Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Daily Mail's historical support for fascists.

72 views
Skip to first unread message

John T

unread,
Nov 6, 2016, 6:32:56 PM11/6/16
to
"The Daily Mail is underplaying the support it gave to Oswald Mosley, the
leader of the British Union of Fascists in the early 1930s.

In a recent smear on his son Max Mosley, one of paper's heavy-hitters
Richard Pendlebury wrote: "For a brief period some of the mainstream press -
this paper and the Daily Mirror included - praised the BUF's supposedly
'conservative' agenda.

"That support soon evaporated as violence and an intolerance that was very
evidently 'un-British' became synonymous with the movement."

The bizarre attack on Max Mosley - the third spread Pendlebury has penned
about him this year - was motivated by the former Formula One bosses'
support for Impress, the new press regulatory body.

Pendlebury did not mention that the pre-war owner of the Daily Mail, Harold
Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, was so excited by the BUF that
he personally wrote a full-page editorial headlined 'Hurrah for the
Blackshirts' in January 1934.

However, the Daily Mail did not drop its support for Mosley's BUF wholly
because of their 'violence' and 'intolerance,' as Pendlebury claims.

Rothermere - whose dynasty still own the news group - told Adolf Hitler
himself that real reason was because Jewish advertisers in the UK threatened
to pull the plug on his paper."

more at:

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tle-pick/revealed-the-extent-of-the-daily-mails-support-for-the-british-union-of-fascists/28/10/


Sid

unread,
Nov 6, 2016, 6:45:41 PM11/6/16
to
Another fail Dipshit John. Still attention seeking by posting ot
articles that support the view of a loser.






Ophelia

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 4:32:27 AM11/7/16
to
"Sid" wrote in message news:nvofb3$o7v$1...@news.albasani.net...




Another fail Dipshit John. Still attention seeking by posting ot
articles that support the view of a loser.

=================

I don't know why you bother reading him. It's all he ever does. I rarely
do any more.






--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Dan S. MacAbre

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 4:48:11 AM11/7/16
to
ISTM that it was a different world. In those days, that famous
eugenicist GB Shaw had no qualms about imploring the chemical
manufacturers to produce an efficient killing gas to finish off the lumpen.

Sid

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 4:56:10 AM11/7/16
to
Some people still think of the world being stuck in 1934 like John T
unable to accept that it is 2016 Labour are not in power and the people
voted to leave The EU.

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 5:57:07 AM11/7/16
to
Yes there is also a video of the Queen saluting Nazi style.
And probably the worlds best pilot holidayed in Germany
as the guest of a famous German WW1 ace Ernst Udet a Nazi.

By 1937 Stalin had starved 2-3 million of his people forcibly
moved another couple of million and murdered 1 million.
And he was on our side.

Hindsight is 20 20

Ophelia

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 8:27:46 AM11/7/16
to
"Richard McKenzie" wrote in message
news:40f6cb4f-bd73-4d47...@googlegroups.com...
=====================

Not for John T. He is obsessed with finding anything that ... well you know
<g> Let's just say he is off his trolley. He ought to pal up with Mason.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

pullgees

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 9:08:24 AM11/7/16
to
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 23:32:56 UTC, John T wrote:
What has this got to do with leaving the EU, I'm sure you are trying to make a veiled connection? I don't supposed you realized that the Sunday Mail is for remaining in the EU, did you?

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 9:48:55 AM11/7/16
to
You do realise that the Sunday Mail is the Daily Record's
Sunday paper.

The Daily Mail's equivalent is the Mail on Sunday.

John T

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 3:46:20 PM11/7/16
to

"pullgees" wrote

> What has this got to do with leaving the EU, I'm sure you are trying to
> make a veiled connection? I don't supposed you realized that the Sunday
> Mail is for remaining in the EU, did you?

Where did I say it had - and yes I'd read the SM was pro-EU.

John.


pullgees

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 4:42:34 PM11/7/16
to
Just trying to figure out why you are bringing this old subject up. What point are you making? You must be aware that left wing papers were in full support of Stalin's tyranny along with his "useful idiots" of whom I'm sure you would have been one.

pullgees

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 4:45:48 PM11/7/16
to
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 23:32:56 UTC, John T wrote:
The Guardian supported Stalin, and sacked the brave Malcolm Muggeridge for telling the West about the genocide over there.

R. Mark Clayton

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 5:26:03 PM11/7/16
to
The late Paul Foot explored this extensively in What the Papers Say in the 1970's comparing the DM support for the [far right] "National Association of Rate Payers Action Groups" with its support for Olswald Moseley and the BUF in the 1930's - plenty of original material for both.

In short it is true the Daily Mail DID support Fascism.

R. Mark Clayton

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 5:29:50 PM11/7/16
to
Not until 21st June 1941.

From ~17th September 1939 until then the UK was at war with the USSR

Sid

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 5:40:31 PM11/7/16
to
So what. ?

What has this to do with UKL.

Answer nothing its John T the loser trying and failing yet again
proving not only is he a loser he is a sore loser.

It is also 2016 not the 1930's.


MM

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 2:34:38 AM11/8/16
to
I think its whole ethos is still that way inclined. It likes picking a
victim, then destroys it.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 2:35:49 AM11/8/16
to
Doesn't your hindsight tell you that Stalin didn't start a world war?

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 2:38:27 AM11/8/16
to
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 06:08:22 -0800 (PST), pullgees <pull...@mail.com>
wrote:
I knew that the Mail on Sunday supported Remain, but so what? That
paper only appears once a week. For the rest of the week the Daily
Mail spews enough garbage to last through Sunday.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 2:40:19 AM11/8/16
to
Interesting. I thought pullgees was referring to the Mail on Sunday.
Now we can't be sure *which* paper he was referring to. Perhaps he'd
like to comment.

What was the actual Sunday Mail's position?

MM

AndyW

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 2:57:22 AM11/8/16
to
My experience of the Sunday Mail is that they would be more interested
in the results of the Rangers and Celtic football matches and X Factor
than world events or even UK events.

Andy

pullgees

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 3:24:19 AM11/8/16
to
Your right it keeps spewing out propaganda on Aleppo while staying silent on Mosul and Raqqa and Saudi bombing of Yemen with our weapons. Having said that The Guardian takes the same line. Our MSM stinks

pullgees

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 3:26:29 AM11/8/16
to
I made a mistake only someone with school boy mentality would bother to pick on it.

pullgees

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 3:31:16 AM11/8/16
to
Console yourself on that and ignore that Stalin was resposible for around 40 million deaths. Another useful idiot

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 4:03:42 AM11/8/16
to
On Tuesday, 8 November 2016 07:35:49 UTC, MM wrote:
It does and it also tells me he killed a lot more.
But in the word of Stalin it is "a statistic"

R. Mark Clayton

unread,
Nov 8, 2016, 6:18:29 AM11/8/16
to
On Monday, 7 November 2016 22:40:31 UTC, Sid wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 22:26, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Sunday, 6 November 2016 23:45:41 UTC, Sid wrote:
> >> On 06/11/2016 23:35, John T wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Another fail Dipshit John. Still attention seeking by posting ot
> >> articles that support the view of a loser.
> >
> > The late Paul Foot explored this extensively in What the Papers Say in the 1970's comparing the DM support for the [far right] "National Association of Rate Payers Action Groups" with its support for Olswald Moseley and the BUF in the 1930's - plenty of original material for both.
> >
> > In short it is true the Daily Mail DID support Fascism.
> >
>
> So what. ?
>
> What has this to do with UKL.

Fair comment.

>
> Answer nothing its John T the loser trying and failing yet again
> proving not only is he a loser he is a sore loser.
>
> It is also 2016 not the 1930's.

True, but I responded to a post denying accuracy.

OTOH the Daily Mail is still a ranting rightard rag, but not quite as odious as it was eighty years ago.

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 9, 2016, 3:59:46 AM11/9/16
to
What paper do you read?

Ophelia

unread,
Nov 9, 2016, 4:39:54 AM11/9/16
to
"Richard McKenzie" wrote in message
news:c5f9669f-c657-4208...@googlegroups.com...

What paper do you read?

=============

He is so desperate for something bad to say he has to go back decades to
find something:))


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 9, 2016, 6:26:46 AM11/9/16
to
Maybe he is a hoarder and has only got that far.

Ophelia

unread,
Nov 9, 2016, 7:13:24 AM11/9/16
to
"Richard McKenzie" wrote in message
news:d0295855-4148-4f19...@googlegroups.com...
=========

I hadn't though of that ;-)



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

MM

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 2:33:07 AM11/10/16
to
See this:
https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/Meme.jpg
https://fullfact.org/law/daily-mail-headine-comparison-to-nazis/

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 2:34:12 AM11/10/16
to
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 00:31:14 -0800 (PST), pullgees <pull...@mail.com>
wrote:
He didn't start a world war.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 2:34:26 AM11/10/16
to
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:03:40 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
He didn't start a world war.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 2:36:33 AM11/10/16
to
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 00:24:17 -0800 (PST), pullgees <pull...@mail.com>
You certainly got that right. But the MSM is only printing what sells.
It IS a business, after all.

MM

pullgees

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 3:23:42 AM11/10/16
to
Well it has certainly manipulated your thinking.

harry

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 1:09:23 PM11/10/16
to
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 08:59:46 UTC, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> What paper do you read?

He reads the "Beano" I should think.

R. Mark Clayton

unread,
Nov 10, 2016, 1:50:17 PM11/10/16
to
Stalin was complicit in doing so.

MM

unread,
Nov 11, 2016, 5:18:57 AM11/11/16
to
You could also say the Allied Armies were complicit by screwing
Germany over on this day in 1918 at Compiègne.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 11, 2016, 5:21:01 AM11/11/16
to
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:23:40 -0800 (PST), pullgees <pull...@mail.com>
Not true, because I only read the truthful newspapers, not the Daily
Heil or Beobachter Express.

MM

Dan S. MacAbre

unread,
Nov 11, 2016, 5:38:09 AM11/11/16
to
I'd always had the impression it was the French who insisted on that,
since they were most afraid of the Germans. The Americans just wanted
their money back, of course. I've no idea what the British and everyone
else wanted.

R. Mark Clayton

unread,
Nov 11, 2016, 5:55:04 AM11/11/16
to
On Friday, 11 November 2016 10:18:57 UTC, MM wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:50:15 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
SNIP
> >> >
> >> >Console yourself on that and ignore that Stalin was responsible for around 40 million deaths. Another useful idiot
> >>
> >> He didn't start a world war.
> >>
> >> MM
> >
> >Stalin was complicit in doing so.

There were secret protocols to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

The nazis invaded Poland eight days later and the Soviets invaded Poland four weeks later. Most people / historians consider this invasion of Poland to be the start of WWII.

>
> You could also say the Allied Armies were complicit by screwing
> Germany over on this day in 1918 at Compiègne.

They ended a world war, although with hindsight the Allies screwed up the peace in the Treaty of Versailles.

>
> MM

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 11, 2016, 6:06:30 AM11/11/16
to
Care to divulge/ be more specific of what papers you read?

Richard McKenzie

unread,
Nov 11, 2016, 6:07:33 AM11/11/16
to
Wasn't Poland at the time a dictator ship too.

They express that the was against facism it wasn't
it was about expansionism

MM

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 5:16:21 AM11/12/16
to
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:38:08 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre" <n...@way.com>
wrote:
Well, yes, but I was trying not to diss the French too much.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 5:17:05 AM11/12/16
to
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 02:55:03 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
And the way they did it pretty much led to the second world war.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 5:20:12 AM11/12/16
to
We can live with dictatorships. We *have* to live with dictatorships!
Hence, Mugabeland, North Korea, several countries in the Far East,
Russia pretty much are all tolerated, because not to could be very bad
for the world.

It's when they overstep their border and occupy other countries using
force, that's when we need to worry.

MM

MM

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 5:22:21 AM11/12/16
to
I rarely *buy* a newspaper - too expensive nowadays. But I regularly
read a myriad of British and foreign newspapers online, although not
the ones behind a paywall. As a former translator, I can get the gist
from most papers in Europe, and Google is my constant friend.

MM

Norman Wells

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 6:36:38 AM11/12/16
to
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a1rd2c9le446j8mne...@4ax.com...

> We can live with dictatorships. We *have* to live with dictatorships!
> Hence, Mugabeland, North Korea, several countries in the Far East,
> Russia pretty much are all tolerated, because not to could be very bad
> for the world.
>
> It's when they overstep their border and occupy other countries using
> force, that's when we need to worry.

Accepting current borders implies they are necessarily the right ones and
sacrosanct. But there's nothing to say they are. They never have been throughout
history, and they never will be.

There will always be those who think they properly belong elsewhere because of
language, religion or culture, and those who support them, or some rock in the
middle of the sea that one country wants from another. And there will always be the
use of force to bring it about.

So, sadly, you'll always be worrying, and there's nothing at all you can do about
it.




harry

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 12:01:43 PM11/12/16
to
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 23:32:56 UTC, John T wrote:
> "The Daily Mail is underplaying the support it gave to Oswald Mosley, the
> leader of the British Union of Fascists in the early 1930s.
>
> In a recent smear on his son Max Mosley, one of paper's heavy-hitters
> Richard Pendlebury wrote: "For a brief period some of the mainstream press -
> this paper and the Daily Mirror included - praised the BUF's supposedly
> 'conservative' agenda.
>
> "That support soon evaporated as violence and an intolerance that was very
> evidently 'un-British' became synonymous with the movement."
>
> The bizarre attack on Max Mosley - the third spread Pendlebury has penned
> about him this year - was motivated by the former Formula One bosses'
> support for Impress, the new press regulatory body.
>
> Pendlebury did not mention that the pre-war owner of the Daily Mail, Harold
> Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, was so excited by the BUF that
> he personally wrote a full-page editorial headlined 'Hurrah for the
> Blackshirts' in January 1934.
>
> However, the Daily Mail did not drop its support for Mosley's BUF wholly
> because of their 'violence' and 'intolerance,' as Pendlebury claims.
>
> Rothermere - whose dynasty still own the news group - told Adolf Hitler
> himself that real reason was because Jewish advertisers in the UK threatened
> to pull the plug on his paper."
>
> more at:
>
> http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tle-pick/revealed-the-extent-of-the-daily-mails-support-for-the-british-union-of-fascists/28/10/

Don't forget the support the Guardian gave to Stalin.
Even after the news of his massacres came out.

harry

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 12:29:15 PM11/12/16
to
There is a theory that the Germans thought that the USSR was ready to attack them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

Ophelia

unread,
Nov 12, 2016, 2:10:16 PM11/12/16
to
"harry" wrote in message
news:e3ef126b-223c-47ac...@googlegroups.com...
=====================

Uhoh you've done it now <g>


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

0 new messages