Posted on 11/14/2004 11:34:17 AM PST by worldclass
Harvard supported the Nazi? What has changed in 75 years?
Norwood, a professor of history and Judaic studies at the University of Oklahoma, has studied the response of academia to the rise of Nazi power. In a paper to be delivered at a conference on the Holocaust at Boston University today, he contends that Harvard, like other elite institutions, was largely unmoved by the early horrors of the Hitler regime. "It is disturbing to see the indifference of American higher education to what was going on in Germany," he said last week. "Harvard had repeated opportunities to take a principled stand against the Nazis, and passed them up."
Our academic institutions STILL do not serve for the better of mankind.
Harvard is still a respected name? After men like Timothy Leary and Ted Kazenski roamed through their halls?
But his mere attendance was seen by many as an outrage, and anti-Nazi protesters kept up a clamor during the ceremony. Seven were arrested and prosecuted, and eventually sentenced to six months in jail. According to Norwood, Conant approved of the prison terms, and refused to intercede on their behalf.
Today, such protests would likely not receive any prison time.
There were those who opposed Hitler prior to that though.
People were already fleeing Germany by 1933.
Harvard was still sucking up to Nazis in 1937 according to the article.
Stalin killed tens of millions more than Adolph Hitler. Both were unfit to lead nations.
We didn't go communist but we did embrace socialism and may never be able to go back.
Even today, we have won the Cold War but lost to creeping socialism (as has much of the world).
It is interesting to find out about the refusal of educated people to acknowledge the gathering danger of the Nazis until they had actually taken over most of Europe. The intelligentsia of that time believed in pacifism and The League of Nations as a universal policy that would get rid of war once and for all.
The left is at it again pleading for "appeasement in our lifetime" with regards to Israel, Saddam, et al. They wanted the sanctions on Iraq lifted and the United Nations to grant us peace.
The wolf is at the door one more time but they refuse to acknowledge the lessons of history.
The left at academic institutions has been quick to denounce the Bush Administration as modern day Nazis while shielding Arafat and Saddam from any criticism.
They need to be called out again and again for their errors in judgement.
It's actually worse than they know. The blood-chillingly sing-song chant of "sieg heil" was "composed" by Hanfstaengl (who was Hitler's favorite pianist). It was a lift of Harvard's "fight song."
But truth be told, there wasn't that much known about the Nazis in 1934. Hitler himself was even widely admired in some quarters in the press. (He was eventually Time's Man Of The Year.)
But it is preposterous to always harp about the Nazis when Harvard then (and NOW) coddles every Communist who comes down the pike. In fact, you probably can't even have a career at Harvard unless you are a Communist or fellow-traveller.
Wasn't Nazi-lovin' Ol' Joe Kennedy a Harvard man?
I saw it last night. She was good! I agreed with her on everything except her pro-choice stance.
The students were shouting the word 'fascist' at her, yet they didn't even know who invented Fascism. Morons! There's a creepy group-think going on with the Democrats. For 'liberals', they're decidedly un-liberal. I think (I hope) she'll at least get them thinking. She needs to make more personal appearances. She's extremely articulate.
And why would Princeton embrace such a man as Peter Singer? Doesn't say much for their institution, does it?
Simple. In 1934, SOCIALISTS (Nazis) were heros of the Communists. Not till Hitler attacked the "mother country" did the US communists turn against the Nazis.
Then again, he never was found with a dead girl in his car. If the libs can forgive that, why not forgive old Putzi?
Well he did have a communist as a VP and only because he was too ill to maintain that support, Wallace was not re-nominated. If he had been, we would have had a Communist president who would probably given Japan, Korea and all of Germany to the Russians.
I did a doubletake when I read her bio. She was a feminist lefty who worked on some Democratic campaigns. She had to be talking right down their alley, which likely is what perturbed them so much.
It was later revealed, after the fall of the Soviet Union, that two of the VP's
close associates were Soviet spies. The two would have
attained high level cabinet positions, had Wallace become president.
Thank God that there were a few good democrats unwilling to allow FDR's VP to be re-nominated. Not without a fight, though.
The libs at FSU are particularly lame. Many of them have been there since the school opened to men in the late 40s. Most of them are the perpetually ungraduating, unwashed, unkempt type.
From what I understand Hanfstaengl was sort of a "useful idiot" for Hitler. It appears that at one time the Nazis tried to have him killed. I saw a very interesting interview with Hanfstaengl's son in which he described what it was like to have Hitler as a sort of uncle who would play with him and his toy trains. Despite this memory the son did not appear to be in any way a Nazi sympathizer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.