That the axis industries were thrown into their respective war effort is of no surprise, and some of their magnates approached it with greater gusto than others. In essence they had little choice, and trying to draw consumer paralells is frankly just disingenious. That the Daily Mail was based in the UK denied them this excuse, and this is a critical difference, and I don't think you should lose sight of it. They made a conscious decision (without government coercion) to support, promote and finance the growth of Nazism, and it is this that I question. Even after Czechslovakia, they were imploring Hitler to invade Romania. I'm tempted to say the penny hadn't dropped, but then again, I'm tempted to say it had, which is why they embraced him so openly.
The German state, unlike the Daily Mail, has apologised.
Bring it back to the point that started the thread. Kathy was telling us what a marvellous little paper this is. I was pointing out that they are responsible for the most dangerous and disreputable piece of editorial direction in Fleet Street history. Don't be under any illusion, this went well beyond mere flirting with fascism. We are talking about a wealthy estate here. What Rothermere paid Princess Stephanie is documented. What did he finance in Spain? Czech? This papers promotion and support of Nazism marks the low point of the British print media to my eyes. See it in context.
That Oswald Moseleys portrait (ex Labour MP) remained(s) in the Boardroom does cast a degree over the conversion process I'd suggest? but I do stand to be corrected if this is untrue. I believed it to be the case throughout the 1980's under David English? If it's still there, then say no more, if it never was, then I apologise.
