The New York Times – the former “paper of record” for important news in the United States – has long accused Pope Pius XII of being silent in the face of the Holocaust, and of being “Hitler’s Pope”. The fact that it contradicts the evidence contained in its own pages – in one instance the paper called Pius “a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe”, and in another “a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent.” Yet recent scholarship has examined the New York Times response to the Holocaust. The results are damning – a paper published by a German-Jew buried the most important (and horrific) news of the twentieth century in the bowels of the paper rather than make it front-page news. At least that is the claim of one recently published book, Buried by the Times.

The author, Laurel Leff, a professor of journalism and a former reporter for TheWall Street Journal, has done a fine job of research in the archives of the paper of record. Others could have done that, but nobody has. More important, she has brilliantly analyzed the reasons Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the German-Jewish publisher of The Times, brought Jewish self-hatred to a head long before the rubric gained popularity.

In 1939, when the Nazis began to destroy the Jews of Poland, what bothered Sulzberger was Franklin Roosevelt's casual remark that Jews were a "race." He got FDR to call them a "faith," which settled the issue of the Warsaw Ghetto for him.

On the eve of Thanksgiving 1942, the State Department confirmed that 2 million Jews were dead in Europe, and it allowed Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leader of American Jewry, to announce the news. The Times didn't send a reporter to the press conference in Washington. Instead, it ran a short from The Associated Press - on page 10, surrounded by turkey ads.

What if FDR had announced the news? Then, even a scared Jew like Sulzberger would have been afraid to keep it off the front page. And if that happened, millions of Jews could have been saved.

What if Sulzberger and the Times had spoken out? What if they had actively covered the story of the extermination of EuropeÂ’s Jews? They might well have forced Roosevelt to speak out. Instead, over the course of 6 years they buried over 1100 stories in the heart of the paper, somewhere between the police blotter and the grocery ads.

One can always argue that Pius XII didn’t say enough, but it is estimated that the Catholic Church saved between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews during the war, much of it with the active encouragement and support of the pope. The charge that Pius was “Hitler’s Pope” is a blood libel.

On the other hand, it seems clear that Sulzberger and the Times were certainly in the pocket of the Roosevelt Administration – and that the muting of the Times at the behest of an anti-Semitic president most likely resulted in the deaths of millions because it allowed the malignant neglect of the Jews at a time when they most needed help. As such, would it not be fair to say, using the standard the New York Times has applied in recent years to Pius XII, that Sulzberger was “Hitler’s Publisher”, and the New York Times was “Hitler’s Paper”?

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.

1 When I heard the the newly elected Pope was of German descendent and had his day with the Nazi, I wouldn't be surprised to see Liberals call the new Pope as "Nazi Pope." So far, I haven't seen anyone mention that yet. But when I first saw the new Pope, I swear he looks like he'll die within the next few years from now. And he's quite old, too (7 while Pope John Paul was 84 when he died. I wonder if the Vatican's trying to buy time for the right ("younger") Pope when "Papa Ratzi" (ha ha) may die at anytime due to him looking a bit on the frail side.

Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Apr 21 17:18:56 2005 (xXUn0)

2 No, the comments have been made --certain liberals hwve gone crazy over the issue. But you have the one part exactly right -- Benedict XVI is supposed to be a short-timer, one who will give the cardinals 3-5 years to determine who the next pope will be. He no doubt has an agenda to deal with matters he knows were not done in the last few years of JPII, and one or two of his own projects besides -- but even he predicted a short reign. After all, this is a man who had a stroke 14 year ago.

Posted by: RhymesWithRight at Thu Apr 21 23:03:05 2005 (Mwu2f)

3 Peruse the lefty blogs a while. You'll see "Pope Nazi" references aplenty. TPC (or should I say RWR?): Nice transition to MT. Make sure you get MT Blacklist soon or the comment spam will drive you bonkers. Also, an upgrade to a newer version of MT will allow you to zap more comment and trackback spam at one time.

Posted by: Hube at Fri Apr 22 05:38:52 2005 (/7tyq)

4 I don't control the software used here -- it's whatever Pixy wants/can afford to run. He's been kind enough to bring a number of us into Mu.Nu, and so I defer to his choices in the matter. As it is, I think that Blacklist is installed. And while I'm commenting as RWR (just to indicate it is an "official" comment -- and to spread the name elsewhere), Greg is a more than sufficient form of address.

Posted by: RhymesWithRight at Fri Apr 22 06:44:27 2005 (4nXaP)

5 Yep, just did. Seems to be their favorite pet word: "Pope Nazi." Ok. Clinton's whore. Hmmm...net cancellation effect?

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Apr 22 07:25:08 2005 (LmcbS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment