Nothing new from the New York Times

So you think the New York Times are opposed to our war against terrorists? Do you think they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

And your point is?

It’s what they do:

Even after the failed coup attempt of July 20, 1944, the New York Times commented reproachfully that the conspirators had plotted for an entire year “to kidnap or kill the head of the German state and commander in chief of the Army,” something one would not “normally expect within an officers’ corps and a civilized government.

From Plotting Hitler’s Death: The Story of the German Resistance by Joachim Fest page 165.

Update: Answering questions about the context–the point of that section of the book was that the German resistance against Hitler was unable to even get lip service support. This wasn’t limited to just the NYT. It was sort of like they viewed an uprising by the people of Germany to be “unsporting conduct” or something. Here is the additional context from the book (“these Germans” refers to the people plotting to kill and/or overthrow Hitler):

Most of the politicians and military leaders who they unsuccessfully courted in London, The Hague, and Washington still believed, however, that these Germans were committing “treason” and therefore regarded them with contempt. There was no appreciation of the fact that the opponents of the Nazi regime felt guided by new principles and laws whose legitimacy did not end at national borders. Even after the failed coup…

There is nothing more in the book to shed light on what the intent of the NYT was. Was it they wanted really wanted Germany to win? Were they opposed “on principle” to war and believed there would be less fighting/killing if Hitler were left in power even if he was “less than perfect”?  Or was it some sort of “honor” thing the German resistance had violated? A trip into the archives for the original NYT is probably the only way to clarify it further.

Off topic: Welcome to all the visitors brought here by the post on The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.  I received more visits in one day for this one post than I normally receive for everything in a week. You might also be interested Boomershoot (fun with guns and explosives).


3 thoughts on “Nothing new from the New York Times

  1. Just out of interest, and let me say that I’m not exactly surprised to learn this, do you have more of that bit from the book? (To save me the trouble of having to buy it 😉 )

  2. Interesting that they refer to nazi Germany as “…a civilized government.” That’s rich. It begs the question; What would they have deemed an uncivilized government.

    I think I already know.

  3. Misha,

    That was the extent of the info on the NYT. After I get home tonight I’ll read that section of the book again and update the post with more context.

    Thanks for the link.


    My recollection is that there were numerous critics of the assassination attempt. IIRC, in essence, they deemed it unsportsmanlike conduct or some such rubbish.

Comments are closed.