that the press shouldn't be Pravda-like (or indeed Fox News-like) in reporting - well, state propaganda - says a lot about this neo-Magill and Oirish Daily Mail 'contributor'. And the characteristic sneering reference to al-Jazeera - the only serious independent media in the Arab world, mind you - speaks volumes too.
Jansen has not, in any of his many pieces for the Irish Times, once reported that the UN mandate for the coalition troops is worth supporting. Nor has he once argued that Iraq's democratic government is the true and legitimate voice of that nation. He has yet to call for the unequivocal suppression of the terrorism in that country. He is, in short, an apologist of the al-Qaida/Ba'athist insurgency in that country. That the Irish Times continue to print his chronically unreliable and political unacceptable pieces is a stain on the paper's reputation. If he had any integrity he'd apply to al-Jazeera where he belongs."
"AdvisoryFree Stater will be eternally grateful to any person who can forward (to the usual address here) the actual contents of one of these alleged hoax emails. Confidentiality will be assured!
It's been brought to my attention that some wise guy is signing up email accounts with names similar to mine and purporting to send emails from me to various people. These hoaxes are sufficiently artless that I don't believe any damage could have been done, but I'm putting the word about that people should take a moment to check the address of emails in my name. If it's not from my usual gmail account, it's not from me."
"Never mind that the US is there under a UN mandate, or at the express request of Iraqi leaders, or with the support of the Iraqi people as repeatedly voiced to pollsters"30th May 2006:
"The US is a good friend to Ireland, fighting in Iraq with a UN mandate and at the request of the democratically elected government there."i) The US didn't invade Iraq under "UN mandate", as political science research assistant Richard presumably knows to be the case;
Even if the US did succeed in bringing Hamas down, it would, like the overthrow of Saddam, be a catastrophic kind of success . . .The overthrow of Saddam was catastrophic. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it.
"[The invasion of Iraq] is fascinating. This is just fascinating. From the very beginning, we were convinced that we would succeed, and that means that that regime would end. And we were convinced that as we went from the end of that regime to something other than that regime, there would be a period of transition. And, you cannot do everything instantaneously; it's never been done, everything instantaneously. We did, however, recognize that there was at least a chance of catastrophic success, if you will, to reverse the phrase, that you could in a given place or places have a victory that occurred well before reasonable people might have expected it, and that we needed to be ready for that; we needed to be ready with medicine, with food, with water. And, we have been."US President George W. Bush, August 2004:
"Bush, in an interview with Time magazine, suggested he still would have gone into Iraq, but with different tactics had he known "that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."Did Bill not get the memo?
He called the swift military offensive that led to the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 "a catastrophic success" even though fighting continues despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government."
"Attack blog"-Damien Mulley
An early-thirties male Irish technologist living and working in Dublin, I'm a former (recovering) member of both Fianna Fáil and the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm not a member of any political party these days, but my opinions can be broadly categorised as 'lefty' and republican. I am also a former member of the Irish Defence Forces.
(This blog and its contents reflect only my own personal opinions as a private citizen, and not those of any other person or organisation.)