Obama’s role model to journalists — Dorothy Thompson — turned against Zionism and was silenced

US Politics
on 170 Comments

Many readers will find President Obama’s toast to the press at the end of Saturday night’s White House Correspondents Association dinner encouraging. He reminded journalists of their actual mission:

“In the words of the American foreign correspondent Dorothy Thompson: ‘It is not the fact of liberty but the way in which liberty is exercised that ultimately determines whether liberty itself survives.’”

There’s a supreme irony in Obama quoting Thompson, whose truly stellar career ended in charges of antisemitism from Zionists, to a crowd of journalists who quake in fear of having their careers destroyed by Israel supporters who more recently smeared Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, and Jim Clancy for off-hand, ill-conceived remarks.

 

Thompson’s long life and career was documented in her biography, American Cassandra, by Peter Kurth. She was born in 1893, the daughter of an impoverished Methodist preacher.  After graduating from Syracuse University, she became a major player in New York’s suffrage movement as an organizer and speaker.  In 1920, Thompson went to Europe with a friend to pursue her journalism career.  The ship was filled with Zionists heading to a conference in London and during the 12-day voyage she learned everything she could about Zionism, becoming a strong advocate for their cause.

In London, she convinced a paper to allow her to cover the Zionist conference as a free-lance journalist and later covered the Irish Rebellion.  The popularity of her articles in the US led to further positions. By 1925, she was head of the Berlin bureau for the New York Post.  She married author Sinclair Lewis in 1928.  She exposed and criticized the Nazis early on, and, in 1930, was one of the first journalists to interview Adolph Hitler.  She predicted the Germans would start a new war by the end of that decade.  In 1934, her aggressive anti-Nazi reporting caused Hitler to expel her from Germany. 

Thompson returned home a national hero, her story on the cover of newspapers and magazines throughout the country.  Her fame increased as she became a syndicated national columnist and radio commentator for NBC.  By 1936, she was writing a political column for the New York Herald Tribune and was considered the leading voice in the war against fascism.  By 1939, she was on the cover of Time magazine.  A movie about her life stared Katharine Hepburn and a play stared Lauren Bacall.  She was named the second most popular and influential woman in America behind Eleanor Roosevelt.  She spoke out about anti-Semitism and the plight of the Jews in Europe, and urged a relaxation of immigration restrictions so the US could be a safe haven for the Jews under threat in Europe.

In the summer of 1941, she went to London to report on the Blitz and met with the Queen and with Prime Minister Winston Churchill.  She fought against isolationism and urged the president to declare war on Germany.  In 1942, at a Zionist convention at the Biltmore hotel, she was the keynote speaker and gave a rousing pro-Zionist speech advocating unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine.  By the end of the war, she was considered one of Zionism’s most effective spokesmen. 

All that changed early in 1945 after a fact-finding trip to Palestine.  Up until 1945, her anti-Nazi and pro-Zionist credentials were impeccable. What she saw in Palestine totally changed her outlook.  She began to write that the proposed establishment of the State of Israel was a formula for disaster, “a recipe for perpetual war” in the Middle East.  During her 1945 trip, she discovered that Zionism was not “the liberal crusade that the Zionist leaders envisaged”, and that Israel was to be “not a small state of Jews who chose to live in Israel, but a Zionist state destined to become the leading power in the Middle East.” 

Her anti-Zionist statements and reporting began losing her the support of American Zionists. Her boss at the New York Post dropped her “On the Record” column at the beginning of 1947.  He was a strong supporter of Zionism and very close to the Irgunists and Menachem Begin, the leader of this Jewish terrorist group.  Thompson had told him, after her trip to Palestine, that “…the situation there is not the way it has been presented by many of the Zionists.  It is one of the most complicated and difficult problems on the earth today.”

Despite the loss of this important column, she continued her criticism of Zionist actions in Palestine. She concluded, after the 1948 war, that Zionism was “an aggressive, chauvinist movement” and that the new State of Israel was “an expansionist power.” She was angered by Jewish terrorism in Israel and appalled by Menachem Begin and the Irgun being treated as heroes in New York City.  She was the first and only American journalist to speak out in defense of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab nations, and was also the first and most prominent American journalist to be smeared with the label of “anti-Semite”.

Still, she wouldn’t back down. In a 1949 column, she detailed the problems caused by Israel’s aggression toward the Palestinian Arabs and urged the UN to establish specific borders for the State of Israel. Her 1949 speech before the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism resonates today:

Miss Thompson expressed alarm at the way, she said, American Jews are being indoctrinated by Zionist propaganda, “with the idea that they exist in this country–as everywhere outside of Israel–on dubious sufferance and that whatever happened in Germany could happen here any minute.” She denied that there was any analogy between the outbreak of Nazism in Germany and the danger in this country. In addition to this fear, the speaker said, “there is another tendency equally dangerous as it affects non-Jews, and that is to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.”

Thompson addressed the group again in 1951, and her comments against the special relationship and about Palestinian discrimination were reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:

Miss Thompson went on to say that the state of Israel and its relations with the Arab countries “is contributing to an international problem in which Americans as a whole are concerned.” She asserted that peace between the Arab states and Israel was possible “only if the U.S. ceases to treat one state in the Middle East as its particular protection and pet, and adopts more detachment and equality of treatment, and until the displaced Arabs are properly compensated for their losses.”…[She charged] “that discrimination was practiced against the Arab minority population in Israel, Miss Thomson said: “Despite all the claims of the Zionists, the minuscule Arab population, who represent not more than 15 percent of the original indigenous Arab inhabitants, live as second-rate citizens, with serious restrictions on their rights. The fact that Arabs can sit in the Knesset does not give them equal rights as citizens with Jews. And it is these statutes which are responsible for a flow of Arab refugees from Palestine that has never stopped to this day.”

In a long and thoughtful 1950 article published in the Jewish magazine Commentary, Thompson warned American Jews of the dangers of dual loyalty and of “the terrorism of criticism”.

“…there is another tendency equally dangerous as it affects non-Jews, and that is to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This really amounts to making anti-Semites, by appointment, of everybody who either does not believe in Zionism or criticizes any phase of Zionist and Israeli policy.”

As Thompson began to increase her criticism of Zionist policies, she was shunned by the Jewish community and by many of her life-long Jewish friends who had “turned on her in a gathering tempest of resentment.”  Rumors were circulated that she was an alcoholic, and that her husband had been a Nazi sympathizer or even a former member of the Nazi general staff.  The Washington Star, which published her “On the Record” columns, censored and refused to publish any more of her columns on Zionism.

Thompson wrote in 1950, “The Zionists would like us to believe that there is no such thing as an Arab”, and that “They have also adapted the attitude that the State of Israel, unlike every other state on earth, is sacrosanct, and outside any criticism whatsoever.”  She called Israel, “the 49th state of the Union”, and “the only nation in history to have been canonized at birth.”

Thompson’s editors warned her that in the American press a hostility toward Israel was “almost a definition of professional suicide.”  Nonetheless, she would not be intimidated and said, “I refuse to become an anti-Semite by appointment”, and refused “to yield to this type of blackmail.” The campaign against her strengthened and she began to be dropped from other papers.  Her once-lucrative speaking career began to dry up because of the organized campaign to label her as an anti-Semite, a label that stuck for the rest of her career.  

Dorothy Thompson’s is truly a remarkable story.  Her apex was probably 1948 when Claire Booth Luce and others wanted her to run for president.  She’d been one of Zionism’s most famous and influential spokesmen.  Her defection, in 1949, created great anger in the Jewish/Zionist communities, and in few short years her career was in tatters and her influence largely gone. Today, Dorothy Thompson is virtually unknown and unremembered.  This fascinating woman who deserves to be an icon of the feminist movement, is rarely, if ever, mentioned as an important female historical figure.

I suspect there were very few members of the press at the White House Press dinner Saturday night who have any inclination toward investigating and reporting the plight of the Palestinians, or the pernicious influence of right wing Jewish billionaires on American foreign policy, and now American presidential candidates. President Obama’s gratuitous praise of the American press, at least the television version, was largely undeserved.  Many are little more than talking heads on “news” networks that offer mostly infotainment and shameless touting of marginal news stories accompanied by frequent and breathless claims of more “breaking news”.   The entire bunch couldn’t fill Dorothy Thompson’s left shoe.  To suggest that our TV press is focused on preserving our liberty is ludicrous when ratings and advertising revenue are the obvious focus. 

One can only wonder why President Obama praised our press corps using a true icon of journalism as an example.  Was he trying, indirectly, to make a point, to remind them of a journalistic icon of the past in the hope they would recapture their own courage and return to true investigative journalism?  I’d like to think so. 

Dorothy Thompson was the first to pay the price of standing up and reporting the excesses of Zionism.  If America’s journalists truly want liberty to survive, they need to exercise that liberty by practicing their craft with the courage and determination of Dorothy Thompson whose incredible story will be told in the soon-to-be-released documentary, “The Silencing of Dorothy Thompson”.

About Gil Maguire

Gil Maguire is a retired civil rights attorney and writer of both fiction and non-fiction. He lives in Oxnard. His blog, Irish Moses, is named in honor of his father, Robert F. Maguire, who was awarded the Medal of Valor by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in 2004 for “his heroic efforts that helped to rescue tens of thousands of Jews” during 1948-49 after the founding of the State of Israel.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

170 Responses

  1. Donald
    April 28, 2015, 10:28 am

    Fascinating. I never heard of her. I saw the Hepburn movie “Woman of the Year”, but didn’t know it was based on a real person.

    • Jupiter
      May 3, 2015, 11:43 pm

      Be careful of whom you lionize. Ms. Thompson was a person of her time, meaning that she could not escape the racism or Jew baiting of the time more so than anyone else. From a recent article:

      Thompson’s case is more complicated. Once Hitler proved himself a man of great consequence, she energetically campaigned against the Nazi regime to an often-indifferent American audience. She raised money on behalf of Herschel Grynszpan, the young Jewish Pole who assassinated Ernst vom Rath in 1938. (This was the murder that precipitated Kristallnacht.) The Germans “are holding every Jew in Germany as a hostage,” Dorothy warned her radio listeners. “Therefore, we who are not Jews must speak out.” But after the war, and especially with the founding of Israel, she turned rancorous. “Jews ruthless[ly] exploit you when they can,” she wrote in 1950, “and especially exploit your feelings of sympathy and charity, and kick you all the harder in the teeth if you cease to be of use to them.” In 1953, she shared her insights with Winston Churchill: the Jews, she wrote, were “collectively the stupidest people on earth. I think it must come from cultural inbreeding—perhaps physical inbreeding also.”

      Thompson spent a lot of energy and political capital organizing against the nascent Jewish state: “She saw the Jews of Israel not only as power-seeking imperialists, but as international agitators who conspired to create a perfidious fifth column in America and Europe.” In 1951, she co-founded an anti-Zionist organization called American Friends of the Middle East, which was partly funded by the Saudis and assumed a friendly stance toward Arab dictators, leading Eleanor Roosevelt to denounce Thompson at the United Nations. Hertog sums up Dorothy’s views: “The Jews were, in effect, the Middle Eastern Nazis”—though Thompson insisted that criticism of Israel was, in her own words, “not anti-Semitic.” Perhaps it is unsurprising that Dorothy was an equal-opportunity bigot, believing, Hertog writes, in “categorical immutable differences between Negroes and whites.” In a speech in 1958, Thompson issued the stirring cry, “I defy anyone to name one single distinguished American Negro!”

      http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/dangerous-ambition-dorothy-thompson-rebecca-west-susan-hertog

      Far from being silenced, Ms. Thompson retired in 1958 after her husband’s death. She was a very successful journalist from beginning to end. Perhaps she was persecuted in the sense that William Fullbright, the longest serving chief of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was persecuted.

      Anyone who could support the slave state known as Saudi Arabia, which had about 20% of its citizens as slaves in the 1950’s, is not exactly a friend of human rights.

      • irishmoses
        May 4, 2015, 8:08 pm

        Jupiter said: “But after the war, and especially with the founding of Israel, she turned rancorous.”
        Since DT had been an ardent public supporter of Zionism up until the end of the war, please have the decency to provide some of the reasons for her rancor against the nascent Jewish state, like ethnic cleansing, terrorism, etc. If you disagree with her criticisms of actions by the Jewish state, please tell us why her criticisms were wrong.

        Please provide evidence/cites in support of your allegation that AFME “was partly funded by the Saudis”. Peter Kurth, her biographer said (p. 428) AFME “took no Arab subsidy and had no Arab members on its board.”

        You say, “Thompson insisted that criticism of Israel was, in her own words, “not anti-Semitic.””. Are you saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Please explain why, if you do believe that.

        Please provide cites in supportf of your claim that DT supported slavery or justified slavery in Saudi Arabia. Neither the Kurth or Hertog book mention this, and between the two, there is only one tangential reference to Saudi Arabia.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 12:53 am

        A credible source that AFME was financially supported by the slave power known as Saudi Arabia. “Dangerous Ambitions” by Susan Hertog, p 381.
        To remedy that ignorance, Dorothy went on a three-month tour to Athens, Jerusalem, and Tangier in the fall. On her return, she received a letter from Jack Wheeler, editor of Bell Syndicate. In a letter dated December 22, 1956, Jack gave Dorothy a straightforward ultimatum. She must resign from AFME and make up her mind if she “is a newspaper woman or a propagandist for the Arabs!” She resigned from the AFME. She angrily wrote to a colleague at the American- and Saudi-funded organization that she was apparently to report the facts only provided they don’t step on Israeli, Zionist, British or French toes.… I had a three hour talk with Nasser. I’ve reported it in five columns straight with comments to follow. I suppose they will call that scoop propaganda. They wouldn’t if I had bagged an interview with Khrushchev.… The Canal crisis, insofar as it involves Britain and France will, I feel confidant, straighten out. Not Israel so easily. Israel wants war .

        Saudi Arabis would not free slaves until 1967. A journalist who takes money from a slave power differs not in the slightest from a politician who takes money from the mob. Both serve evil masters. Thus, Ms. Thompson was a supporter of slavery. In fact, she eventually became an exceedingly foul anti-Black racist. From Hertog, p 386

        By the turn of the year, with the weight of the past off her chest, and her loyalty pledged to God and country, Dorothy felt she no longer had anything to lose. In an address to an anthropological organization about anti-Semitism, racism, integration, and white superiority, she presented both sides of the anthropological research on the future of Negroes. She came down on the side of those who saw categorical immutable differences between Negroes and whites, noting, “ The rate of syphilis, illegitimacy, [and] crimes created in sexual passion is higher among negroes than any other part of the American population. I defy anyone to name one single distinguished American Negro!” Once fastidious about statistics and history, she had succumbed to distorting them to suit her vision.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 3:01 pm

        Mr. Maguire, you write:
        Please also tell us why belonging to the America First organization is worthy of your derision, particularly in view of the fact that its membership included many notable Americans who fought bravely during the war, such as Gerald Ford, JFK (who donated $100 and sent them a nice letter), and others.
        Assume a list of individuals, organizations, animals, etc, is denoted a, b, c, d, e, f, g, . . .z & sets of characteristics (1,2,3), (45,13,2,9,10), (45), etc. Set A may then be designated:
        A = {a(1,2,3), b(45,13,2,9,10), c(45), d(68,2,99), e((1,5,3), f (45,13,5,9,10), g(68,5). . .z(45) }
        Mentioning set A & then simply lists a few elements implies the common characteristics of the mentioned elements applies to A as a whole, barring a limiting statement. When speaker X mentions A & lists a, b, d, speaker X implies characteristic 2 applies to A as a whole, barring some statement such as “I’m not saying anything about the entire set.”
        You list from the set America First the elements Gerald Ford & JFK, implying that America First is presidential, perhaps even heroic. If follows, as surely as night does day, that you, Mr. Maguire are positively characterizing America First, perhaps even lionizing it.
        Every member of America First bears the characteristic “morally reprehensible while a member”. This is so because the delay of entry into WWII, such as was done by President Hoover as respects the Manchurian incident, inflated the violent deaths beyond belief, given that whacking Japan would have cost minimal lives, instead of the hundreds of thousands in the Pacific theater. Similarly, the failure to whack Nazi Germany after the Rheinland militarization resulted in the growth of military power of Nazi Germany, such that, whereas crushing the thugs, according to a Nazi German general, at the Rheinland would have crushed the pigs with certainty, tens of millions of violently disrupted corpses were produce by persistent delay. Hence, JFK & Gerald Ford acted in a morally reprehensible manner when they were members of America First.

        You say the reference to Saudi Arabia is tangential. The reader will read the statement & realize the writer is saying, in part, that the organization bore funding from Saudi Arabia. Counter by listing the donors.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 4:35 pm

        Jupiter said:
        “You list from the set America First the elements Gerald Ford & JFK, implying that America First is presidential, perhaps even heroic. If follows, as surely as night does day, that you, Mr. Maguire are positively characterizing America First, perhaps even lionizing it. Every member of America First bears the characteristic “morally reprehensible while a member”. This is so because the delay of entry into WWII, such as was done by President Hoover as respects the Manchurian incident, inflated the violent deaths beyond belief, given that whacking Japan would have cost minimal lives, instead of the hundreds of thousands in the Pacific theater. Similarly, the failure to whack Nazi Germany after the Rheinland militarization resulted in the growth of military power of Nazi Germany, such that, whereas crushing the thugs, according to a Nazi German general, at the Rheinland would have crushed the pigs with certainty, tens of millions of violently disrupted corpses were produce by persistent delay. Hence, JFK & Gerald Ford acted in a morally reprehensible manner when they were members of America First.”

        I don’t know where to start in replying to your latest drivil and I don’t even know why I’m trying. You seem to feel you are entitled to play monday morning quarterback with history and then make moral judgments about decisions leaders and citizens made, in good faith, without knowing with any certainty what the future would bring. You are also big on drawing entirely unwarranted and nefarious implications from statements or questions directed at you, such as I was lionizing America First, or that all members of that organization were “morally reprehensible while members” because they didn’t have the same knowledge about the future as you now have, 75 years later.

        Scurrilous, despicable, embarrassing? I’ve run out of adjectives.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 3:35 pm

        You were asked to list any objection to Archbishop Muench’s one world in charity. You now say you are completely ignorant, which is reasonable. The relevance will become obvious. Here is what the diocese says about One World In Charity. His Lenten Pastoral Letter of 1946, “One World in Charity” (PDF) was translated into German and read throughout Germany. In it he argued that German citizens should not be considered collectively guilty of the crimes of the Nazis, and contrary to the position of some in the United States government, pled that they be treated humanely. Later that same year he was appointed Apostolic Visitator to post-war Germany.
        http://www.fargodiocese.org/muenchbio

        That, of course, is assuredly part of what Mr. Karch says justified Ms. Thompson’s post war stance. This horrific work was penned by the highest ranking US Catholic clergyman to Germany during the occupation, as well as one of the highest ranking Vatican clerics in Germany during the occupation. It was given as separate sermons during the five holiest Sundays of the year, right when the Nuremberg trials occurred.

        Here are its first paragraphs:

        For the first time in the history of Christian nations, powerful governments are making the
        exercise of Christian charity impossible through official regulations. We are practically told that it is wrong to love our enemy and to do good to those who have done us evil. Christian charity is not permitted to play the role of the good Samaritan. Food rations to the enemy are measured out according to a “disease and unrest” formula, carefully determined by
        calories, and not in accordance with weights and measures of Christian charity. Horrible stories of starvation, disease, and death are still coming to us from European and Asiatic lands. The savagery that the war excited in the hearts of men is incredible. Once more is verified the saying of the ancients: “Homo homini lupus — Man is a wolf to his fellowman.”
        We can no longer be silent. If we Christians do not raise our voices in behalf of mercy, compassion, and charity, will the pagans in our midst do so? In these hate-laden times we must dare to be brave, and fearlessly voice our convictions, lest fear become “the parent of cruelty.” No longer can we allow ourselves to be afraid of our virtues. Kindness and generosity must step forward boldly and claim their right to be heard, indeed claim their right, in the name of the charity of Christ, to do their deeds of mercy toward everyone in need, be he friend or foe. In a pointed and pithy phrase Mr. Churchill told England’s citizens some months ago that they must put aside the “craven fear of being great.” That admonition needs also to be addressed to us.

        ________

        The absolute monster. Instead of calling for justice to be meted out to mass murderers, it declaims, just as Ms. Thompson did, unChristian cruelty towards Germans. Note the reference to “charity” listed; in Catholic liturgy before Vatican II, it meant, not alms to the less fortunate, but the love of Christ, originally meaning, & here implied, in opposition to the love proclaimed by Judaism. One loved Christ by opposing his enemies the Jews. No mention of either Jewish or Roma mass murders here or anywhere else in the document. At the end of her life, Ms. Thompson also proclaimed a similar love of Almighty God, accompanied, to be sure, by notions of the inferiority of Black skin.

        Now then, do you agree with the above or disagree with it?

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 6:44 pm

        Jupiter,
        I’m not going to comment on partial quotes from you sprinkled with interpretations by you of somehow who I’m unfamiliar with and can see little if any relevance to DT.

        There also seems to be a decidedly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian element in your argument that is causing me some concern. e.g. “Note the reference to “charity” listed; in Catholic liturgy before Vatican II, it meant, not alms to the less fortunate, but the love of Christ, originally meaning, & here implied, in opposition to the love proclaimed by Judaism. One loved Christ by opposing his enemies the Jews.” You seem to be suggesting that Christians’ love of Christ is antisemitic and based on Jew hatred.

        In any case, as I said earlier, DT favored and advocated a non-revenge based rehabilitation of Germany and Germans rather than duplicating the vindictive/punitive methods used by the Allies after World War I which many scholars believe provided the circumstances that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to come to power. Judging from the results of the US policy of rehabilitation, in both Germany and Japan, DT’s view seems to have stood the test of time.

        Since you don’t agree with the US policy toward Germany after WWII, what should the US have done?

      • Keith
        May 5, 2015, 6:47 pm

        IRISHMOSES- “Scurrilous, despicable, embarrassing? I’ve run out of adjectives.”

        Gil, I stumbled upon your exchange with Jupiter belatedly. As the author of the post I assume that you felt the need to respond to his irrational comments. You have my sympathy. Has Mondoweiss abandoned moderation? How many demented ravings exceed the limit?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 5, 2015, 7:52 pm

        She angrily wrote to a colleague at the American- and Saudi-funded organization – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/journalists-thompson-silenced/comment-page-1#comment-765628

        a lone casual unsourced mention by Susan Hertog does not a credible source make. is that all you’ve got to establish American Friends of the Middle East is saudi funded?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Friends_of_the_Middle_East

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 8:11 pm

        DT’s and AFME’s CIA connection is real and fascinating. I’m just finishing a book that describes that connection. I hope to write about it soon.

        The ARAMCO donations to AFME, if true, might be the basis for the claim AFME was receiving support from Saudi Arabia.

      • Jupiter
        May 6, 2015, 12:56 am

        You write:
        I don’t know where to start in replying to your latest drivil and I don’t even know why I’m trying. You seem to feel you are entitled to play monday morning quarterback with history and then make moral judgments about decisions leaders and citizens made, in good faith, without knowing with any certainty what the future would bring. You are also big on drawing entirely unwarranted and nefarious implications from statements or questions directed at you, such as I was lionizing America First, or that all members of that organization were “morally reprehensible while members” because they didn’t have the same knowledge about the future as you now have, 75 years later.

        Lionization was specifically designated as possible, not certain; positively characterizing was asserted. Likely you skipped over those words in your reading. In fact you are still positively characterizing America First by excusing their behavior in a way that is unjustified. America First was morally reprehensible because they knew exactly what was happening in Asia as a result of President Hoover’s action & still did nothing. It seemed to me, obviously wrongly so, that a civil rights attorney might have thought that reflected racism. Japan did attack us, the US locked up Japanese Americans in internment facilities; that does not render the US & Japan morally equivalent by any means, but it was a very nasty thing to do from a civil rights perspective, especially when this was not done to all those German Americans, such as Eisenhower & Nimitz. All you have done here is to provide assertions without a bit of evidence.

        You further positively characterized America First by your action. You say I have no right to judge the past actions of others, shielding them from valid criticism. That’s absurd. Either you believe they were morally wrong or you don’t. If you don’t, then you are positively characterizing them relative to what they should be characterized, people who willfully ignored what was happening in Asia.

        In any case the next Ms. Thompson essay:

        Aug 12. No mention of Nuremberg. Discusses the peace conference instead “Now, of course, what is at stake is not the interests of any particular state, but of all states, and above them, of mankind. Mr. Molotov believes that the interests fo the USSR are synonymous with those of mankind, as indeed, to greater or lesser degree, do all powers. But it is one of his arguments that demands, I think, special attention, the more so since it represents a viewpoint generally held, and which is implicit in the composition of this conference. As pointedly observe by a Brazilian delegate, Raoul Fermandez, of Brazil, Europe is hardly represented, though the treaties being made will affect Europe in the most drastic way. ‘It is,’ he said, ‘a conference of Slavs and Americans with scarcely anything of the European spirit represented . . . They are thinking of peace by force instead of peace by law and the spirit, and the outlook is far from encouraging.’ In this thus well=described situation, Mr. Molotov complained that under simple majority rule “the nine nations . . . who have experienced the aggression of one of the states for whom we are elaborating here a peace treaty . . . in spite of the fact that they have suffered most . . . may find themselves in a minority.” This, indeed, was his chief argument for demanding two-thirds concurrence—and, therefore, a one-third veto right—namely that the fact of having suffered aggression form a state lends a superior right of judgment on its treaty. . . .Nations or their representatives cannot be aimed only or chiefly at compensating the injured. They have a far loftier object—the prevention of a repetition of the monstrous injuries and sufferings of this age. The conference must, therefore, address its decisions to the standard of historical experience, to reason, to principle, and, with imaginative foresight, to a decent respect to the opinion of a mankind yet unborn.”

        It would seem the USSR should have a veto right over any treaty made with respect to Germany. The only other real party was the US. What say you?

      • Jupiter
        May 6, 2015, 10:42 pm

        Actually, that is exactly right; charity was intended by the Church before Vatican II anyways to include a Jew baiting meaning. Nostre Aetate was a vital document. Pope Benedict & Pope Francis are both vital in this respect anyways. Check Suzanne Brown Fleming, of a definitely Catholic University, on Archbishop Muench if you do not believe me. In any case, you now seem to think those paragraphs of Ms. Thompson are just fine, unless you say otherwise; please set me straight on any that you find at all problematic. You can definitely find One World in Charity on the net without any problems, so any claims that you cannot evaluate partial texts evince something other than intellectual rigor.

        Here’s a challenge to you & Annie Roberts. Consider the following written by Ms. Thompson on Aug 16, 1946, again from the Reading Eagle. No reference to Nuremberg as before:

        “’I lift my voice as the representative of a new republic which blends the humanity of Mazzini’s vision with the universal aims of Christianity and the international hopes of the working class., a republic striving toward the lasting and constructive peace which you are also seeking and toward that cooperation between nations which it is your task to establish’ Alcide de Gasperi, of Italy, to the peace conference. You plead in vain. I fear, Signor, before those who are parting the garments and casting lots—yes, though you plead not only for Italy, bur for civilization. But the men before whom you pled are holding an autopsy on civilization. You pled for a peace of principle, which alone endures. But you did not address a peace conference but a war conference. . . . At Versailles the disarmament of the vanquished was in lip service, at least, on the idea of general disarmament. In the peace of and by force there is not even such lip service, nor the intelligence of self-preservation, on the part of the west.”

        Please explain how that is or is not a pernicious analogy. Would a Jewish person have reason to be upset at that? Why or why not?

        You can find the rest online, just as I did. It’s easy. Just go here https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=ZuSUVyMx-TgC&dat=19460601&b_mode=2&hl=en
        Click on the day. Look at the editorial page. Bang. You get as much context as you could possibly want.

      • Jupiter
        May 7, 2015, 2:38 pm

        You legal eagle! The CIA would fit perfectly, given their post-WWII affirmative action program for otherwise unemployable German citizens. Brilliant. DT knowledge before reading this stuff: 1) a great radio address after Munich, 2) rotten bilge about Black people. The book & all the rest about her came as a result of your discussion. Anyways, check this out from the 1946 Reading Eagle
        Aug 13. No mention of Nuremberg. “The brightness of Governor Dewey’s prospects for the immediate future justifies one in pointing out the situation in which he will be, so far as the 1948 Republican presidential nomination is concerned, after he has been re-elected governor of New York—a nearly every qualified judge now expects him to be. In the first place, he will have beaten the extraordinary radical combination, the chief figures in which are the CIO, the Communist-dominated American Labor Party, and the Communists, plus the various individuals and committees that trade on the word ‘liberal’ all of which in three campaigns—1936, 1940, and 1944—solidly supported the late Mr. Roosevelt.”
        Sept 16. No mention of Nuremberg. “Trade unions have become in effect, private armies, which can be mobilized against the population at will. Congress has adjourned without doing one thing to bring labor-employee relations within the framework of law. Organized labor, like organized capital before it, has fought and succeeded in keeping itself outside and above law. Now the working man himself is helplessly caught in the resultant chaos.”
        Sept 20. No mention of Nuremberg. “The boldest and most unconscionable danger to the sources of public opinion in the United States lies in a plan already accepted by the Screen Writers’ Guild, of Hollywood, and now being submitted by that guild, and by the Radio Writers’ guild, which has likewise adopted it, to all other organizations of American writers. Perhaps by the time this column appears the Authors’ League of America, the embracing organization of American writers, will have rejected it decisively. I hope so. Launched like a blitzkrieg, writers thus far—apart from screen and radio writers—have insisted on time to study it. But in any case, the American public should understand this proposal thoroughly, for, though it may be laid aside today, it will almost certainly wait underground for some new chance of revival. It holds the possibility of just such suppression of freedom of thought as was effected by Doctor Goebbels in Hitler Germany, and has always existed in the Soviet Union. It emanates from the stronghold of communism and Communist sympathy among writers and artists in the United States: Hollywood.”

        You’d have me banned for calling you a Nazi. I possess no power; you would go to sleep knowing you whacked an idiot, not suffering any real problems. What if you aggressively represented a union & a national journalist called you a commie or Herr Goebbels?

      • Jupiter
        May 7, 2015, 9:44 pm

        A gift for the legal eagle. Imagine the timing! This will be el perfecto for your CIA column. From the Reading Eagle,
        Aug 21, 1946. No mention of Nuremberg. “The report on all zones of Germany, which I mentioned in a preceding column, from a German of impeccable record.” Ending paragraphs. “But in the spring conditions were not better but much worse. In the British zone rations had to be drastically cut, and in the American they were shortened. Today, all adults and most children are near starvation. Physical strength is deteriorating in geometric progression. The war years which were also lean now begin to tell. Calories are so insufficient that everyone who has a little money stays in bed to prolong his life. Nobody works more than three days a week. It is impossible. Very few believe this conditions is due to a world food crisis or transportation. The mess halls of American enlisted men give no such indication. It has become, instead, a generally held conviction that it is part of a conscious allied design to starve the German population.”
        Aug 23, 1946. No mention of Nuremberg. “I continue the confidential report on Germany coming from a German of unchallengeable record and competence whose position has made possible prolonged visits in all German occupation zones. [from the letter] “Adding to the overwhelming problems in the western zones are the fugitives from the east. . . . I can well believe the sincerity of the old man who said: ‘Why do the Allies refuse us compassionate death in a gas chamber?’ . . .Leading everything else in its evil effects on morale is the denazification program, so essential, so difficult, and administered with bureaucratic lack of insight, with incompetence and often gross injustice. In one place where notorious Nazis are in the most important positions, the occupation authorities have recently closed a kindergarten because the woman who ran it was for two years a Nazi Party member, who voluntarily, and years ago, resigned from the party. . . . In western and southern Germany old Nazis say that the dark cells and Gestapo manners of many Americans, together with the hunger camps of the British, are neither better nor worse than Nazi methods. How shall a known German enemy of Nazism answer them? How shall one win the German youth—and for what?”
        Mr. James Bond, concerns about his creation of martinis notwithstanding, was assuredly impeccable was he not? Tell us all something. Have you ever gotten a letter that long from someone without a court order?
        The main point is that neither Dorothy Thompson nor anyone else in WWII should be made into saints. Almost without exception, the great ones on our side had horrific flaws. Ms. Thompson on balance is very positively viewed by me, but if I give Ms. Thompson a 10, I give General Patton a 100. Yet look what happened. They made that blasted movie about him & people abused his sainthood for all sorts of nonsense. The predictable result – people brought up his nasty side & at this time everyone can see blood dripping from his teeth. No one is so foul as to deserve the ruination that hagiography induces.
        Please understand that my legal knowledge almost entirely concerns the care & feeding of people who rape & murder your neighbors’ children. As respects internatonal law apart from the IMT: clear as dew on a rose petal – Germany violated Locarno by remilitarizing the Rheinland; clear as café mocha – anything at all more subtle. That’s why Zionismm v Anti-Zionism bores the heck out of me. This has been tremendous fun & it would be great to go panning for gold nuggets at your insistence in the future.

      • Jupiter
        May 8, 2015, 11:14 am

        Mr. Keith, crazy it may well appear to think you will expend the effort to read Ms. Thompson’s words. Please povision your wisdom about Ms. Thompson’s column in the Aug 16, 1946, Reading Eagle, quoted here by me. All you need to do is say whether you find it good, bad or neutral. That will tell everyone more about you than you can know. If you do not respond, it will be assumed you are neutral.

    • Jupiter
      May 4, 2015, 12:27 pm

      Like any real person, her real life was very complex. Although she gave stirring calls after Czechoslovakia, she meandered into very odd realms, supporting, of all things, an America Firster named Wendell Wilkie, her interventionist tendencies notwithstanding. Reading “Dangerous Ambitions” is an eye opener. What is most interesting about Ms. Thompson is how much she resembles Martin Luther, of all people, especially in her self-righteousness about all things.

      Like Mr. Luther, Ms. Thompson appears to have been concerned about the Satanic nature of the Roman Catholic Church. P 379 Michael, in summer stock at Hyde Park in rehearsals for My Three Angels , had missed the birth by a few hours, but the whole family gathered shortly thereafter for the christening at a Catholic Church near their home in Barnard, Vermont. Dorothy wrote in a letter to a friend that, much like the wedding, “ The Christening ceremony astonished my Protestant mind.… Protestant ceremonies concentrate on dedicating the child to God, but the devil is very present in the Catholic, being exorcised in many points of the ritual. I think it all very pre-Christian and pagan.”

      Of course, being the slave state it was, Saudi Arabia was bound to inflame American passions. P 381 On her return, she received a letter from Jack Wheeler, editor of Bell Syndicate. In a letter dated December 22, 1956, Jack gave Dorothy a straightforward ultimatum. She must resign from AFME and make up her mind if she “is a newspaper woman or a propagandist for the Arabs!” She resigned from the AFME. She angrily wrote to a colleague at the American- and Saudi-funded organization that she was “apparently to report the facts only provided they don’t step on Israeli, Zionist, British or French toes.… I had a three hour talk with Nasser. I’ve reported it in five columns straight with comments to follow. I suppose they will call that scoop propaganda. They wouldn’t if I had bagged an interview with Khrushchev.… The Canal crisis, insofar as it involves Britain and France will, I feel confidant, straighten out. Not Israel so easily. Israel wants war.” She was quick to add that they also wanted dominance. The analogy was complete; the Jews were, in effect, the Middle Eastern Nazis.
      Now there may well have been objection to Ms. Thompson’s being a spokesperson for a slave state like Saudi Arabia, but she never experienced government censorship & was able to pen a successful book in 1957. P 384 Her book culminates with one last attempt at personal exoneration. She respects all Americans, she writes, regardless of origin, faith, or race, but she staunchly demands respect for her own opinions. To respect opinions of others, one must first respect one’s own. Dorothy’s final chapter is an ode to America—its national riches, its gifted and courageous political founders, and its hardworking, God-fearing pioneers. Her last words are both self-defining and self-transcendent: “ I believe in of “loyalty” to America and her belief in God, which she saw as inextricable, would be her final rebuke to those who saw her as anti-Semitic, racist, and, therefore, un-American. When it was published in the fall of 1957, the reviews were solid, and the sales were good.

      The notion that she was somehow persecuted is bizarre, to say the least. I surely cannot boast of a contract to pen opinions for anyone. None have come to me to sell a book about myself. What is fun is that she is very much like Mr. Luther in so many ways, although of course not anything of as much historic value; if you evaluate Luther you will find almost unbelievable contradictions in his life stated with immense certainty: until obtaining patronage from a very rich ruler, Mr. Luther favored the poor; after that he wrote a nasty tract about the peasants’ revolt that still reverberates. Mr. Luther was a person of his time; his Catholic opponent Mr. Eck was far more of a Jew baiter. Also, he developed incredible paranoia, far greater than Ms. Thompson experienced, but which she also experienced. By the end of Mr. Luther’s life, it became clear that he & perhaps his wife were the only ones destined for heaven; Ms. Thompson saw herself as Joan of Arc, rejecting, properly in my opinion, the name Cassandra that some attached to her.

      • irishmoses
        May 4, 2015, 8:43 pm

        Please explain why DT’s support of 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie something to be derisivwe of? Please also tell us why belonging to the America First organization is worthy of your derision, particularly in view of the fact that its membership included many notable Americans who fought bravely during the war, such as Gerald Ford, JFK (who donated $100 and sent them a nice letter), and others.

        Please explain why your gratuitous and absurd comparison of DT to Martin Luther is in any way useful to this discussion, and is not, instead, merely offered to show the depth and profundity of your own literary background.

        Please also explain why the page cites you provide from Hertog’s “Dangerous Ambition” are totally unrelated to the quotes you attribute those pages to.

        Please explain and provide evidence and cites for you statement, “..Ms. Thompson’s [was] a spokesperson for a slave state like Saudi Arabia.”

        You profess disbelief that DT suffered retaliation because of her criticism of Israel’s actions, and that it affected her career. Yet, her biographer, Peter Kurth, provides plenty of evidence of that. Is his evidence false, and, if so, why do you believe it is false?

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 1:01 am

        Wendell Wilkie was an isolationist who opposed FD Roosevelt; thus, the support of Mr. Wilkie by Ms. Thompson proves the latter was not in fact as interventionist as has been alleged; she had made her famed radio address October 1, 1938. Quite possibly, this change of heart occurred as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; if so, she was far more stupid than has yet been observed. Who but an idiot would really believe at that point that Mr. Hitler’s thirst for conquest would be slaked by France? It is of relevance here that President Hoover thought the fall of France was due to its Jewish Prime Minister, Blum.

        One possible reason that Ms. Thompson supported Wilkie was an as yet subconscious desire to see all the Jews gassed; that’s a quite reasonable suspicion, given that Ms. Thompson claimed the US & the UK were gassing the Germans.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 4:14 pm

        Jupiter said:
        “One possible reason that Ms. Thompson supported Wilkie was an as yet subconscious desire to see all the Jews gassed; that’s a quite reasonable suspicion, given that Ms. Thompson claimed the US & the UK were gassing the Germans.”

        You have totally lost it. Clearly you will say anything, not matter how unfair, unsubstantiated, or outlandish, in an attempt to make a point. You are either a fool or you need to get caught up on your meds.

        You’ve expressed a fear that your comments might be moderated on Mondoweiss. Certainly your last comment should have been. Continuing this sort of unrestrained discourse may well get you excluded from Mondoweiss, but only because your comments are rapidly going far beyond the pale of rational discourse and discussion.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 1:03 am

        Mr Kurth, as shown in the quote in the interview, believed the Germans were the suffering souls after WWII. A neo-fascist if ever there were, that Mr. Kurth.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 10:35 am

        You have asked many questions, so it is necessary to answer them piecemeal. Here are a few:
        I would be grateful if you would stick to the subject of the thread, Dorothy Thompson, rather than using it as a forum for pontificating on your favorite historical theories, not to mention ancient religious figures such as Martin Luther.
        Please explain why your gratuitous and absurd comparison of DT to Martin Luther is in any way useful to this discussion, and is not, instead, merely offered to show the depth and profundity of your own literary background.

        A lawyer who has the law on his side will argue the law. A lawyer who has evidence on his side will argue the evidence. A lawyer lacking either on his side will pound the table. A lawyer who calls an argument he cannot answer“pontification” pounds mahogany. You lose those arguments unless you can beat them.

        Martin Luther, far from being irrelevant to WWII, was essential as an element of Nazi theory & propaganda. One way to see this is to realize that Luther’s marvelous translation of the bible into German basically invented the German language; it is not hard to see how irredentism stems from this. Other more direct examples can be found by Googling Luther Nazi, etc. Luther likely had nothing on his own to do with the Nazis; Nazi’s appropriated him for their nefarious purposes. Thus, Martin Luther is relevant. The analogous features of Ms. Thompson’s mentality are now established because you are again pounding the table. Instead of disputing the argument, you declaim my motives to be egotism; whether or not the arguments are egotistical, they win because my egotism is not relevant as respects their validity.

        Please also explain why the page cites you provide from Hertog’s “Dangerous Ambition” are totally unrelated to the quotes you attribute those pages to.

        My version of the book is online; likely the particular online view chosen changes pagination. To validate the genuineness of any quotation, google the quotation. In the future, all that will be referenced is the chapter.

        Now then. Please state any objections you have to “One World in Charity.” If you do not state any, it will be reasonable, having asked you multiple times for your opinion, to think that you have no objection to that set of sermons composed by Archbishop Muench.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 2:48 pm

        Jupiter said:
        “Now then. Please state any objections you have to “One World in Charity.” If you do not state any, it will be reasonable, having asked you multiple times for your opinion, to think that you have no objection to that set of sermons composed by Archbishop Muench.”

        Jupiter, let us review how you introduced “One World in Charity” to this thread. You did so with one short sentence: “He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war, a feeling shared by Archbishop Muench in “One World in Charity.” Who is the “he” in your sentence, Freud?

        You have not provided any quotes or cites to this work yet you expect me to pass judgment on it. Worse yet, you apparently believe it is reasonable to condemn me for whatever sins you attribute to Arch Bishop Muench merely because I have expressed no opinior nor even responded to your hyperbolic repeated questions about someone I know nothing about. I suggest, judging from your scurrilous tactics, it might be appropriate for you to change your pen name from Jupiter to Joseph McCarthy.

        Now, if you think the good archbishop Muench and his “One World in Charity” work are an important topic for Mondoweiss, I suggest to write on piece about him and submit it. We can all then learn much about the fellow and why you view him with such disfavor. We can also then discuss our views of your argument with you. In the meantime, I’m not about to do my own research project on an individual who as far as I can tell from you brief comments had nothing to do with Dorothy Thompson other than your belief that she shared his views, whatever these were.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 11:47 pm

        It is assuredly true that any money received by a spouse of a politician in return for a favor the politician performs is bribery. Just ask the former Governor of Virginia. Beyond that, the political leanings of one’s spouse are not considered by most to be appropriate as respects considerations in assessing the spouse’s leanings. There is a Democrat Cajun, after all, who married a very conservative Republican woman; bizarre would be attributing to the woman the views of the Raging Cajun’. Ms. Hertog is not Mr. Hertog. Should you wish to criticize Mr. Hertog, please do so, but simple politeness should prevent any of us men from attributing to any woman the views, and especially the moral failings, however we perceive them to be, of her husband. If you find in Ms. Hertog dishonesty, such that she actually invents quotes that people have said, that’s a different question, of course.

    • Jupiter
      May 4, 2015, 1:47 pm

      One more item. She simply was never a prophetess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbM-306yrFk Imperial Japan, our most important focus, does not figure in her comments; this is very odd because the same supreme crime of Nazi Germany, the rapid conquest of an entire continent, was the same supreme crime of Imperial Japan. PM Chamberlain’s appeasement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA was a temporizing maneuver, in part reflecting the Polish governmental arrogance & blatant stupidity at Munich; President Hoover had no such excuse for his failure to whack Imperial Japan after Manchuria. The main value of Ms. Thompson, one absent from most analyses in this day & age, was her clarion denunciation of the Munich accords. Efforts to find the voice on this failed, but here are some of the words:
      What happened on Friday is called “Peace.” Actually it is an international Fascist coup d’etat. The “Four-Power Accord” is not even a diplomatic document. It is certainly not a normal treaty. It is such a fantastic piece of paper that it is difficult to describe except as a hurriedly concocted armistice made in advance of a war to permit the occupation by German troops of a territory which by sheer threat and demonstration of force they have conquered by “agreement.” All of the territory where there are more than fifty per cent of German-speaking peoples will be evacuated by the Czechoslovaks and occupied by the German Army within ten days although there are hundreds of thousands of people in this territory who are either not German or are anti-Nazi and therefore constitute a racial and political minority. This document provides no protection whatsoever for their lives, their properties or their existences. Not a clause indicates that they are to be protected in any manner from this occupation. Those of us who know and have seen what the Nazi authorities do to political minorities realize that this can only result in a panicky flight into the interior of Czechoslovakia. It means the open establishment of terror. No consideration is paid anywhere in this fantastic document to the reapportionment of financial and industrial interests – banks or industries the ownership of which is not necessarily on the spot –and this in spite of the fact that the British and French governments know that in the occupation of Austria the property of political minorities, and in particular of Jews, was simply confiscated. http://www.otr.com/peace.html
      Actually, pretty much everyone knew what would happen. The territorial importance of Czechoslovakia was obvious from a simple glance at the map. Persons alive then in Europe to whom I spoke said that, as soon as the ink was dry, most knew that Nazi Germany would begin a massive war of conquest. Of interest is her failure to denounce Warsaw when it was pretty obvious they were not innocent bystanders. After this clarion call, Ms. Thompson joined forces with Wendell Wilkie, an isolationist Republican. To the degree that Ms. Thompson was Cassandra, it was she & American society who ignored her prophesy, which was actually known by most of Europe in any case.

      • irishmoses
        May 4, 2015, 9:07 pm

        Jupiter said, “She simply was never a prophetess [sic]”. Since DT did predict, in 1930, that a war in Europe would be started by Germany, by the end of the decade, she seemed to have accurately judged the situation in Europe and accurately predicted the likely outcome, whether or not she was technically a “prophetess”.

        As to her failure to engage or predict events in the Pacific concerning Japan, her reporting experience was in Europe, and she spoke fluent German, not Japanese, so perhaps she didn’t feel qualified to offer her opinion.

        Please explain why you believe Imperial Japan was the US’ “most important focus” as opposed to defending our allies in Europe against Nazi Germany. Certainly nobody in the US government (perhaps with the exception of Douglas McArthur, felt that.

        I would be grateful if you would stick to the subject of the thread, Dorothy Thompson, rather than using it as a forum for pontificating on your favorite historical theories, not to mention ancient religious figures such as Martin Luther.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 1:18 am

        One can only answer so many questions at one time. Japan was the principle focus because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Here are the famed words of FDR in audio: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/day-of-infamy/ The Imperial Japanese, being fascists of the foulest sort, assuredly chose to conquer as much of the planet as they could, just as the Nazi Germans did. The Japanese were extraordinarily good soldiers, such that liberating Asia from their vicious clutches required immense effort on our part. Battles that might interest to you in this respect would include Midway, the Coral Sea & Guadalcanal. Some have asserted Midway to have been of equal importance to the defeat of the Axis as Stalingrad. Should you visit the WWII memorial in DC, which is spectacular, you will find the Pacific & European theaters given equal attention. That having been said, America was far more important relative to other members of the Allies as respects the Pacific theater than the European theater.

        Ms. Thompson blew it in multiple ways. You deleted one post that bore an interesting failure to evaluate the Pacific in respect to an interview. Another example, Dangerous Ambitions p 200 Ultimately, Dorothy would be compelled to reevaluate Hitler, but for the moment she methodically pumped Nazi and republican officials to corroborate her views. Many journalists and citizens also saw Hitler as the quintessential “Little Man,” but Dorothy’s misreading was odd for a seasoned reporter. She would never rescind her judgment of Hitler, but as she observed his ascent through political propaganda and persistent sabotage of the national Right and the socialist Left, it became obvious that she had fallen victim to her tendency to project her own ideals on reality. In her personal as well as her political life, Dorothy often believed what she wished to be true.

        That ain’t exactly Jeremiah you are seeing there!

        Not feeling qualified to offer an opinion on World War when one is speaking about world war is a contradiction in terms. Only a fool would fail to recognize the existence of problems in the Pacific. The Imperial Japanese were monsters. She knew this, but did not care for some reason.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 3:54 pm

        Here’s a basic link to a discussion about America’s “Germany First” strategy in WWII. While both Germany and Japan were “monsters”, Germany was by far a greater threat to the US than Japan, not to mention being a greater threat to Europe’s Jews, Slavs, Roma, Homosexuals, etc.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 5, 2015, 7:13 pm

        that book you quoted was written by susan hertog, wife of neocon roger hertog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hertog

        Hertog has been associated with various conservative and neoconservative think tanks and publications. He is a chairman emeritus of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and board member of the American Enterprise Institute and the Club for Growth. He also helped found the Shalem Center in Israel. He was a part-owner of now-defunct The New York Sun, was a part-owner of The New Republic, and is a board member of Commentary. Inspired by John Lewis Gaddis and Paul Kennedy’s Grand Strategy Program at Yale University, Hertog funded similar programs at Duke University, William E. Macaulay Honors College at CUNY and elsewhere.[2]
        Hertog has also funded the Hertog Global Strategy Initiative, a research program Columbia University that uses historical analysis to confront problems in world politics. Participants include high-ranking government officials, scholars, and graduate students.[3]

        perhaps she had a particular agenda when she wrote the book.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 7:51 pm

        Good catch Annie. I bought and read her book along with the Kurth biography about DT. She seemed to dismiss DT a bit too easily. I wondered about her connections. Her book seems pretty well written in other respects but she clearly had an ax to grind when it came to DT’s later anti-Israel statements and her connections to AFME. Certainly not a hit piece (half the book is about another famous woman of that era, and good friend of DT, Rebecca West.

        Good to have you back.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 5, 2015, 8:25 pm

        thanks gil, it’s good to be back. and thanks for the great article!

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 5:58 pm

        Rest assured no further statements will be made by me asserting that Ms. Thompson’s major problem after WWII was that the job had not been finished as respects Jews. Requested by me would be your forgoing statements to the effect that I am psychotic, intent only upon demonstrating my erudition, etc. You will behave as you wish, ultimately; but should remember that arguments without such insults better support your case.

        Now Martin Luther was actually quite friendly to Jews & the average person at the beginning. Somehow, he developed a nasty antipathy towards those lacking wealth. Gradually, with failing health oppressing his body & soul, he developed intense antipathy for all manner of persons other than those of his particular liking. This distressed many of his warmest friends. Philip Melancthon particularly thought Jews & their Lies horrific. Although the Nazi’s used these materials for their own ends, in fact they were completely ignored by the people of Martin Luthers’ time and location.

        The post war tendencies of Ms. Thompson have been demonstrated to show a similar change in tendencies, not religious as with Mr. Luther, but with respect to race. You do not yet find the horrendous qualities of One World In Charity in her world view. I will peruse her actual writings, as opposed to the suggestions of Mr. K’s words, possibly gross distortions, to obtain greater certainty in that respect. This is fascinating.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 8:39 pm

        I appreciate the retraction. I’ll dial my invective back if you do as well. I see you are brand new to Mondoweiss so I’ll cut you some slack. On the positive side, you seem to do some research. On the negative, you go way over the top on emotional labeling {“monsters”, etc.), and you stray pretty far from the field in your historical analogies. If you cut back on some of that, you’ll fit in better here.

        Mondoweiss is definitely a blog with a viewpoint. It focuses on behavior by Israel that violates international law and the rights of the Palestinian people to a state of their own and a modicum of basic civil rights and protection from oppression in the meantime. It also focuses on the excesses of Israel’s US lobby. It is not anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, or antisemitic. It is anti illegal and dysfunctional behavior. The dialog here is generally pretty analytic and civil although it quickly can deteriorate when one or another commentator goes over the top. Moderation has helped MW keep on topic and control commentors who cross lines, but it’s not perfect and it’s a thankless task at best.

        I suggest you watch a bit and get a feel for the site then jump in when you have a point of value to make. So, welcome aboard and welcome to Mondoweiss.

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 6:10 pm

        The decision about Europe has been said to be German first, but that forgets important military considerations detailed for me by WWII veterans & military scholars. The switch to Germany was predicated upon the inability of Japan to further expand its borders, so I have been told. It had, you see, reached the limit of its control. This was so pronounced that the Soviet Union was able to obtain a mutual non-attack agreement with Imperial Japan, a miracle under ordinary viewpoints, given the Russo Japanese war. This little agreement did a great deal to help defeat Nazi Germany, for then the Siberian soldiers were able to crush the Germans in the Battle of Moscow.

        The other item that matters, this from a bomber who destroyed the Japanese dock at Singapore, was the inability of the bombers then available to reach Japan from the East over China. It was the development of the new airplanes that permitted the assault on the Japanese Empire to begin in earnest.

        This does not deny the need you mentioned as respects the more immediate danger of Nazi Germany to the Allies; rather it explains why that need was more dire in terms of the limits on the Japanese Military & the limits upon the US as respects its ability to end Imperial Japanese tyranny.

      • just
        May 5, 2015, 7:16 pm

        {Annie}

        Welcome back!

        Gil, you have amazing endurance. Kudos and thank you.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 5, 2015, 8:43 pm

        ;) thanks!

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 11:38 pm

        Mr. Maguire, you fabulous attorney, if any of my historical statements, given that we are discussing a person in history, a Ms. Thompson, are invalid, please prove them invalid. Martin Luther is quite valid for the reasons shown, which you have not disputed. One world in charity is assuredly valid in so far as its defenders used almost the same words that Mr. K used in defending Ms. Thompson. He may well be a nasty old bat, you know, one who wrongly asserts what Ms. Thompson said to create the impression he thinks is the right way to view the world as respects WWII.

        There is simply no reason for me to believe anything I say about history to be beyond the pale when discussing a historical subject, such as Ms. Thompson, especially one about WWII, especially when someone asserts that Martin Luther has no relevance to WWII (you should actually check that out, you know). What I say may be wrong, of course. It may be invalid, of course. But it is my honest opinion & should be treated as such. Any inaccuracy or invalidity of argument you can readily correct, just as I did with your statement as respects the America. After all, discussion is why one is here.

        In any case, it took a lot of leg work, but “On the Record” columns by Ms. Dorothy Thompson have been found via the Reading Eagle online. Could not find multiple days, of course, but sure did find a lot of “On the Records” by Ms. Thompson. Checked out the two months before the verdict at Nuremberg, Oct 1, 1946. Would be odd indeed for a friend of the Jews to not say a blasted thing about that would it not? Let’s go through them, by pairs, & see what your opinion is. After hearing your wisdom, I’ll offer mine.

        Aug 2. No mention of Nuremberg. “General De Gaulle proposes to prevent the reunification of Germany in a centralized national state which by sheer force of numbers and geographical position still woud be the key position in shattered Europe and which by reason of such unchanging factors and humiliatilon eventually striving for assuagement, might tempt or be tempted by one or the other of the two dominant world powers. But there is more in General De Gaulle’s proposals, implicit in his whole argument, German re-unification in a centralized national state must be prevented in order to achieve European unification, including the separate Germanic states and thus restore the equilibrium of harmonious power now disastrously out of balance and careening toward yet another test of force. . . . Can we deny that the world is not only tending, but rushing, and in the atomic age, to divide itself disastrously into two, or that the basic cause of that division is the vacuum of Europe into which both are being drawn? Europe must thus rebuild herself in balanced strength not only for the sake of Europe but for world peace. That demands the Europeanizaing of Germany.”
        Aug 5. No mention of Nuremberg. “And, as Walter Lippmann has recently pointed out in an important series of articles, Russia alone can restore to a Germany operating within the Soviet military and economic complex the national unity, for it was Russia, which, pushing Poland to the Oder, destroyed it. Poland, a country historically despised by both Russia and Germany, and one most unreliable from a Communist viewpoint, could easily be partitioned again by the same eternal partners as the price for a Communist Germany oriented against the west. This is the card that Stalin holds against the atomic stockpiles of America—the power to revive, under communism, a military state, preeminent in science and technology, which it has just taken the whole world to defeat. And it is this spectre, unnamed in Paris, which, nevertheless, haunts the halls of the peace conference.”

        Hm. So what do you think about those two? Do you believe Mr. De Gaulle, unlike Mr Clemenceau, was thinking not of preventing German reunification in a real sense, but in an abstract sense? Was Mr. De Gaule suggesting, you know, a “unified Europe” with revitalized German states? Also, do you think there was a danger that the USSR was going to revive a German fascist enterprise, given what had just occurred? Perhaps I missed something in my reading. Did her predictions come to pass?

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2015, 12:20 am

        Irishmoses, you have just had a first-hand look at a Zocaine Syndrome episode.

      • Jupiter
        May 10, 2015, 1:17 pm

        Mr. Mooser, call me what you will, you might wish to engage the information provisioned. Ms. Thompson, Oct 21, 1946.On the record from the Reading Eagle. “Innocents Abroad—at Home. “Louis Budenz’ denunciation of Gerhard Eisler, alias Hans Berger, as the ‘agent of the Kremlin who directs Communist activity in the United Stated,” raises an importan question: ‘ Who are Eisler’s friends in, or with influence upon, the American State Department’ . . . he entered this country in 1941, without more than a transit visa, after having been interned for two months on Ellis Island by the FBI. . . . Who pulled strings in the State Department to permit him to return to his native city of Leipzig in the Russian zone? . . . While here, according to the Daily Worker, he helped edit ‘The German American,’ described as an ‘anti-Nazi’ paper, published in New York in the German language. ‘The German American’ is the organ of the German Communists in the United States and is vehemently anti every American and German who does not tow the party line. It is exceedingly difficult for a German refugee, ever active in German politics, to get permission to return to Germay. . .”

        Believe it or not, States exchange spies & have done so for ages. As implied by Ms. Thompson, Mr. Eisler had a Jewish ancestor; his father, Rudolf Eisler, was a professor of philosophy. She never could be seen to say that the gas chambers were horrific in and of themselves in my examination of her editorials from June 1946-Nov 1946, although many days were not available for examination. The proper answer to Zionism at this time would have been to increase Jewish immigration in the US & other countries, this was never suggested in my readings after June 1946 of On the Record. Most interesting to me is that her denunciation of the Nuremberg trial occurs October 23, 1946; that tribunal prevented mass retaliation against Germans by assigning individual blame to German officials.

        What say you? Is it possible to conclude that this woman’s developing fear of communism led to antipathy towards Jews?

  2. Mooser
    April 28, 2015, 10:38 am

    Great article Mr. Maguire!

    I should have known, I should have realized! Mention a syosset once, and I’m being moderated again! Oh well, I knew I was going too far with that. Serves me right.

    • irishmoses
      April 28, 2015, 11:26 pm

      You’re most welcome, Mr. Mooser. As to your second paragraph, ya lost me. I even googled it and still don’t have a clue.

      • Mooser
        April 29, 2015, 1:50 pm

        I’m sorry “irishmoses”! I went off on a tangent. Didn’t stay cogent, coherent and cohesive, like your writing in the article. Great article.

        Oh, and please don’t trouble yourself Googling. I lived there and I haven’t got a clue.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      May 2, 2015, 12:56 pm

      Obama’s attempt to rehabilitate Dorothy Thompson, ostensibly in passing, reminds me of the way that “liberals” within the Soviet establishment used to drop subtle hints of their true positions — clear enough for the cognoscenti to spot but with sufficient ambiguity to get them off the hook if challenged by hardliners.

  3. eljay
    April 28, 2015, 10:45 am

    Many readers will find President Obama’s toast to the press at the end of Saturday night’s White House Correspondents Association dinner encouraging. He reminded journalists of their actual mission:

    “It is not the fact of liberty but the way in which liberty is exercised that ultimately determines whether liberty itself survives.”

    There’s a supreme irony in Obama quoting Thompson, whose truly stellar career ended in charges of antisemitism from Zionists, to a crowd of journalists who quake in fear of having their careers destroyed by Israel supporters …

    There’s a supreme irony in Obama – who supports many injustices including aggression, torture, assassination, expansionism and supremacism – cautioning his audience about the abuse of liberty.

    • joemowrey
      April 28, 2015, 11:02 am

      Thanks, eljay. I was hoping someone would point this out. The irony is this author using Obama to pin his article. And more so, implying that the room full of toadies who comprise the White House press corp are actually journalists.

      • irishmoses
        April 28, 2015, 11:34 pm

        I agree Obama is a major disappointment. His toast to our pathetic, toadying press corps was cringe-worthy at best. I also doubt he and his crack staff have even a remote clue who Dorothy Thompson was. I think they likely got the quote through a random google search.

  4. pabelmont
    April 28, 2015, 10:57 am

    Thanks Gil. New to me and very refreshing. A near-presidential candidate silenced by The Lobby ™ or its predecessors. If memory serves, Hillary Clinton was once a friend with Mrs. Arafat. Hmmm, not recently mentioned.

    • irishmoses
      April 28, 2015, 11:36 pm

      Same lobby. I think it’s traceable back to Brandeis and his contemporaries who did all the initial organization. Those guys were good.

  5. oldgeezer
    April 28, 2015, 10:57 am

    A fascinating and perceptive lady. I confess I wasn’t aware of her. It strikes me as a little odd for Obama to raise her as he has not been the most journalist friendly president.

    Aside from the IP issue there seems to less investigative journalism in all areas of the msm these daya. Hopefully some journalists will be inspired.

    • chet
      April 28, 2015, 2:06 pm

      There would seem to be little doubt that the members of President Obama’s writing team would not had full knowledge of Miss Thompson’s anti-Zionist history and would have included her quote knowing that most of the audience would not have been familiar with her and that they would have used Google to find out more about her background.

      So kudos to President Obama and his advisors for this small effort in respect of opening the topic.

      • JWalters
        April 28, 2015, 7:54 pm

        I agree. It seems to me most people grossly underestimate the wall of power that Obama faces. The fact that he has to hint about this is telling. The fact that he has to use a joke to call out the Republican anti-science campaign as “stupid, short-sighted, irresponsible bull…” is telling. His predicament in facing this wall of power was predicted.
        http://whowhatwhy.com/2010/03/10/what-obama-is-up-against/

  6. CitizenC
    April 28, 2015, 10:58 am

    There is a great passage in Elmer Berger’s “Memoir of an Anti-Zionist Jew” about Dorothy Thompson in 1955 taking him to a meeting with Turner Catledge, editor of the NYT, to protest the Times’s “Hitler on the Nile” editorials against Nasser. These contrasted sharply with the reports of the paper’s Egypt correspondent, Kennett Love, who noted Nasser’s animus, but also its basis in Palestine and the 1948 war, and Nasser’s desire for peace in order to develop Egypt.

    Thompson confronted Catledge with the contradiction, taking him aback. After some embarrassment he essentially said that news and editorial weren’t related, that Love was not the source of all wisdom, that the paper’s readers were acutely concerned about Nasser, not about Egyptian development, and that was that.

    Berger was by then already jaded about the Times, having dealt with them since the mid-1940s, when the American Council for Judaism was campaigning against Jewish statehood. There is another account in the late 1960s, when a successor at the ACJ dragged him to another meeting, with then editor Clifton Daniel, to impress on him that not all American Jews were chauvinist about Israel.

    Somewhat to Berger’s surprise the Times did run a piece about the ACJ’s opposition. But of course their news and editorial coverage continued the American Jewish establishment party line.

  7. Krauss
    April 28, 2015, 11:02 am

    Let me add to the heaps of praise that has been showered on you already for bringing her to our attention.

    I, too, like so many others here have not heard of her at all until now. Now I know why! It’s also interesting to see that the common perception that Zionism really started to turn after ’67 in America was untrue. The Zionist lobby was strong already back then and this doesn’t square with the mythology that Jews were unempowered in the WWII and immediate aftermath of it.

    It’s a shame to see how a brilliant career could be ended just because she chose to speak truth to power.

    • Philip Weiss
      April 28, 2015, 11:29 am

      Adding another voice to the chorus. Thank you Gil, I didn’t know this story. It’s incredible to me to see How much was known plainly in 1948– and how much our discourse denied. When will that pattern end.

      • Mooser
        April 30, 2015, 10:34 pm

        “When will that pattern end.”

        Seems like we took a big step backwards after ’68.

    • JWalters
      April 28, 2015, 8:05 pm

      Another appreciative reader here. This article deserves to be a reference point in the discussion of this topic. It’s a crystal clear case, highlighting a number of important factors, and extremely well told.

    • irishmoses
      April 29, 2015, 6:32 pm

      Actually, I first heard about Dorothy from Alison Weir in her segment at last year’s Lobby conference in DC. I then bought her book (see info in thread below). I recently heard about the upcoming documentary, “Silencing Dorothy Thompson” and then bought her biography. I was floored when President Obama quoted her in his toast to the press.

      So kudos for the revelation of DT should go to Alison.

  8. weiss
    April 28, 2015, 11:35 am

    She was a great woman!

    Obama is definitely sending the press a subliminal message to get their shit together…

  9. Sycamores
    April 28, 2015, 11:41 am

    the silencing of Dorothy Thompson has obviously work, i’m sadden to see i wasn’t the only who didn’t knew of her.
    yet according to her great niece Betsy Reeves, Dorothy Thompson could walked into Franklin D Roosevelt office without an appointment. what influence this woman had and what a shame on those for silencing her.

    today nothing has change.

    how quiet MSM is on former US President Jimmy Carter on undertaking Saudi-backed mediation efforts between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah.

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/18271-carter-saudi-seek-mediation-between-palestinian-factions

    Both the president and prime minister declined the invitations after consulting with the Foreign Ministry and the National Security Council

    A senior diplomatic official told Channel 10, which broke the news, that Carter is “a disaster for Israel,” and that all Israeli leaders should refrain from meeting the former president, due to his “anti-Israel positions.”

    The official was also quoted as saying that while Netanyahu and Rivlin refused to meet with him, Israel had approved Carter’s request to visit the Gaza Strip.

    Carter will reportedly arrive sometime in the next 10 days for meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/netanyahu_snubs_jimmy_carter_on_israel_visit.html

    Netanyahu and Rivlin can declined the invitations all they want but have not got the chutzpah to stop him going to Gaza.

    • irishmoses
      April 29, 2015, 6:39 pm

      Another classless insult to the US from “that shitty little country”. Like Dorothy Thompson, Carter did much for Zionism and Israel (like the Camp David accord!). Too bad there’s no one in our leadership willing to call them out and put the screws to them. Disgusting, really.

    • just
      April 29, 2015, 6:49 pm

      Sadly, he’s not going…

      “Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter cancels Gaza visit

      AP – A delegation led by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter says it has called off a planned visit to the Gaza Strip.

      Carter had planned to make the visit on Thursday in an attempt to draw attention to the humanitarian situation in the war-battered territory. The trip included planned meetings with Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza.

      But late Wednesday, the Elders, the group sponsoring the visit, expressed regret that the visit would not take place. It gave no explanation. …”

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.654202?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      Something stinks.

  10. Citizen
    April 28, 2015, 11:55 am

    I learned about Dorothy Thompson’s star career & what demolished it when Helen Thomas was given the boot, just by googling articles discussing the sudden Thomas demise.

    • Giles
      April 29, 2015, 7:25 am

      Dorothy Parker is still noted for having coined the term “what fresh hell is this?”. Which is brilliant

      • just
        April 29, 2015, 8:19 am

        Didn’t know that Giles~ thank you! I use that phrase…

        And thank you for this great article, Gil.

    • turveyd
      April 29, 2015, 9:56 am

      An interesting article but I was very surprized to learn that Helen Thomas made an “ill-conceived and off-hand remark”. Helen Thomas’ brief candle shone like a good deed in a very, very naughty world and she never made an ill-conceived or off-hand remark in her life.

      • irishmoses
        April 29, 2015, 6:41 pm

        A bit of a generality applied to 5 examples.

  11. Blownaway
    April 28, 2015, 12:07 pm

    It is indeed truly prescient to read her comments, true today like then. But if anyone thinks that Obama will do anything other than subtle hints is delusional. It’s past time for subtle, when Sheldon Adelson is in cobtrol of 2/3 of government, nothing short of bold move to take back our country will work now

  12. Citizen
    April 28, 2015, 12:33 pm

    Nothing on Dorothy Thompson’s demise nor why it happened and so fast in her Wikipedia entry. The Wiki article does list some of her other (once) famous quotes, among them the “Christmas Declaration by men and women of German ancestry” which she wrote to counter the German American Bund, which had drawn 20,000 fans to Madison Square Garden to praise Hitler, just a few years earlier; as a real journalist, she understood the man-bites-dog news value of German-Americans protesting against Germany.

    The World Jewish Congress agreed to foot the bill for publishing Thompson’s anti-Nazi statement as a newspaper ad. She drafted the text and set about recruiting signatories. It appeared as a Dec 22 full-page ad in the NYT and 9 other major daily newspapers:

    “[W]e Americans of German descent raise our voices in denunciation of the Hitler 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 declaration began. “These horrors … are, in particular, a challenge to those who, like ourselves are descendants of the Germany that once stood in the foremost ranks of civilization.” The ad went on to “utterly repudiate every thought and deed of Hitler and his Nazis,” and urged the people of Germany “to overthrow a regime which is the infamy of German history.”

    I bet her ghost would be happy to see an equivalent ad in those papers today re Zionism, “We Americans of Jewish descent raise our voices in denunciation…”

    Obama may have been cunningly pleading for this to that room full of stenographers with their trophy dates. Or maybe all he knew about Dorothy Thompson was his crib sheet spiel ripped of Wikipedia by one of his lackies missioned with picking a really star journalist to mention in his speech.

  13. Steve Grover
    April 28, 2015, 12:36 pm

    “but a Zionist state destined to become the leading power in the Middle East.” The sky is falling! the sky is falling! She should’ve gotten on horseback (or camelback) and yelled the Yiddish are coming! the Yiddish are coming!

    • Citizen
      April 28, 2015, 1:24 pm

      Atta boy, mock somebody who knew what they were talking about from first hand experience and warned us all. The revolutionary war of USA was fought between colonial subjects of Britain and Britain itself, Palestinians are colonial subjects on their own native ground, Palestinians have never colonized anyone.

      Israel snookered the US and France to get its 200 nukes. Unlike Iran, it’s not a member of the NNPT & so, nobody inspects or monitors Israel’s stockpile of nukes. It works daily to cement the lands it controls via force of arms, and to grab more of that same land. There’s not been a sign yet that Israel’s lebensraum policy will ever end, despite the fact it’s illegal under international law and by official US foreign policy, at least weakly: Official US policy joined with international law, that is, settlements are illegal, although this firm stance (in words only) has now been diluted by AIPAC donor dollars to “obstacle to peace.”

      • Steve Grover
        April 28, 2015, 2:41 pm

        @citizen
        I replied to you. The censors didn’t post it.

      • Mooser
        April 28, 2015, 7:13 pm

        “I replied to you. The censors didn’t post it.”

        You are making a fool of yourself. Please learn the difference between “censoring” and “moderation”.

        Mondo has no obligation to lower it’s standards to match your’s, Grover.

    • talknic
      April 28, 2015, 3:20 pm

      @ Steve Grover

      Uh?

      Israel is the only country with Nuclear Weapons in the M East and by having them threatens to use them (otherwise there’s no point having them)

      Israel does have the most advanced military in the M East.

      Israel is the only country in the M East to have illegally acquired by war, territory belonging to it’s neighbours.

      Israel is the only country on the planet to be in breach of hundreds of unanimously adopted UNSC resolutions affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the binding Laws and UN Charter and relevant conventions those resolutions emphasize and re-affirm.

      Israel lies about its borders http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      Israel lies to its own citizens endangering them by encouraging them to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories under occupation.

      She was quite correct.

      • Steve Grover
        April 28, 2015, 3:57 pm

        “Israel is the only country with Nuclear Weapons in the M East” Hopefully this is true and remain that way for a very long time.
        “Israel does have the most advanced military in the M East.” Hopefully this is true and remain that way for a very long time.
        @Israel is the only country in the M East to have illegally acquired by war, territory belonging to it’s neighbours” It serves those warm and fuzzy neighbors right!
        “Israel is the only country on the planet to be in breach of hundreds of unanimously adopted UNSC resolutions” those resolutions should have a BS preceding them to highlight what they are. All proposed by and supported by the most foul regimes on Earth!

      • talknic
        May 9, 2015, 1:20 am

        @ Steve Grover //“Israel is the only country with Nuclear Weapons in the M East”//
        “Hopefully this is true and remain that way for a very long time”

        //“Israel does have the most advanced military in the M East.” //
        “Hopefully this is true and remain that way for a very long time”

        Odd. You now agree. Thanks for showing folk the duplicity and desperation Israel’s apologists indulge in. Obviously you’ll say anything, no matter that it contradicts what you’ve previously written

        // Israel is the only country in the M East to have illegally acquired by war, territory belonging to it’s neighbours” //
        “It serves those warm and fuzzy neighbors right!”

        Serves them right for what exactly? Israel’s wars have ALL been in other folks territories. They’ve a right to attempt to expel Israeli forces from non-Israeli territory.

        //“Israel is the only country on the planet to be in breach of hundreds of unanimously adopted UNSC resolutions”//
        “those resolutions should have a BS preceding them to highlight what they are. All proposed by and supported by the most foul regimes on Earth!”

        The countries Israel courts and seeks to increase trade with are the most foul regimes on Earth. Interesting stuff.

    • Mooser
      April 28, 2015, 8:46 pm

      “and yelled the Yiddish are coming! the Yiddish are coming!”

      That wouldn’t scare anybody. Imagine if she rode around yelling “Israeli Hebrew, and the Israeli educational system is coming!”

      As I remember Zionists don’t like Yiddish, but of course, you will claim it if you can conflate Zionists with all Jews.
      Zionists will make it necessary, by your own selfishness and megalomania, for Jews to disclaim Zionism at some point. I hope you are ready for how easy that will be for them.

  14. HarryLaw
    April 28, 2015, 1:22 pm

    It might appear the Arab dictators have conceded Israel’s power in the middle east, together with the backing of the US and most of the west, to its imagined and hoped for ‘leading power’ status. One only has to hear what Prince Turki al-Faisal said to Amos Yadlin at a meeting in Israel.. “The most striking statement came from Prince Turki. He said the Arabs had ‘crossed the Rubicon’ and ‘don’t want to fight Israel anymore.’” https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/27/syrias-nightmarish-narrative/ The dictators can speak for themselves, in my opinion, the so called ‘Arc of extremism’ Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will one day sweep these parasites from power.

    • Citizen
      April 28, 2015, 1:32 pm

      I agree there’s a day of reckoning coming to the Arab klan regimes propped up by US oil interests & AIPAC’S agenda. The wealth of these oil regimes compared to the utter dependency of their citizens makes the US income Gap tiny in comparison–although US income gap grows like Topsy & is now beyond The Gilded Age.

  15. DaBakr
    April 28, 2015, 2:02 pm

    another self-righteous defender of human rights who completely breezed over the plight of the American First Nations *……….

    *[ ask any First Nation folks in Canada or the American NW how they feel about Thompson’s 2 sentence summation on “aboriginals” and how the Anglo-Brits started this nation. (forgetting the french and spanish as well]

    by stating that they were simply a ‘small population’ of inconsequential tribal aboriginals that had no real bearing on the great Anglo-Saxon colonizers who came to set up the ‘greatest nation on earth’.
    It is one thing to acknowledge that America has made a great contribution to the world in terms of expanding the notion of every human being born equal but it is disingenuous and hypocritical in the extreme to gloss over exactly who was exterminated, pushed out and de-humanized in the process -all while focusing her rigteous indignation at the Zionists.

    Also-I seriously doubt there was any ‘concerted campaign’ to silence her. It was more likely a result of how information is spread by any other social network. In this case American Jews who were OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Zionisy in the 40s simply read what she wrote, didn’t like it one bit, did not appreciate her as a prophetic voice and simply responded vocally their displeasure. It could have been any number of subjects that might egg on public ire that might affect a journalists career. But in this case it was her early anti-Zionist stance. Unless the assumption is the millions of American Zionists in the late 40s should have embraced the author as their ‘friendly kindhearted critic’ who means well (which she very well did)
    Her analogies the the exception to dual-loyalties, dual-nationalities and how the American Negro was the exception are weak and could easily be brought down. Also-her implication that American immigrants from other nations -with this “new” exception of Jews since the birth of Israel-have ‘never before’ observed any type of dual loyalty is absurd. Dozens of nations allow dual citizenship that pre-dates Israel.
    its too easy to paint her as some kind of victim when she continued to write about what her heart told her to write. People-including Zionists-can not be forced to want to read yet more and more articles either warning, excoriating, criticizing and admonishing their newly embraced enthusiasm and support for the birth of Israel and the Zionism that goes hand-in-hand with that.

    Also- its worth noting the non-controversial use of the term “terrorist” to describe Begin in her articles. Its always assumed as if Israelis never ever could accept one of their own as a terrorist but its obvious that his actions-wether they were embraced, celebrated or horrified-were at the root-terroristic. Its just another small point of contention in the i/p propaganda war in that nobody of any merit is arguing that Jewish militants did not engage in terrorism at that time but it is not and has never been gov’t approved policy.

    As for the author? Did she really suffer -or- did she simply stand by her own set of moral guides? Yes-the charge of anti-Semitism is often thrown around carelessly but in the balance-the supposed CREDIBILITY of having a connection to Judaism is also thrown around by anti-semitc groups with Jewish members or Groups which use “jewish” in their names to lend credibility to their criticism/slanders. It works both ways (especially with the Jews and their idd status as an ethno/religio/nation from which there seems to be no escape–which is probably why its so irritating to anti-Zionists and Zionists alike. )

    • Mooser
      April 28, 2015, 7:19 pm

      “(especially with the Jews and their idd status as an ethno/religio/nation from which there seems to be no escape”

      I’m sorry “dabakr” which countries relegate Jews to “an ethno/religio/nation from which there seems to be no escape”? Mind specifying?

      Besides, what the hell is so wrong with being Jewish that I have to escape from it? Well, except for you castigating me about talking like a Jew? Apart from that, I don’t feel any need to escape from it. Why should I?

      • DaBakr
        April 29, 2015, 1:19 pm

        @msr

        As usual…

        Continuing to turn the comment section into a running stream of personal quirks focused on nothing but yourself. Is it just comic relief or something worse.

      • Steve Grover
        April 29, 2015, 3:41 pm

        @Moosic to somebody else’s ear sez “Besides, what the hell is so wrong with being Jewish that I have to escape from it?”
        Maybe you would have felt escaping it before the establishment of Israel in ’48. Maybe you’d wanna escape it or hide it because people might wanna kill ya, beat ya up, fire ya, not admit ya into college, take your property spit at ya and/or not hire you in the first place. Now that Israel exists and you don’t need to “escape from it” or hide from it, you like to piss on what has made this happen for you.

      • Mooser
        April 30, 2015, 12:22 am

        Gosh, if you guys don’t like my response, why not ignore me and instead discuss it with the hundreds of other commenters who want you to explicate and embellish your comments and discuss their finer points?
        I mean, gee, there must be so many people who will take you two seriously, and discuss things on your level. Why pick on me?
        Think about it, Grover and “dabakr”, people could get the idea that all Zionists really want is to boss, intimidate and control other Jews. That could play bloody heck with the TU image! What if people started thinking: “Hey, I’ve seen the way these guys treat each other, I really doubt the IDF will come after me if I slug this guy and walk off with his girl.” That could endanger us all!

    • Mooser
      April 30, 2015, 12:36 am

      “Judaism is also thrown around by anti-semitc groups with Jewish members or Groups which use “jewish” in their names to lend credibility to their criticism/slanders.”

      Sue ’em till the squeak! How dare they use a registered Trademark! Why the word “Jewish” belongs to, to… gee, who does it belong to?

      Wait a minute, I see the biggest domain-name opportunity of all time! See you guys, I’ve got some registering to do! The next time somebody wants to call something “Jewish” they will have to ask me!

      • Steve Grover
        April 30, 2015, 3:00 pm

        Mooser is correct. JVP had every right to use Jewish in their title and I support that right. For truth in advertising purposes they should change what the V and P stand for. I recommend vacuous and phonies.

      • Mooser
        April 30, 2015, 10:38 pm

        “For truth in advertising purposes….”

        First of all, thanks for “supporting” their right, like you’ve got a goddam thing to say about it, but dream on, “Grober”

        Anyway, there’s your suit, “Grober”. Drag them into court over false advertising. Got any other great plans to stop the future?

        Gosh, if only those sneaky anti-Semites had kept up their end of the deal. Remember them? They were supposed to be your “best friends”, but they did the dirty on you.

  16. hophmi
    April 28, 2015, 2:23 pm

    Alison Weir is a “script consultant.” OK.

    According to Thompson’s friend, Meyer Weisgal, Thompson got caught up in the harsh debates between Labor and Revisionist Zionists at the time. Her hero was Chaim Weizmann, and what got her into trouble was not a break with Zionism, but her criticism of Menachem Begin’s terrorism. She was fired from the Post after being criticized for that break, although no one silenced her; after she was fired from the Post, she continued to have a syndicated national column.

    After she was fired, she fell in with the ACJ.

    Apparently, her popularity was already declining before she became an anti-Zionist. https://books.google.com/books?id=-fthy9rdNC4C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22maxim+kopf%22+jews&source=bl&ots=b57XhVpFJ0&sig=Vo9vA8zJmMsX1l5PFyO0_XI6x3U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jsY_VYSJCY_HsQTVp4HwCA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22maxim%20kopf%22%20jews&f=false

    Weisgal devotes a chapter to her in his book, “So Far . . .”, where he criticizes the overreaction of Revisionist Zionists to her criticism of Menachem Begin and blames this for her adoption of anti-Zionism, which he says she was abandoning toward the end of her life because she could not stand the anti-Jewish sentiments of her new friends.

    It appears that Thompson harbored at least some antisemitic views. In August 1941, she claimed in Harpers that she knew “lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance.”

    http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

    She also accused Jews who supported Israel of dual loyalty, a charge Hitler had used.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=vrEm7B-JVOkC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=%22dorothy+thompson%22+jews&source=bl&ots=mG8t2PbINn&sig=sgcO_6y-hhJFYHoBlt8YNOpJ57Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XMs_VeLZCo7HsQScqIHYDA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22dorothy%20thompson%22%20jews&f=false

    So the real story appears to be that though Thompson turned against Zionism, and while some accusations against her may have been over the top, it ultimately had little to do with her being forgotten, and indeed, the many articles about her suggest that she has not been forgotten, even if she did not achieve the same notoriety as wartime reporters like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, or Ernie Pyle. I would venture to guess that most newspaper columnists and reporters from the 1930’s and 1940’s, whether friendly to Israel’s cause or not, are not well-known today.

    • Donald
      April 28, 2015, 5:59 pm

      I urge everyone to read hophmi’s Harpers link and see what he considers evidence of anti-semitism. In fact, what Thompson does is point out that there are people in every society who would go Nazi, given the opportunity–Jews couldn’t, given Nazi ideology, but if they could (if, for instance, some other group were hated rather than Jews) then there are some Jews who would be Nazis, just as there are members of every other group who would join. That’s what she is saying. She spends the article describing some imaginary people at a party (most of them non-Jewish) and then explains in her mind why this person would be a Nazi and that one wouldn’t. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her judgments of imaginary people, but to say she was an anti-semite based on this article tells me everything I need to know about hophmi. He just sees a phrase or two and reaches for the anti-semite accusation.

      Here’s a piece from the article–

      ” is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

      It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become “Honorary Aryans and Nazis”; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

      It is also, to an immense extent, the disease of a generation—the generation which was either young or unborn at the end of the last war. This is as true of Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Americans as of Germans. It is the disease of the so-called “lost generation.””

      • just
        April 28, 2015, 7:00 pm

        Thanks for the recommendation, Donald.

        She certainly has a point, and so do you. Another bit from her article struck me:

        “Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.”

      • hophmi
        April 29, 2015, 11:07 am

        “but to say she was an anti-semite based on this article tells me everything I need to know about hophmi. ”

        Oh Donald, stop being lazy. I didn’t say that she harbored antisemitic views (that was Weisgal’s conclusion, not just mine, and Weisgal was her friend), based solely on this. I do think that it takes an odd person to write in August 1941 that there are Jews who are Nazis and who would yell Heil Hitler if given the chance; whether it’s true or not, it’s a little like writing in 1858 that there are Blacks who would whip Black slaves and condemn them as subhuman if given the chance. And read the whole, utterly silly piece, where Thompson goes through a room full of people, which includes two Jews, one a rather vicious stereotype of a rich German Jewish industrialist with a “native gift for money and a native love of power.”

      • irishmoses
        April 29, 2015, 1:00 pm

        Hophmi,
        Did you even bother to read DT’s very long analytic article on dual loyalty (published in Commentary, no less) that I linked to?

        “In a long and thoughtful 1950 article published in the Jewish magazine Commentary, Thompson warned American Jews of the dangers of dual loyalty and of “the terrorism of criticism”.
        ‘…there is another tendency equally dangerous as it affects non-Jews, and that is to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This really amounts to making anti-Semites, by appointment, of everybody who either does not believe in Zionism or criticizes any phase of Zionist and Israeli policy.'”

        Here’s the link again: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/do-israeli-ties-conflict-with-u-s-citizenshipamerica-demands-a-single-loyalty/

        Read it please and then perhaps you will understand how inane, shallow, and grossly unfair your analogy of her and Hitler was.

        Dorothy Thompson was an important historical figure who advocated tirelessly against Hitler and the Nazis, against antisemitism, and for the Jews of Europe and for Zionism. When she saw first hand the reality of Zionism in Palestine, she changed her mind and warned against it. Her transformation from Zionist to anti-Zionist does not make her an antisemite any more than the same transformation by Einstein and Arendt and others made them self-hating Jews.

        I had hoped my article would generate a serious discussion about a little-known yet important historical figure and major player in Zionism’s history. Taking cheap shots by nit-picking stray comments from her decades-long publishing and speaking history to knit a tapestry of antisemitism should be beneath you.

      • lysias
        April 29, 2015, 5:36 pm

        At the time, Dorothy Thompson lived in Turtle Bay Gardens, just north of where the UN is now, just west of the East River. Hannah Arendt lived at 370 Riverside Drive on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, just off W. 109th Street. Einstein lived at 112 Mercer St. in Princeton, near the Institute for Advanced Study. (I have been in the house.)

      • RoHa
        April 29, 2015, 7:23 pm

        “Taking cheap shots by nit-picking stray comments from her decades-long publishing and speaking history to knit a tapestry of antisemitism should be beneath you. ”

        irishmoses, it seems to me that keen Zionists take their cue from The Underminer in The Incredibles.

      • yonah fredman
        April 29, 2015, 8:29 pm

        irishmoses- To compare Dorothy Thompson’s change from Zionist to antiZionist to the changes that Arendt and Einstein went through is unhelpful (euphemism for silly).

        Arendt was all over the place in her Zionism after Biltmore 1942. During the 6 day war and Yom Kippur War her sympathies were with Israel. When the AJC offered Arendt a forum to defend herself in the aftermath of the Eichmann articles, she politely explained to the AJC that she still believed in Jewish peoplehood, despite her differences with Israeli policies.

        I have no evidence that Einstein ever changed his point of view. He was a binationalist Zionist of a Judah Magnes type to begin with and continued as such until his death. But there’s a whole book on Einstein’s Zionism that I have not read and maybe you read it and you can tell me what kind of Zionist he was at the time of the establishment of Hebrew University and how he changed after the Nakba.

      • irishmoses
        April 30, 2015, 12:19 am

        Yonah, you and JeffB (or maybe it’s JonS, or maybe both?) have been promoted by me to the level of Zionist Central Troll because:
        1. You typically ignore the substance or main point of an article or posting and instead nitpick some lesser detail, usually without any source attribution.
        2. This (as intended) forces the author to respond at length to the nitpick.
        3. You then either nitpick the response or ignore it in favor of some other nitpick or diversion.
        4. In the event the author’s response is too overwhelming for you to answer without looking like a fool, you take the coward’s way out and disappear from that thread.
        5. Usually, your responses in a thread will contain some allegation of antisemitism aimed towards the subject of the article or sometimes toward the author himself.

        Quite frankly, I’m sick and tired of you and your cohort’s bullshit game or tactic. Hence, I refuse and WILL NO LONGER FEED THE ZIONIST TROLLS.

        Congratulations on your promotion. After all your hard work, you deserve it.

      • yonah fredman
        April 30, 2015, 3:40 pm

        irishmoses- You drop the names of Arendt and Einstein as if to imply that you and Dorothy Thompson deserve to be known in the context of their greatness. But your snippy little response reveals your true level.

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2015, 7:49 pm

        “But your snippy little response reveals your true level.”

        His “true level”, Yonah? You mean his level as the author of articles which are praised both for the content, and their readability? Who assiduously answers all comments? That level, Yonah?

        As opposed to the level of a commenter who insists he has the right to prevaricate, and the right to divert?

      • Jupiter
        May 8, 2015, 7:03 pm

        I’m not so sure. This party of Ms. Thompson’s had two Jews in it. Here are their descriptions:

        Mr. J over there is a Jew. Mr. J is a very important man. He is immensely rich—he has made a fortune through a dozen directorates in various companies, through a fabulous marriage, through a speculative flair, and through a native gift for money and a native love of power. He is intelligent and arrogant. He seldom associates with Jews. He deplores any mention of the “Jewish question.” He believes that Hitler “should not be judged from the standpoint of anti-Semitism.” He thinks that “the Jews should be reserved on all political questions.” He considers Roosevelt “an enemy of business.” He thinks “It was a serious blow to the Jews that Frankfurter should have been appointed to the Supreme Court.”

        Mr. K contemplates the scene with a sad humor in his expressive eyes. Mr. K is also a Jew. Mr. K is a Jew from the South. He speaks with a Southern drawl. He tells inimitable stories. Ten years ago he owned a very successful business that he had built up from scratch. He sold it for a handsome price, settled his indigent relatives in business, and now enjoys an income for himself of about fifty dollars a week. At forty he began to write articles about odd and out-of-the-way places in American life. A bachelor, and a sad man who makes everybody laugh, he travels continually, knows America from a thousand different facets, and loves it in a quiet, deep, unostentatious way. He is a great friend of H, the biographer. Like H, his ancestors have been in this country since long before the Civil War. He is attracted to the young German. By and by they are together in the drawing-room. The impeccable gentleman of New England, the country-man—intellectual of the Middle West, the happy woman whom the gods love, the young German, the quiet, poised Jew from the South. And over on the other side are the others.

        ________

        They happen to be the only ones mentioned as being possessed of money! Are you sure that is not, you know, just a bit of Jew baiting there?

    • Keith
      April 28, 2015, 6:38 pm

      HOPHMI- “It appears that Thompson harbored at least some antisemitic views. In August 1941, she claimed in Harpers that she knew “lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance.”

      Why is this anti-Semitic? Is it anti-Semitic to criticize any Jew or Jews regardless of their behavior? Do you think that she is lying about knowing Jews who fit her description? Are you so unaware of the racist statements of some of the early Zionists, including Jabotinsky? Have you read “Zionism in the Age of Dictators?”

      Hophmi- “She also accused Jews who supported Israel of dual loyalty, a charge Hitler had used.”

      You are conflating her with Hitler because of this? Furthermore, I would like to see the quote of Hitler expressing opposition to Zionist support for Israel. As you should be aware, Nazi Germany treated the Zionist Jews much better than the non-Zionist Jews and, in fact, worked with the Zionists to facilitate Jewish emigration to Israel. Are you sure you want to discuss Nazi/Zionist collaboration? Your attempt to smear Dorothy as a crypto anti-Semite and link her to Hitler is yet another example of your complete lack of intellectual integrity.

      • hophmi
        April 29, 2015, 11:11 am

        “Why is this anti-Semitic? Is it anti-Semitic to criticize any Jew or Jews regardless of their behavior? Do you think that she is lying about knowing Jews who fit her description? ”

        I think if you wrote today that there were Christians in Iraq who would gladly join ISIS if given the chance, you’d be accomplishing roughly the same thing – missing the damn point.

        “You are conflating her with Hitler because of this?”

        Noting that, like Hitler, she used the dual loyalty charge, is not the same thing as saying she’s the same as Hitler.

        I won’t take lectures from the guy who falsely quoted Albert Einstein on intellectual integrity. You’re not a position to do that, sorry.

      • Keith
        April 29, 2015, 12:20 pm

        HOPHMI- “I think if you wrote today that there were Christians in Iraq who would gladly join ISIS if given the chance, you’d be accomplishing roughly the same thing – missing the damn point.”

        Ah, feigned outrage! No, I am not missing the “damn point,” you are. Or perhaps intentionally trying to misrepresent Dorothy Parker’s point that there are plenty of Americans who would welcome fascism if it profited them. A very defensible position considering that WWII militarism ended the Great Depression and profited US business enormously. Following the war, the US adopted military Keyenesianism (a form of fascism) to guide and stimulate the economy. McCarthyism didn’t reek of fascism? And how about pre-war Israel? You still claim ignorance of Yitsak Shamir’s and Menachem Begin’s early embrace of fascism? Of Betar and Mussolini? Read on.

        “Mussolini set up squadrons of the Revisionist Zionist youth movement, Betar, in black shirts in emulation of his own Fascist bands. When Menachem Begin became chief of Betar, he preferred the brown shirts of the Hitler gangs, a uniform Begin and Betar members wore to all meetings and rallies — at which they greeted each other and opened and closed meetings with the fascist salute.” (p48, The Hidden History of Zionism, Ralph Schoenman) And don’t forget that both Shamir and Begin became Israeli Prime Ministers!

        Hophmi- “Noting that, like Hitler, she used the dual loyalty charge, is not the same thing as saying she’s the same as Hitler.”

        Hypocrisy, thy name is Hophmi! Hannah Arendt warned that a Jewish state could result in issues involving dual loyalty. Funny, you chose to link Parker with Hitler instead of Arendt. By the way, you have heard of the sayanim haven’t you? What other ethnic group has anything comparable?

        Hophmi, your argument never changes. Anyone who disagrees with you or Zionism or Israel is an anti-Semite who sounds like Hitler. Of course, that is the essence of totalitarian Zionism, isn’t it?

      • oldgeezer
        April 29, 2015, 1:08 pm

        @hophmi

        “Noting that, like Hitler, she used the dual loyalty charge, is not the same thing as saying she’s the same as Hitler.”

        Fine. So noting that Israel uses collective punishment like the Nazis will not offend you.

        I will continue to find both that and your comment on her to be offensive.

      • jon s
        April 29, 2015, 5:10 pm

        Keith, In fact , the Nazis murdered the Zionist Jews, along with all the other Jews.

      • Keith
        April 29, 2015, 6:25 pm

        JON S- “Keith, In fact , the Nazis murdered the Zionist Jews, along with all the other Jews.”

        No doubt there were Zionist Jews who were murdered, however, I stand by my statement that “…Nazi Germany treated the Zionist Jews much better than the non-Zionist Jews and, in fact, worked with the Zionists to facilitate Jewish emigration to Israel.”

        I am not anxious to get into a detailed discussion of Zionist Jews’ relations with the Nazis during WWII. That was a long time ago and serves no useful purpose. I only entered into this to respond to Hophmi’s typical falsification of historical reality. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you are simply ignorant of this history. Suggest that you do a little reading on Dr Rudolph Kastner followed by “Zionism in the Age of Dictators,” by Lenni Brenner. A good starting point might be “The Hidden History of Zionism,” by Ralph Schoenman. The Zionist record before, during and after the Holocaust is a shameful one.

      • Jackdaw
        April 30, 2015, 1:19 am

        @Keith

        “Of course, that is the essence of totalitarian Zionism, isn’t it?”

        Totalitarian? A vibrant democracy that never had a coup d’etat in sixty seven years. A Knesset that has had Communists , Arab and religious parties sitting side-by-side is totalitarian?

        Keith. Why don’t you go off somewhere with your copy of Hidden History of Zionism and pleasure yourself some more.

      • Keith
        April 30, 2015, 3:17 pm

        JACKDAW- “Totalitarian?”

        One has only to look at the jackboot conformity of the Mondo Zionists comments to see the truth of my characterization. It is impossible to discuss anything with you and your cohorts because you all employ the same paint by numbers denial of historical reality. Right now, Israel is once again violating the terms of its cease fire agreement with Hamas which you and your ilk defend. Or am I wrong about you personally? Do you condemn Israel’s siege of Gaza and cease fire violations?

      • Mooser
        May 1, 2015, 2:43 pm

        “Keith, In fact , the Nazis murdered the Zionist Jews, along with all the other Jews.”

        Yes, the Gestapo would arrest all the Jews in a house, line them up and ask, “Okay, are you, or are you not, a Zionist” And the hell of it was, whatever they said, the Gestapo said “Oh-oh, sorry, wrong answer!”

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2015, 7:52 pm

        “Keith, In fact , the Nazis murdered the Zionist Jews, along with all the other Jews.”

        mean, really, “Jon s”. The Gestapo is coming through the doors, and all you are worried about is whether the people they are after are Zionists or not. Can’t we just let them be Jews at that point or would you like to break it down by denomination?

    • JWalters
      April 28, 2015, 8:12 pm

      … And therefore, all this rain has nothing to do with the thick dark cloud cover.

    • Giles
      April 29, 2015, 7:32 am

      “She also accused Jews who supported Israel of dual loyalty, a charge Hitler had used”.

      Jews who support Israel no matter should be accused of far worse than dual loyalty. That term greatly understates their sickness.

    • eGuard
      April 29, 2015, 7:44 am

      Hophmi, how original: saying that a jew cannot be a Nazi because that’s anti-Semitic. Brilliant. You made that up yourself? Ask for a a raise at Hasbara Central.

      But Dorothy Thompson actually says: Being a Nazi “appeals to a certain type of mind”. Going Nazi is a choice. And a great idiom too.

      Astonishing that by 1950, everything already had been written down. From another link, Thompson: “These ports [Jaffa, Accre], however, were seized by the Jews, as was all Galilee with the result that 500,000 Arabs were displaced, in at least one village -it is charged- with atrocities comparable to Lidice.” (note the subtle corret additions lik ‘however’, ‘all’, ‘at least one’). And Lidice, dear hopmni, was a Nazi type of mind.

      • hophmi
        April 29, 2015, 11:13 am

        Astonishing that in 1941, as Jews were being murdered en masse in Polish forests, dying en masse in ghettos, and about to subjected to the Final Solution, Thompson wrote that Jews would be Nazis if Hitler let them. That’s what really astonishing here.

      • eGuard
        April 29, 2015, 2:11 pm

        Astonishing that she wrote it already in 1941 indeed. I did not learn that numbers of Jews went Nazi until so many years after the war. Nakba = Lidice.

      • Mooser
        April 29, 2015, 2:17 pm

        “Astonishing that in 1941, as Jews were being murdered en masse in Polish forests, dying en masse in ghettos, and about to subjected to the Final Solution, Thompson wrote that Jews would be Nazis if Hitler let them. That’s what really astonishing here”

        Really? After you have posted, oh, God knows how many posts explicating Jewish self-hatred, and regaling us all with indictments of so many Jews for being traitors (or whatever dumb euphemism like ‘not acting in the interest of the Jewish community’ you use)?

        You’ve shown us all, many many times, Hophmi, that the Jewish community is full of traitors and roiled with self-disgust, and resisted every attempt to divert you from that self-degrading task, you seem set on it.

        So tell us, Hophmi, in light of your detailed analysis of Jewish self-disgust, self-hatred and “internalizing persecution” (from books, yet) why would we not be ready to accept that some Jews would have joined the Nazis?

        Sorry for the outburst. But you know how I am about TU!

      • Mooser
        April 29, 2015, 2:50 pm

        These ports [Jaffa, Accre], however, were seized by the Jews, as was all Galilee with the result that…”

        http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2009/01/a-land-without-a-people.html

        With some stunning pictures, and a report from the British.

      • Mooser
        April 29, 2015, 2:59 pm

        Ooops, I’m wrong again, as usual. Self hating Jews don’t become Nazis, and wouldn’t even if offered. Nope, survey shows they are more likely to become Communists.

    • irishmoses
      April 30, 2015, 2:39 am

      Hophmi,
      Thanks for the two google books cites. Both are valuable for a fuller picture of Thompson. Nice bit of research even though I may not entirely agree with your or the authors’ interpretations.

      • hophmi
        April 30, 2015, 12:36 pm

        The main reason I provided the book cites was simply to make the point that there were many reasons Thompson’s career waned after World War II, but that, first, she hardly faded in obscurity (national syndication and a column in the Ladies Home Journal, one of the country’s most widely-read magazines, until she died, are proof of that) , and second, her break with Zionism was not a big part of the reason. Alison Weir has apparently promoted that theory for a while, for obvious reasons, but I don’t think it really holds water. Thompson did work for the Post, and the editor of the Post was sympathetic to Begin, and so she lost her job at the Post. But that hardly means that if she had worked, for instance, at the New York Times. Reporters aren’t generally remembered well. I was trying to find out who wrote op-ed columns for major New York newspapers in the 1930’s and 1940’s, to see what they wrote about Zionism, but I can’t even find a list anywhere. I did see that Homer Bigart was the New York Herald Tribune’s chief war correspondent during World War II. He won a Pulitzer, and went on to cover the Korean War (for which he won a second Pulitzer), Vietnam, and the civil rights movement among other things (by then he was writing for the Times). He’s considered one of the greatest reporters of the 20th century. Do you think the general public today has a clue who he is today? There’s one book available about him, and it’s a compilation of his war correspondence. There are at least three about Thompson’s life.

  17. Kathleen
    April 28, 2015, 3:06 pm

    Heard Obama reference her. You can be sure he knew exactly what he was doing.

    • MHughes976
      April 28, 2015, 4:06 pm

      Obama is subtle to excess.

    • Rusty Pipes
      April 28, 2015, 5:28 pm

      I thought it was one of his cleverest jibes of the evening about what real journalistic courage is(the joke about the SNL comedian giving the best impersonation of a CNN host impersonating a journalist was a runner up). Can you imagine one of the stenographers in the White House press corps raising a question about Thompson — and if so, being allowed by their editors to print the response?

      • Kathleen
        May 1, 2015, 4:22 pm

        The man is a master of humor and can switch to serious on a dime. He delivered that swat to journalist with the gentlest of movements. Masterful…..

  18. Kathleen
    April 28, 2015, 3:10 pm

    The new FB method for sharing is not working. One on the side is working

  19. lysias
    April 28, 2015, 3:26 pm

    There’s a whole chapter on Dorothy Thompson and her support of the Palestinians in Alison Weir’s recent book Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel, which Weir had to self-publish on Amazon, as she couldn’t get a publisher to publish it. (I read it on my Kindle.)

    • Kathleen
      April 28, 2015, 4:30 pm

      yep

      Can’t wait to see the documentary. Can you imagine Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren being willing to play Dorothy Thompson in a film about her life. They would turn down the part. Roll over

      • Marnie
        April 29, 2015, 12:03 am

        I’m sure either one would play Ms. Thompson but only up to 1944. Which is pathetic.

        If she hadn’t seen the light and remained the zionist cheerleader, there’d be streets, schools, shuls, etc., named after her. However, the truth set her free, and she couldn’t hide from it. And her former supporters and friends turned on her like rabid dogs.

  20. Keith
    April 28, 2015, 4:06 pm

    GIL MAGUIRE- “This fascinating woman who deserves to be an icon of the feminist movement, is rarely, if ever, mentioned as an important female historical figure.”

    Would it be politically incorrect of me to suggest that this may be a consequence of the bias of the East Coast leadership of the major feminist organization?

    • irishmoses
      April 28, 2015, 10:12 pm

      Keith,
      Dorothy was as east coast as you can get. She was a leading player in New York’s suffrage movement. Her advice was welcomed by major leaders and presidential candidates. But once she was tarred as an antisemite, and wouldn’t back down, she became a pariah, socially and politically.

    • hophmi
      April 29, 2015, 11:14 am

      What do mean by “bias of the East Coast leadership,” Keith? Is this your way of displaying your intellectual integrity?

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2015, 7:56 pm

        “What do mean by “bias of the East Coast leadership,” Keith? Is this your way of displaying your intellectual integrity?”

        You should hear him when he’s talking about towns with Native American names! Like Pittsburgh, Syracuse or Levitown.

  21. surewin
    April 28, 2015, 4:23 pm

    The disappearance of Dorothy Thompson down the memory hole is an interesting and important story. But I find it especially interesting that Obama highlighted her in his speech, here in 2015.

    Why did he do it? I believe it is another clear signal of the power struggle between the globalists and the Israel network. The latter includes some Jews in diaspora, but many of the world’s most influential diaspora Jews are with the globalists, including, I believe, the Rothschilds. The globalists do not want to be identified as primarily Jewish and are diverse to a meaningful extent. Obama works for them. They do not want Israeli power to keep growing, and indeed for about the last eight years it has been receding, due to the efforts of the globalists, beginning with the replacement of Rumsfeld with Robert Gates and then the election of Obama.

    The Bush/Cheney administration was heavily influenced, we might say “commandeered”, by the Israel network, but others in the Bush family mobilized to begin to undo this, with Gates’ appointment as the most visible consequence. Braman’s support for Marco Rubio, and Adelson’s seeming disinterest in Jeb Bush reflect their awareness of the Bush family’s attitude.

    The U.S. military establishment, which is an independent node of world power (whose independence was challenged during 2001-2006 when Rumsfeld was SecDef), seems to be participating in the shift away from the Israel network toward cooperation with the globalists. I believe that this coalition (globalists and U.S. military) will continue to whittle down the independence and the power of the Israel network over time and at some point will impose a two-state solution on Israel/Palestine. It is important to the globalists that the Democratic Party retain control of the executive branch, and if they do, we should not be surprised if the next President is the figurehead in the imposition of a two-state solution.

    The anti-Zionists probably will not get much satisfaction, as a Jewish sovereign state is very important to the globalists for instrumental reasons. It is essential to the Israel network, needless to say, and it seems to be significant to the U.S. military complex, for reasons that are a bit more complex. There’s no major power-bloc in the world that benefits from a just one-state solution.

  22. JWalters
    April 28, 2015, 8:18 pm

    Here’s a thoughtful article comparing the White House correspondents dinner to a family gathering in which the members avoid talking about certain dark secrets. One assenting commenter describes her in-laws’ family in which the patriarch was rapist, and how that topic was carefully avoided.
    http://pressthink.org/2015/04/on-the-deep-grammar-of-the-white-house-correspondents-association-dinner/

  23. lonely rico
    April 28, 2015, 8:28 pm

    Alison Weir’s recent book Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel

    Recommended reading.

    Order or download from the site –

    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/books.html

  24. JLWarner
    April 28, 2015, 8:50 pm

    What can I add. Dorthory Thompson was a person one should model their life after.

    Alternate Focus under John Odam’s is doing a film on Dorthory Thompson. Here is the link
    http://thesilencing.org/

  25. traintosiberia
    April 29, 2015, 12:12 am

    Helen Thomas, Scott Ritter,Sanchez,Joe Sorbon, and Octavia Nasser suffered same fate .So did Jim Clancy.
    Robert Frisk had it much worse . He was threatened . He was called terrorist supprter by Harvard professor by UCLA faculty,WSJ reporter and threatened by Hollywood actor. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-does-john-malkovich-want-to-kill-me-9204117.html
    So was Jennifer Lowenstein and Suzanne Goldberg . Their crimes were to raise the point that was raised by US and UK intelligence and even by 911 commission later .( that the Arab grievances lie in the foreign policies and military activities of US / Israel in the ME)

    • Citizen
      April 29, 2015, 3:55 am

      The original 9/11 Commission Report text said that the main motive was US foreign policy, specifically, the funding & rubber stamping of Israeli policy & conduct. The version given to the US public made made this generic, blowback from US foreign policy. Nevertheless, this bottom line generic motive conclusion did not retract the specific motive specified as example in the torso of the public document, which remains US-Israel foreign policy. The media never picked up on this despite the fact 9/11 was our contemporary Pearl Harbor. How many Americans today know why Japan thought it had to risk awakening the sleeping giant? How many know what Roosevelt did to pressure Japan, and why? Not many in my experience.

    • MHughes976
      April 29, 2015, 11:01 am

      ‘Fisk’ – he still writes regularly for the Independent, which I regularly read. But yes, he is widely hated.

      • Kathleen
        April 29, 2015, 6:21 pm

        And deeply respected by many

  26. Philip Munger
    April 29, 2015, 3:52 am

    In the mid-1970’s in a multi-party conversation on my commercial fishing boat, with a guest reporter on board, and friends chiming in over the VHF radio, I confused Dorothy Thompson with Dorothy Parker.

    Boy, did I get lambasted, most of all by the female guest reporter, who was also named Parker. She turned out to have done a college paper on Thompson, and shared her books by Thompson with me, after we got back to port. Some of the other commercial fishermen in on the radio back-and-forth also knew who Thompson was. And Dorothy Parker.

    Thompson, from what I remember of To Who Does the Earth Belong and The Crisis in the West , was hard to grasp overall, but very easy to read. I’m glad to see her being brought back up!

    Having read a couple of her books, and admiring her for what little I knew about her career as an iconoclastic journalist, a friend compared her to Pierre van Paassen. My friend, having read her early Zionist articles, assumed she was still supportive of Israel.

    That got me to read van Paassen’s Days of Our Years, which was one of the most powerful bullshit books I’ve ever read.

    hophmi probably has a point that Thompson was already past her prime in terms of audience and relevance at the time when she woke up to Zionist racism. But what she wrote and said then about that probably sealed her fate as a marketable journalist commodity.

    I think Obama’s use of her in his comments was self-serving, shallow and somewhat pathetic. Just watched Citizen Four last night.

    • Citizen
      April 29, 2015, 3:58 am

      What did you think of Citizen Four? What do you think Snowden thinks of the US-Israel special relationship?

    • RoHa
      April 29, 2015, 4:33 am

      To whom. Dorothy got it right.

      • Philip Munger
        April 29, 2015, 2:28 pm

        Duh. Too late to edit.

      • RoHa
        April 29, 2015, 7:29 pm

        Same thing happens to me. Very frustrating.

    • Mooser
      April 29, 2015, 11:31 am

      “In the mid-1970’s in a multi-party conversation on my commercial fishing boat, with a guest reporter on board, and friends chiming in over the VHF radio, I confused Dorothy Thompson with Dorothy Parker”

      And I like you for it. Nice to know hardy commercial fisherman have something in common with us lowly rec. boaters.

      • irishmoses
        April 29, 2015, 3:37 pm

        I bet it was the first episode of “Dangerous Catch”.

      • Mooser
        April 29, 2015, 4:33 pm

        We often over-use the VHF radio too, instead of leaving it free for navigational and safety messages.

    • irishmoses
      April 29, 2015, 6:57 pm

      Philip,
      Thompson’s switch away from Zionism and the Israel project began at the beginning of 1945. She was still in her prime then, and arguably was still in 1948 when Claire Booth Luce and others thought she could be a viable presidential candidate. Her demise started in 1947 and then grew rapidly in 1949-50 when she became very vocal about the plight of the Palestinians and the excesses of Israel.

      Losing key outlets and influence was a gradual process which was brought on by her refusal to kow tow. Who knows when her prime would have been if she hadn’t tangled with Zionism and its Israel project. In 1948, she was 55 years old. Hardly past her prime.

  27. Belive1959
    April 29, 2015, 5:39 am

    Thanks, I also think the same way..

  28. traintosiberia
    April 29, 2015, 2:05 pm

    For every Dorothy Thomson born , 100 Con Coughlin ( Telegraph of UK )are created by the forcez of Zionism to match the donation to the world but to the opposite direction.

    Sharon lies in 2002 saying WMD has moved to Syria. It goes to OSP.Cheny says “I have seen the report” .Con Coughlin writes how the letter from Habbush to saddam showing the Uranium buying by Iraq from Niger and tranfer of WMD to Syria confirms the ,long -held suspicion in Bush camp was found by the provisional government after April 2003 .

    Suskind exposes how the letter was forged and backdated at the order of WH .Suskind is then accused of ” gutter reporting ” by WH .
    Bil O Reily gets excited with teh evidence of teh connection .

    NY Sun promotes the article from Con Coughlin. The lies travel giving succer to the corportae boards of teh WSJ,FOX,Telegraph,NY Sun and of a few more .
    Americans poll online to tell much how they dont trust Syria.

    ex -Saddam General Geroge Sada writes a book “Saddam’s sercets ” and comes to see Infohe of OK ,to testify to Senate Armed Committe and supports the lies of Conmen who all can trace the roots to Sharon of 2002 .

    The Chrsitain faith based charity organziation -Wolrd Comapssion- validates George Sada -“Do I believe this man? Yes,” Mr. Law said. “It’s been solid down the line and everything checked out.”
    says Terry Law of the organization .

    http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/08/05/27116/suskind-iraq/

    Mohammed Atta’s Iraqi Connection By: Con Coughlin
    London Telegraph | Monday, December 15, 2003

  29. ritzl
    April 29, 2015, 3:34 pm

    Thanks, Gil. I too didn’t know of her.

    How so many did not, is maybe/probably the major takeaway of this article. How did she get so totally relegated to historical oblivion?

    That and the circumstances of her transformation to anti-Zionist.

    Did DT know Einstein and Arendt? She was a contemporary. That confluence would be interesting to know as well.

    • irishmoses
      April 29, 2015, 6:16 pm

      She knew everybody at her high point which spanned a period of almost 2 decades (1933 to 1950?). Considering she ran in the top tier of society, I’d be surprised if she didn’t know them.

      My favorite vignette: Her first marriage was a failure and a public humiliation at the end. She was devastated so went to see Dr. Freud who told her to change her lipstick color, buy a new wardrobe, and move on, which she did. Sigmund apparently didn’t see Dorothy as a prospect for long term analysis.

      • Jupiter
        May 4, 2015, 5:58 pm

        He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war, a feeling shared by Archbishop Muench in “One World in Charity.” Here’s how Peter Kurth defends her in this:

        The mood was already triumphant and punitive, and she she would get into the debates with people about this. There were few people in particular. There was Lord Van Sifford, who was for British stooge for… anyway … she she got into big public debates with Robert Morgenthall and the government who wanted, what he said he wanted.. wiped out, he said he wanted Germany wiped from the map. That was the base, almost a government position. It was the position Rex Stout, of all people, who was vociferously anti-Germany, and he and Dorothy got into a big public debate about it that went on for about a year. She was pretty much alone on this. She wanted… she didn’t see any reasons given that the world would have to be rebuilt. She didn’t see any reason for punishment that wasn’t constructive, if we can look at it that way. She didn’t defend the Germans, what they had done, she didn’t… she just said that that we’re just talking about nations, we’re talking about world affairs, we’re talking about the welfare of huge, huge numbers of people, and the best thing to do with Germany after the war is to help it rebuild itself in the liberal tradition. So she was off center compared with other people. It was very unpopular. She… her reaction to that… first of all the Holocaust, as we now understand it, was not quite the—how do I want to put this?—it hadn’t formed into the well-known historical image in that time. It was still being discovered when Dorothy was writing. As the camps were opened and it became obvious what horrors had happened there, there was a huge of course revulsion against it, but they hadn’t come up with their figure of 6 million quite. At the time of this was going on something like 2 million ethnic Germans were being slaughtered in in the wake of the Nazi defeat from mainly in the Eastern countries where any German ethnic people living…they were being killed.

        http://thesilencing.org/peter-kurth-interview-1/

        In sum, the Germans were being treated miserably in her mind. In fact, it has been said that she thought the Allies were basically putting them in gas chambers. No thought for Jewish DP’s of course.

        It has been said that Mondoweiss removes the vast majority of evidence against its arguments from its comments section. Let us see if this is so. I have insulted no one, used no profane words, & quoted reputable sources.

      • irishmoses
        May 4, 2015, 7:30 pm

        Jupiter said: “He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war.”

        Where did she say she favored German Nazis after the war? Please give us your source for that outrageous claim. She argued against Morganthau’s desire to return Germany to a pastoral land, but so did a lot of others.

        “In fact, it has been said that she thought the Allies were basically putting them in gas chambers.” Please provide a cite for this. Who said it and when?

      • lysias
        May 4, 2015, 6:48 pm

        In the immediate postwar years, the Germans were being treated miserably. Dorothy Thompson was not the only one who protested over this. The Jewish and surely irreproachable Victor Gollancz was another. W.H. Auden was another.

      • echinococcus
        May 4, 2015, 8:06 pm

        About reconstruction aid to Germany, 1945-46:

        She was pretty much alone on this….

        she just said that that we’re just talking about nations, we’re talking about world affairs, we’re talking about the welfare of huge, huge numbers of people, and the best thing to do with Germany after the war is to help it rebuild itself in the liberal tradition. So she was off center compared with other people. It was very unpopular.

        Yeah, so horribly unpopular that it was the official policy of the US government from the get-go / before V-day. Never heard about Marshall Plan etc.? So obviously the entire US government was practicing “favoritism for German Nazis”, wasn’t it?

      • Jupiter
        May 4, 2015, 11:51 pm

        The implication of favoritism after the war is right in the quote by Karch, who also appears to favor the Germans after the war, as does another poster here. The Axis powers were responsible for 60 million deaths. The Axis : Allied civilian death ratio was 1 :10. The gall that anyone would have to argue that these people, who by mathematical justice should have lost the same number of civilians, were being unjustly treated is obscene beyond belief. Fascism was ever popular.

        Here is the credible source you requested:

        And why would Thompson, who considered isolationists to be “the devil’s surrogates,” oppose Roosevelt’s “interventionist … bent” and initially support America Firster Wendell Willkie in 1940? “The time had come to think of America’s domestic interests,” Hertog explains, though this obviously contradicts her definition of Thompson, a few pages later, as a “passionate interventionist.” How can Hertog claim that Thompson possessed a “rich grasp of history” and “superior intellectual understanding”? This was the woman “would blame the war on Washington’s failed negotiations with Japan,” who “insisted … that the Germans were victims of circumstances,” and who, after the war, compared Anglo-American policies toward the Germans to “the re-opening of the gas chambers and crematoria.”

        http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/dangerous-ambition-dorothy-thompson-rebecca-west-susan-hertog

        Dorothy Thompson knew perfectly well about the systematic extermination of Jews & Roma & chose to exonerate Germany.

        Tell us your opinion of “One World In Charity”, please.

      • irishmoses
        May 5, 2015, 3:45 pm

        You seem to have modified your original claim that DT favored “German Nazis” after the war to her and Kurth (not “Karch”) merely favoring and exonerating “Germans” after war. I suppose that’s progress. However, a more fair and balanced view would be that she favored and advocated a non-revenge based rehabilitation of Germany and Germans rather than duplicating the vindictive/punitive methods used by the Allies after World War I which many scholars believe provided the circumstances that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to come to power. Judging from the results of the US policy of rehabilitation, in both Germany and Japan, DT’s view seems to have stood the test of time.

      • oldgeezer
        May 5, 2015, 12:38 am

        @Jupiter

        I’m not sure that there is a concept of mathematic justice. How extensive is this principle?

        Do you feel mathematical justice should be applied to just some particular societies? All societies?

        Is mathematical justice a concept or an excuse?

      • Jupiter
        May 5, 2015, 3:44 pm

        oldgeezer May 5, 2015, 12:38 am
        “Mathematical justice” should have been penned, “equivalence of slaughter”. The massive difference in civilian casualties assuredly implies a lack of moral equivalence between the Axis & the Aliied powers. A person who justifies America First is an Axis apologist.

      • lysias
        May 5, 2015, 4:52 pm

        The Marshall Plan was first announced by Marshall at Harvard commencement in the summer of 1947. It didn’t really get going until 1948. By that time, the Cold War was hitting its stride. The atmosphere — and the attitude towards Germany — were very different from 1945-46.

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2015, 4:20 am

        “In fact, it has been said that she thought….”

        Now let me guess, a little bird flew in the window and told you this?

  30. ckg
    April 30, 2015, 12:49 am

    More praise here. This is one of the best MW pieces I have ever read.

    • irishmoses
      April 30, 2015, 1:58 am

      High praise indeed. Thank you so much. Much of it is just cobbled together comments from her biography, but what a biography she had!

  31. IfAmericansKnew
    April 30, 2015, 3:30 pm

    Thank you for your article on Dorothy Thompson, who is discussed in Alison Weir’s book Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel. As the article mentions, an excellent project to make a documentary on her has been underway for a year by Alternate Focus. Please see: http://thesilencing.org/

    Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/embed/uWur-N-IOrQ

    By the way, Alison also mentions Dorothy in many of her talks, e.g. https://youtu.be/x9_5iOYsHFQ – The part about Thompson is near the end.

  32. irishmoses
    May 5, 2015, 4:05 pm

    Having just reread the quote by Kurth you cite, I see no basis whatsover for concluding Kurth was a neo-fascist, nor for concluding that Kurth felt Germans were somehow the exclusive suffering souls after the war. Your comment is shameful.

    • plkbvt
      May 8, 2015, 9:55 am

      Thanks for that. But the word “fascist” as used here has no meaning. It’s just the usual blanket smear of anyone who criticizes Israel.

      • just
        May 8, 2015, 10:21 am

        +1, plkbvt!

      • Bumblebye
        May 8, 2015, 10:41 am

        pssst, just, plkbvt *is* the author Peter Kurth!
        We are not worthy!
        :-)

      • just
        May 8, 2015, 10:55 am

        Sure we are! ;-)

        Gil’s article is worthy indeed. It’s good of Mr. Kurth to stop by.

        (thanks for letting me know, Bumblebye)

Leave a Reply