Did The New York Times Support Adolf Hitler? You Decide--
Introduction--
The decision to write this article was made partially in reaction to a reply to a comment I wrote on a friend's post, which was on the subject of a New York Times (NYT) editorial so-called SNAFU from that day, in which smack in the middle of the daily crossword puzzle appeared an unambiguous Swastika! On the first day of Chanukkah!
My "tongue-in-cheek" comment addressed the Times "conflicted" history regarding their support for the rise of European fascism and Hitler's seizing of power.
The reply to my comment was surprisingly hostile, not in defense of the Times or Hitler, but it was a personal attack on me, in response to a one sentence long comment attached to a Times piece from 1925 covering Hitler's release from prison. It was published after his failed Munich Putsch, in which the threat of the Nazis was dismissed on the grounds that "Hitler had been tamed by prison," and would fade into oblivion as a reformed man. I stated this was an example of the Times sympathies for Hitler at the time.
I was accused of poor scholarship, and using the methods of MAGA to in effect make baseless accusations. On a one sentence comment! It was ugly, and this coming from a stranger unfamiliar with my history and track record in fighting for human rights and doing research. I, being a slightly tired 65 year old veteran of political conflicts the likes of which this person could not conceive, had little patience for this kind of behavior. I refused to engage in dialogue because what he wrote was in bad faith, and personally demeaning. I subsequently blasted the individual and blocked him, with apologies to my friend on whose page the altercation occured.
Nevertheless, I have an old archive of material on the subject of the New York Times and Hitler which I've yet to write up, since I have been mostly preoccupied with fighting America's modern day version of the Nazis, aka MAGA.
I was literally on vacation when this back and forth happened, and intended to pull together what I had on it when we returned. This is not to refute or react defensively to the incident with this one guy, rather because the United States today faces an imminent threat for which our citizens are mostly unprepared. That is both the threat of unprecedented civil conflict, violence, and domestic terror, along with the prospect of a fascist political takeover of the US by the MAGA/GOP in the course of the next three years.
Our mainstream flagship liberal press has compounded this threat with continual misinformation through the omission of effective criticism, and legitimization of the Trump/MAGA movement, all in the name of a phony objectivity. This is the same Wall Street allied press which simultaneously refuses to fairly cover the accomplishments of the Biden administration, under conditions of the most extreme political obstructionism since that of the slaveowning states leading up to the Civil War, or the GOP's attempts to sabotage FDR's New Deal.
The ugly truth is that throughout the 1920's and 1930's, under the cover of "liberal objective journalism," the New York Times and other mainstream publications puffed up, enabled and provided a public platform for the propaganda of European fascist leaders. (Similar to how their Russia correspondent Walter Duranty infamously lied and covered up for Stalin's deliberate mass starvation of the Ukrainians in the 1930's)
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097097620/new-york-times-pulitzer-ukraine-walter-durantyr
Mussolini and Hitler were largely treated like "rock stars" by American mass media throughout the 1920's and 30's. Why, one might ask, did they do this?
The answer to that question is the dirty secret of the 20th century. A significant faction of the US ruling establishment was enamored of the increasingly popular fascist economic and political model in the aftermath of World War I, and were eager to embrace it and import it to America. (Not unlike today, with the majority of the USA/European billionaire class openly embracing the Putin-Orbán model of dictatorship for the US under GOP rule)
Therefore "The New York Times" carved out a wide editorial space for their Hitler sympathizing journalists and editorial figures to write outright propaganda and/or extremely deceptive commentary in the name of providing "balance and objectivity" in their coverage. In reality, many of those writers, both with NYT and others, and the editorial boards which supported them, were fully on board with authoritarianism, fascist anti-labor economic austerity, anti-semitism, immigration restriction, racial eugenics, and a German military buildup for purposes of destroying the Soviet Union. They covered their rears by presenting occasional dissenting views, and also published editorials minimizing the Hitler threat by characterizing him as a clownish buffoon, a nobody with an absurd mustache, (much like Trump today is trivialized with jokes about his orange tan and fake hair) in an attempt to downplay the actual danger of his growing influence.
In his book "Hitlerland," author Andrew Nagorski describes in-depth how US media coverage misled Americans by trivializing Hitler's evil, reducing him to a comic figure. The following are quotes from his interview with "Atlantic."
**(Note: all quotations from articles begin and end with brackets and quotation marks. ["___"] LFR)
["Then you had this period after the Beer Hall Putsch where Hitler came out of prison and a lot of people had forgotten about him. After the Great Depression hit, suddenly the Nazi Party became a major contender for power. Yet you had Americans meeting Hitler and saying, "This guy is a clown. He's like a caricature of himself." And a lot of them went through this whole litany about how even if Hitler got into a position of power, other German politicians would somehow be able to control him. A lot of German politicians believed this themselves."]
In actuality, they promoted Hitler from a nobody, a failed artist and vagabond, in effect, elevating his status to that of "the most interesting man in the world." This continued for fifteen years, even after Hitler launched "Kristallnacht" against Germany's Jews, and precipitated World War II with his invasion of Poland.
Some might huff and puff with objections and nitpicking counter-arguments, but they cannot erase what was written and still resides in the "Times" own archives. As was famously taught by the founder of forensic science Edward Locard, every crime leaves traces of evidence. That holds just as true for newspapers, political organizations and governments as it does for burglars, rapists and murderers. And often one doesn't need to make an exhaustive search to find it. It is there, in the words of E. A. Poe's Inspector Dupin, "hidden in plain sight."
Part 1-- The First Glowing Endorsement
On November 21, 1922, the New York Times German correspondent Cyril Brown wrote and published their very first coverage of Hitler and his new German party. ("New Popular Idol Rises In Bavaria")
In reading it, it is shocking in at least two respects. First was its laudatory tone in describing his charismatic personality and ability to orchestrate the emotions of his audience with his oratorical skills. This was a common theme among US media which were puffing him in his early phases. Second is the excuse-making and attempt to whitewash his anti-semitism with open "gaslighting," retailing the line that it was merely staged to appeal to the popular sentiment of Germans, but would certainly be abandoned should he attain political power. (This should be reminiscent of how the US media more recently trivialized or dismissed Donald Trump's vitriolic racist attacks on Mexican immigrants, Muslims and Chinese persons as "theater," that is, until he praised the Charlottesville Nazis and the Proud Boys fascist Militias)
Some quotes from Cyril Brown's coverage--
["He exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
["He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
However, in reading this piece one can ask, "who were Brown's "sources" which fed him this propaganda print-out to have published in the NYT?" Were they those German and Anglo-American financial elites who were deeply involved in sponsoring or grooming Hitler to impose a dictatorship under conditions of Germany's post-war chaos? Whoever they were, they could hardly have been disinterested parties, and were putting out this line through a friendly reporter in order to mollify certain US establishment figures (possibly including the Sulzbergers, the Jewish owners of the New York Times) that Hitler was manageable and his anti-semitism just a political ruse.
There was no other conceivable reason for retailing such a spectacular piece of disinformation other than to sanitize Hitler in the eyes of those leading US figures whose judgements were shaped by the Times reporting. (For example, "he is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty unselfish patriotism"... There was virtually no one outside of his inner circle who knew Hitler that actually believed this was his motivation. His goals were always self-promoting and power seeking, to acquire great personal wealth, to incite homicidal violence, stoke revanchism, to destroy his enemies as driven by a personal grievance that his career as an artist was destroyed by the wealthy Jews of Vienna, his racial and religious hatred, and his desire to eradicate the Jewish race and other "undesirables." Germany was never more to Hitler the Austrian than a horse he could ride into his twisted version of immortality. "Credibly lofty" indeed!)
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/02/10/1922-hitler-in-bavaria/
Not long after, January 21 1923, came the next round of pro-Hitler coverage, in an article written to extoll his talents as a brilliant speaker who eloquently described the importance of Germany's racial and ethnic differences in corrupting their national life.
(The reader can tap the above photos and they will enlarge to become readable)
There is no plausible argument for this type of coverage other than to build him up as an emerging leader for Germany who was worthy of support from the US leadership, this in the context of Germany's political and economic crisis under conditions of the harsh terms of the Versailles peace treaty, and the chaos unleashed by its reparations provisions. The Times raised him from obscurity to potentially become Germany's future leader. Hitler was a project, a creation who was backed by powerful transatlantic financial interests, which has again been thoroughly documented of late by Ken Burns' recent PBS series, and Rachel Maddow's podcast "Ultra."
(This author is currently compiling a historical overview of the role of the Dulles Brothers, and the vast complex of corporate business firms which their law firm Sullivan and Cromwell represented, and their role in assisting and consolidating Hitler's rise, Germany's rearmament, and obfuscation of the Holocaust, soon to be completed)
After Hitler's 1923 Munich coup attempt and subsequent conviction for treason, the NYT jumped in again as indicated by the above photo of the article entitled "Hitler Tamed By Prison," possibly the most spectacular failure of editorial integrity and professional responsibility in the history of newspaper journalism. Yet, they remained the US establishment's newspaper of record and leading authority on political matters, and consequently many people actually still believed Hitler to be rehabilitated and manageable in the future. They were already then planning his political comeback.
Part 2-- The New York Times Nazi Correspondent, Guido Enderis, The Man Who Flew The Swastika Flag Over His Berlin Office--
As documented by "Tablet" writer Laurel Leff, the Berlin correspondent for the New York Times Guido Enderis was an unabashed enthusiastic supporter of Hitler and his Nazis, and was given wide latitude by his employers who rewarded him for his successful access to the Führer and other leaders, unlike other more critical US publications which were banned in Germany.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/new-york-times-nazi-correspondent
Enderis' spread of Nazi propaganda did immense damage to the United States and its national defense readiness, fueling the pro-Hitler isolationist movement known as "America First." This began from the moment of Hitler's successful coup in which he used the Reichstag Fire to declare a state of emergency and impose dictatorship. Incredibly, the article below asserted in September of 1933 that Hitler took actions to reign in his own enthusiastic supporters to stop anti-semitic attacks in Upper Silesia!
According to author Leff--
["At the outbreak of the Second World War, The New York Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was known to sit in the bar of the city’s famous Adlon Hotel spouting “a loudmouthed defense of Nazism,” eventually provoking another reporter to complain to the Times’ publisher: “Isn’t it about time that The New York Times did something about its Nazi correspondent?”
[But the Times had no intention of doing anything about Enderis. In fact, it valued his close connections to the Nazi government, as it had throughout the 1930s. All American newspapers found reporting in Nazi Germany difficult. The government tightly controlled information and harangued and threatened reporters who managed to publish what it didn’t like. The Nazi regime also didn’t hesitate to use its strongest weapons—banning a newspaper from distribution in Germany, kicking a reporter out of the country, or denying a reporter’s reentry. As a putatively “Jewish-owned” newspaper, The New York Times considered itself a special target. Bureau chief Enderis’ job therefore was “administering reasonably soothing syrup” to Nazi officials, as another Times reporter put it.
Yet, Enderis’ actions weren’t purely strategic and their consequences were grave. Throughout the 1930s, Enderis helped steer Times coverage to play down Jewish persecution and play up Germany’s peaceful intentions. He kowtowed to Nazi officials, wrote stories presenting solely the Nazi point of view, and reined in Times reporters whose criticism he thought went too far, shaping the news in favor of a genocidal regime bent on establishing a “Thousand Year Reich.”]
In order to grasp the central role of Enderis in both promoting and running cover for Hitler by spreading propaganda, a useful comparison would be Fox Entertainment's Tucker Carlson, who has acted consistently as an agent of Russian influence in defending their genocidal invasion of Ukraine. He has advocated for the Putin-Orbán model of dictatorship for the US, and consistently defended neo-Nazis along with their full package of eugenics based "replacement theories." It should be understood that the NYT's relationship to the consolidation of Hitler's coup in Germany was not unlike Fox's unprincipled relationship to Russia today, with occasional dissenting views allowed for purposes of deflecting criticism. Enderis was their "point man" in this propaganda war.
This link to Wikipedia summarizes a book titled "Buried By The Times," an expose of Enderis' and others years long issuance of lies to cover up the scale and scope of the Holocaust.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_by_the_Times
Part 3- None Of This Is A "Conspiracy Theory"--
To the extent NYT's history as a propaganda "Fifth Column" for Nazi Germany has been whitewashed, there has been an actual conspiracy of deception and silence regarding their role. Where the debate enters in, is with those commentators and academics whose desire for "credibility" and approval by the powerbrokers of the US establishment are driven by a "suck-up's" attempt to gain acceptance by making themselves apologists. They will argue that the NYT and other pro-Hitler press were simply mistaken in their analysis, not complicit in willful spreading of lies and disinformation. They might even argue that these reporters were writing favorable pieces on Hitler to keep their access to him, in effect, so they might spy on him to gather inside information. They will argue that the exposure of such lies is a "conspiracy theory" in which facts are fabricated, distorted, misrepresented to create a narrative unsupported by serious scholars.
In reality, the support for Hitler by NYT, the Hearst Press, and other press barons of the English-speaking world is well known, documented and published. A recent book which I reviewed on Facebook months ago exposes who these publishers were, their pro-fascist leanings established with no doubt. The title, "The Newspaper Axis" by Kathryn Olmstead.
Ashley Rindsberg has also recently written and published a book on the subject titled "The Gray Lady Winked," which is very thorough in its analysis. It documents both Enderis role, and that of his NYT cohort Otto Tolischus in openly promoting and "humanizing" Hitler.
Below are excerpts from "OpIndia's" review, which addresses the NYT retailing of Hitler's justification for his invasion of Poland, which provides powerful and compelling evidence. Hitler faked a Polish attack on a German radio station in Gleiwitz Germany on the Polish border, using dead concentration camp victims dressed in Polish Army uniforms and dumping them on the scene of the fake attack. It was so contrived that even many Germans reacted with skepticism upon the news.
["A new book, ‘The Gray Lady Winked’, that was released earlier in May 2021, details the manners in which the New York Times’s journalistic failures altered the course of history. Author Ashley Rindsberg details the manner in which the newspaper engaged in journalistic malpractices, and its general incompetence, at critical junctures of history.
In a publicly available excerpt, the book elaborates the manner in which the New York Times almost served as the propaganda wing of the Nazi Regime in Germany. The newspaper regurgitated Nazi propaganda of a Polish attack on Germany, which was furthered to justify by the regime to justify its invasion of Poland.
The author writes in the book, “The New York Times bought the Nazi dupe without flinching. Underneath its famous banner, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” the paper reported that, according to “Chancellor Hitler,” Germany had been attacked. Already in the second paragraph of the Times’s frontpage article, the reporter, Otto Tolischus, went on to reprint verbatim Hitler’s infamous war speech to the Reichstag, which the Führer used to justify to the world, as much as to the German people, his invasion of Poland.”
How the NYT regurgitated Nazi claims without questioning any of it
The NYT had reported, “At 8 P.M., according to the semi-official news agency, a group of Polish insurrectionists forced an entrance into the Gleiwitz radio station [in Germany], overpowering the watchmen and beating and generally mishandling the attendants. The Gleiwitz station was relaying a Breslau station’s program, which was broken off by the Poles.” The author writes that all such details were Nazi fabrications written in NYT’s “characteristically deliberating and objective tone”.
Also, of note is the following: the same article highlights undisputable documentation that the writers were willingly deceiving their readers. ---
["Ashley Rindsberg says of reporter, “Tolischus printed the entirety of the proclamation in his front-page article and then went on to report German military restrictions and warnings. He never once mentioned the possibility that the Nazis, so well versed in propaganda and so ready to use that weapon, as they had proven many times by 1939, might be lying. For his error-ridden, propaganda-friendly reporting, Tolischus was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1940 “for his dispatches from Berlin.”
In one NYT report soon after the false flag operation in 1939, it was mentioned that “according to the semi-official news agency, a group of Polish insurrectionists forced its way into the Gleiwitz radio station.” Rindsberg says that the “semi-official news agency” mention here was a Nazi propaganda organ and it was cited as the report’s main source.
In another instance, the NYT relied on the official mouthpiece of the Nazi Party to report that the Gleiwitz incident referred here was supposed to serve as a signal for a wider all-encompassing Polish attack on Germany. In reality, the attack was orchestrated by Nazi officials who directed Polish-speaking Nazi officers to dress up as Polish guerrillas and kill prisoners dressed up as German guards.
The entire charade was part of Adolf Hitler’s propaganda initiative aimed at global audience and more specifically, at the American public who were not extremely enthusiastic about the prospects of USA joining what they saw as a European war. At the time, there was serious debate between the anti-war factions among the American public and those who were willing to march against Hitler’s Germany.
“Hitler knew that American production capabilities, resources, and military. His ultimate aim was to keep the US out of the war for as long as possible and then turn the wrath of the German military, backed by the natural resources, ports, fleets and arms of conquered Europe, to the Americas. For Hitler, American delay meant German victory,” Rindsberg writes, elaborating on the objectives of Hitler’s propaganda initiative."]
Conclusion--
Any serious opponent of fascism who takes the time and trouble to understand continuity and dynamics in history will realize that we are witness to a similar emerging pattern of lies and propaganda today, and that many so-called "credible and mainstream" liberal press have been complicit in the rise of MAGA fascism in the US. It is fair and accurate to simply assert one simple incontrovertible fact. If the US liberal media had done their job, we never would have had Donald Trump's atrocious Presidency.
Therefore, the defenders of the New York Times today, like those of yesteryear are left with one fraudulent and bogus line of argument. That the "Times" is just incompetent, not consciously fascist in their outlook. That they are, in effect boobs, idiots, myopic, sycophantic lickspittles and purveyors of base and prejudicial ill-formed knee-jerk opinion, pandering to their readership for purely commercial reasons to generate clicks, shares, and revenue. That they are greedy spreaders of disinformation driven by the old profit motive, but are not personally committed to fascism themselves, rather are just trying to make money off of its rise to power.
While simple, convenient and lazy, this is essentially a textbook argument reprising the mechanism of self-delusion and denial which led Americans to be blindsided nearly one hundred years ago. And for certain, Americans have the right to be deceived, blind and thoughtless. However, a truly free, responsible and accountable press has no right to cause or reinforce this. They have no First Amendment authority or protection to purvey willful deceptive and destructive lies in flagrant disregard for the public interest. Their existence as corporations itself binds them legally to a standard of accountability which does, in fact, protect and uphold the public interest.
By that standard, today's Fox News and other such pro-fascist Russian allied outlets are lawbreakers. Looking at this through the mirror of 20th Century history should illuminate for those of us in the present the consequences of such malignant coercion to induce us to accept such lies.
For the US, due to the lies of mainstream press which masked Hitler's intentions, and the isolationist frenzy which those lies incubated, it required a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to bring us into the conflict with the Axis powers. Only then did some of those media and financial interests end the propaganda and lies, shamed by the revelations of Hitler's atrocities and the tragic reality of the scale of the Holocaust. Thus began decades of "walking back" their own editorial insanity, writing fictional narratives to defend their "liberal credentials." As they are still doing today.
You don't need hundreds of sources, neatly fact-checked and verified to see this for yourselves. You simply need to open your eyes, ears, and minds to allow entrance to those realities you have avoided, which have been there in front of you all along. Some people need to put their egos aside to admit their personal failure of vision, and confront the actual historical evidence, that which is "hidden in plain sight."
That, my friends is the only thing "simple" about any of this.
Addendum-- Dorothy Thompson Schools The World Of Journalism On Journalistic Honesty, Integrity-
A quote from her admitting how utterly wrong she was about Hitler. What the New York Times and other mainstream press has never said.
["WHEN I WALKED into Adolph Hitler’s salon in the Kaiserhof hotel, I was convinced that I was meeting the future dictator of Germany,” Dorothy Thompson wrote in 1931. “In something like fifty seconds I was quite sure that I was not. It took just about that time to measure the startling insignificance of this man who has set the world agog.”
He is formless, almost faceless, a man whose countenance is a caricature, a man whose framework seems cartilaginous, without bones,” she wrote. “He is inconsequent and voluble, ill-poised, insecure. He is the very prototype of the Little Man. A lock of lank hair falls over an insignificant and slightly retreating forehead. . . .The nose is large, but badly shaped and without character. His movements are awkward, almost undignified and most un-martial. . . .The eyes alone are notable. Dark gray and hyperthyroid—they have the peculiar shine which often distinguishes geniuses, alcoholics, and hysterics.”
To that unflattering description, she added: “There is something irritatingly refined about him. I bet he crooks his little finger when he drinks a cup of tea.”
A further excerpt from the article linked below on Thompson's encounter with Hitler:
["Thompson looked at Hitler and saw a nonentity, a mere rabble-rouser incapable of leading a great nation. He didn’t carry himself like a powerful politician, and he certainly didn’t seem capable of becoming what many people feared—a future dictator of Germany. He didn’t even possess the political skill necessary to charm an interviewer.
“The interview was difficult, because one cannot carry on a conversation with Adolph Hitler,” she wrote. “He speaks always as though he were addressing a mass meeting. In personal intercourse he is shy, almost embarrassed. In every question, he seeks for a theme that will set him off. Then his eyes focus in some far corner of the room; a hysterical note creeps into his voice, which rises sometimes almost to a scream. He gives the impression of a man in a trance. He bangs the table.”
His answers were so long-winded that she managed to ask only three questions. But one of them elicited a candid and frightening reply.
“When you come to power,” she asked, “will you abolish the constitution of the German Republic?”
“I will get into power legally,” he said. “I will abolish this parliament and the Weimar constitution afterward. I will found an authority-state, from the lowest cell to the highest instance; everywhere there will be responsibility and authority above, discipline and obedience below.”
He was admitting that he planned to create a dictatorship, and she believed he was telling the truth. But she couldn’t believe that this “Little Man” could actually succeed in that grandiose goal. “Imagine a would-be dictator setting out to persuade a sovereign people to vote away their rights.” That idea seemed preposterous to her.
She handicapped his chances in the upcoming election: The possibility that Hitler’s party would win a majority of seats in the Reichstag was, she said, “unlikely.” But if no party received a majority, it was “quite possible” that the Nazis could win enough seats to bring Hitler to power in a coalition with centrist parties. “But it is highly improbable that in this case he will succeed in putting through any of his more radical plans.”
As she interviewed Hitler, she pictured him trying to outmaneuver the skilled politicians who would be part of his ruling coalition. “Oh, Adolph! Adolph!” she thought. “You will be out of luck!”
Hitler is a mere “drummer boy,” she wrote, and “Hitler in a coalition with the Center will be working with statesmen who are not drummer boys but experienced realists. And it is a great deal easier to organize revolts than it is to rule. I predict that Hitler will be extinguished.”
Thompson’s article—“I Saw Hitler!”—appeared in the March 1932 issue of Cosmopolitan, which was then a serious magazine, not a purveyor of sex tips for young women. The article was quickly reprinted in a short book with the same title. Readers of either version came away thinking that the much-hyped demagogue was too peculiar to be a threat to Germany, much less to the United States."]
Obviously, Thompson had badly underestimated Hitler. With-in a year of her article’s publication, he’d taken power and begun to crush his opponents, persecute Jews and build a war machine. Recognizing that she’d made an egregious error, Thompson wrote article after article exposing Hitler’s brutality. “It must be said, it must be re-iterated,” she wrote, “that there has been and still is a widespread terror, which extends throughout the whole of Germany.”
One day in the summer of 1934, Thompson was in her room in Berlin’s Adlon Hotel, when she received a call from the front desk: “Madam, there is a gentleman here from the state secret police.”
“Send him up,” Thompson said.
The policeman handed her an order commanding her to leave Germany within 48 hours. It was Hitler’s first expulsion of a foreign reporter and it made front-page news around the world.
“Nearly the entire corps of American and British correspondents went to the railroad station to see her off,” the New York Times reported. “They gave her a bunch of American Beauty roses as a token of their affection and esteem.”
Thompson framed Hitler’s expulsion order and displayed it proudly in her office. The expulsion made her a media superstar. The New York Herald Tribune hired her to write a thrice-weekly column that was syndicated to more than 100 newspapers. She also wrote a monthly column for Ladies’ Home Journal and appeared regularly on NBC radio. In every medium, she denounced the Nazis, demanded that America open its borders to German refugees and supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1939 Time magazine published a cover story on Thompson, proclaiming that the journalist and first lady Eleanor Roosevelt “are undoubtedly the most influential women in the U.S.”]
https://www.historynet.com/encounter-dorothy-thompson-underestimates-hitler/
