Beyond Belief: The American Press And The Coming Of The Holocaust, 1933- 1945

by Deborah E. Lipstadt

This most complete study to date of American press reactions to the Holocaust sets forth in abundant detail how the press nationwide played down or even ignored reports of Jewish persecutions over a twelve-year period.

Genres: History, Holocaust, Nonfiction, World War II, Politics, American, Journalism

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

Deborah Esther Lipstadt is an American historian and diplomat, best known as author of the books Denying the Holocaust (1993), History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (2005), The Eichmann Trial (2011), and Antisemitism: Here and Now (2019). She has served as the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism since May 3, 2022. Since 1993 she has been the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, US.

Lipstadt was a consultant to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In 1994, President of the United States Bill Clinton appointed her to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, and she served two terms. On July 30, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated her to be the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. She was confirmed by voice-vote on March 30, 2022, and sworn in on May 3, 2022. Lipstadt was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2023.

Reviews

[Neil Friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before the Internet became a primary source of unconfirmed journalism, innuendos and trivial gossip, the American media was generally a responsible and accountable outlet.
When the Washington Post broke the Watergate scandal forty years ago, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, diligently pursued the facts while the rest of the media sat idly by, reluctant to jump on the story that was hard to comprehend.
Similarly, the America press, before television, ignored or was reluctant to report on European Jews being persecuted or systematically annihilated by Nazi Germany, despite the fact that Adolph Hitler had, in fact, put his motive in writing, nearly a decade before he came to power.
“Beyond Belief” is a painstaking, scholarly examination that raises disturbing questions of how and why the American press, as well as the American government, was derelict in its pursuit of the story of the persecution and annihilation of Europe’s Jewish population.
While other books have condemned the American and other allied governments for their reluctant attempts to intervene to save countless Jewish lives, this one, in particular, demonstrates how the press may have shirked its duty that doomed millions.
In hindsight, though it is easy to castigate, albeit not accept, the press’ dereliction for being insufficiently proactive, it is, to some degree, easier to understand when you examine the temper of the times and the international climate.
As a journalist, I was drawn to this book to learn the extent of the press’s role in reporting on the events that led up to and during the Holocaust. Though I knew beforehand that the American government should and could have done more, I never realized that press also failed to fulfill its obligation to relay the horrors being systematically conducted across Germany and Eastern Europe.

[Nico Bruin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a marvellous gem of a study documenting the lackluster reaction of the american press towards the holocaust and antisemitism in nazi-germany. It may be a rather obscure subject to most, but the American press's inability to truly grasp what was happening to european Jewry is to some extent still relevant today.
Unlike say the nazi's persecution of their political enemies, which can be denounced as evil but nevertheless understood as a rational pursuit, the holocaust lies beyond the realm of the rational. Not only the fact that it occured but the manner in which it was pursued is entirely illogical. Why didn't they try to make full use of the potential slave-labour? Why did they divert resources away from the war to pursue this genocide? Very few people understood that, even today few people do. And many in the press subsequently concluded that the reports coming out of europe must have been exaggerated.

There are two minor criticisms I have of Lipstadt's book though.
Firstly and least important is that sometimes the dates are presented as merely day and month where year is not clear. "x happenend on the 16th of june" 1943 or 1944? this wasn't always completely clear.
Secondly Lipstadt does occasionally let some of her personal views into the book, she occasionally dismisses quite plausible arguments as excuses and obfuscation of the true motivation.

Overall beyond belief is quite impressive.

[Charlene Mathe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book examines the perceptions of average Americans during the build up and take over of Nazi power in Germany, and the dismissal of Jewish/undesirable population genocides as "Beyond Belief." The book documents the role of the Media and of the diplomatic establishment in concealing from the public the horror stories leaked to the West from witnesses to the Holocaust. The Jews themselves did not believe the ravings of Adolf Hitler would be embraced by the civil society of Germany. "Beyond Belief" has an important message for America and the West today; as the cultural foundations of the American Republic and other Western democracies are being challenged by revolutionary alternatives. "Those who do not learn/cannot remember history are bound to repeat it" (Santayana). We are at risk today of losing our Freedoms to a failure of political/historical imagination. The precedents and patterns examined by Deborah Lipstadt can open our eyes to Media and Institutional news narratives today that brand national collapse as beyond belief -- "the new normal."

[LA · Rating 5 out of 5]

This comment is more on Dr. Lipstadt herself than on her many works. This scholar has an uncanny sense of perspective about this terrible era in human history that will never be forgotten. She is truly a gentle soul who seeks to make the truth known about the Holocaust. As she rightly showed in her case against Irving and numerous publications, this is an example of there being no defense for horrible behavior.

She has long been on the faculty at Emory University in Atlanta. When I was recently teaching a History of the Holocaust course, I sent her an email in which I asked her for a couple of key points she would like my students to carry with them from the course, many of whom might never have another history course. She offered some very important thoughts that I shared with my students. She also suggested to me other sources that I might find useful for the course.

I feel fortunate to live in a time when leaders such as Lipstadt are "fighting the good fight" against such revisionist history. I hope she continues to receive the adulation for her work that she so clearly deserves. Also, I hope she continues to serve as a sentry in the Western world against Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists.

[V · Rating 5 out of 5]

Infuriating as hell. This book and its analysis of the world's purposeful ignorance towards the happenings in Germany, Poland, and beyond during WW2 has stuck with me throughout the years.

[Because Batman! · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a little repetitive, but it is expected of a detailed study. The whole point of the book is to show how we are used to with massacres of millions, also a detail account the reaction of American media of Nazism, American and British's own type of antisemitism, and a wonderful "wake up" about inaction and apathy.

[Camper · Rating 4 out of 5]

A 1986 analysis of media coverage of the coming holocaust, fascinating in light of what is happening today. Much of it centers on denials and rationalizations in newspapers (by reporters and story placement/length) about what appeared to be happening but couldn't possibly be true, so it seemed. Many of the rationalizations about treatment of jews were that the treatment (before the death camps) was a means to another end such as stealing jews' homes,possessions, and businesses to profit 'real' Germans, rather than as an end to itself- one step in the goal of eliminating a block of people.
In the book are echoes of events from this year: bans on immigration, refusal of asylum seekers, racist brutality by the police and thugs on segments of the population cheered by the ruling powers, and sweeps performed to arrest and haul away workers into detention centers. The book has altered my perspective on what's happening in 2019; this is ethnic cleansing.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

DID THE AMERICAN PRESS MINIMIZE AND IGNORE REPORTS ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST?

Historian Deborah Lipstadt wrote in the Introduction to this 1986 book, “During the 1930s and 1940s America could have saved thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands of Jews but did not do so. This is a terrible indictment which carries a heavy burden of responsibility and also raises some difficult questions: If more could have been done, why was it not done? Why were certain rescue options deliberately ignored? And most important, who was most directly responsible for the failure to act?... the President, the Cabinet, the State Department, the Congress, and other government offices do not operate in a vacuum. They are political creatures and as such are sensitive to the pressure of public opinion… It is possible that Washington’s behavior would have been different if the American public had demanded that this country not ‘stand idly by’ while innocent human beings were destroyed, but … particularly when the victims were Jews, the public favored inaction over action. How can we explain such behavior?... an astonishing amount of information was available long before the end of the war… Can we say therefore that … there should have been no doubts?... No…. we must evaluate how the information was presented to the public… this study turns its attention to the American press… The way the press told the story of Nazi antisemitism---the space allotted, the location of the news in the paper, and the editorial opinions---shaped the American reaction.” (Pg. 1-3)

She suggests, “The Belgian atrocity reports of World War I made the press all the more skeptical. Reports of the Germans’ use of poison gas, the brutal killings of babies, and mutilations of defenseless women … all turned out to be products of the imagination. But these stories left their legacy. During World War II… reporters … doubted [atrocity reports] had occurred because the stories seemed too similar to the false reports of the previous war.” (Pg. 9)

She notes that “Walter Lippmann, at the time considered … to be America’s most influential columnist and commentator… had severely criticized Hitler when he assumed power, but his fears were allayed by a conciliatory-sounding speech Hitler delivered in mid-May 1933. Convinced that the German leader was intent on pursuing peace, he dismissed claims that Hitler was insincere… Most disturbing was his gratuitous equation of the French terror, the Ku Klux Klan, and Nazi brutality with Jewish ‘parvenus.’ … Coming from a Jew, it indicated … outright hostility about his Jewish identity… it suggested that Jewish behavior was ultimately the cause of antisemitism.” (Pg. 45-46)

She reports, “the Americans who went to the [1936 Olympic] Games… had fallen prey to German propaganda. They returned convinced that Germany was at peace … The truth about German persecution, which they were not shown, they dismissed as propaganda and beyond belief… A few years later… tales of mass executions, death camps, and gas chambers---would be so unbelievable that THEY would be dismissed as propaganda.” (Pg. 85) She adds, “‘The Christian Century’ argued against increased immigration… [and] admitted that it was more concerned about the social than the economic implications of a change in immigration policy. The United States, it argued, already had to contend with the problem of integrating nationalities and races who ‘are wholly irrelevant to our common national life.’” (Pg. 93)

She states, “As the … flood of Jewish refugees seeking a haven increased in size, the press advocated that the gates to this land be more firmly secured. Again the press offered its genuine sympathy to these victims of a fanatic regime. What it did not offer were concrete and viable suggestions to resolve the plight of those [refugees].” (Pg. 120)

She observes, “a surprisingly large amount of information was known and publicized despite the fact that the death camps were beyond the view of the press… a fairly accurate picture of the situation was available first to government officials and then to the public, long before the end of the war. Often it was not believed… it is critical that we ask not WHEN news was available but HOW it was made available.” (Pg. 135-136) She adds, “With a few exceptions, Allied leaders steadfastly refused to refer to Jews as subjects of particularly harsh treatment. Jews were victims, but so were a multitude of others.” (Pg. 141)

She continues, “Americans who depended on the media for their information were presented with a confused and confusing picture, a picture with many correct but unclear or incomplete details.” (Pg. 142) She adds, “As the commencement of the mass murder of European Jews neared, the press had enough information to indicate that many of them were doomed to die from disease, starvation, exposure, torture and slave labor. Soon they would also have enough information to know that many were being massacred. But their own nagging doubts … permeated the writing and publication of the news so that the American public would still have cause to disbelieve.” (Pg. 149)

She acknowledges, “Late in November 1942 Rabbi Stephen S. Wise… chairman of the World Jewish Congress, announced that 2 million Jews in occupied Europe had been slain in an ‘extermination campaign.’ According to Wise, Hitler had ordered the murder of all Jews in Nazi-ruled Europe… Some of this information of Wise’s, such as that corpses were being used for soap fats, was incorrect, as were his claims that the Nazis were killing their victims by injecting air bubbles into their veins…. Actually a far more efficient method was already in use: lethal gas. His figures on the number dead were also far too low.” (Pg. 180)

She summarizes, “the press reported news of the Final Solution but did not pursue it with any urgency. In fact, it hardly pursued it at all. When it transmitted the information, it did so in a confused, skeptical, and obfuscated fashion. Mostly, there was an air of lassitude about the way it covered this story.” (Pg. 196) In 1944, she suggests that “Had the Russian-related news of Maidanek been the only proof of German atrocities and had reporters not been brought to the site to inspect it and taken pictures of what they found, ‘The Christian Century’s’ doubts might have been more understandable. But given the human remains found at Maidanek and the preponderance of evidence which preceded it, much of which had not come from the Russians, such skepticism and derision … seemed highly misplaced and possibly motivated by other sentiments.” (Pg. 250)

She observes. “Probably the most outrageous example of this explicit policy of ignoring the Jewish aspect of the tragedy occurred in Moscow in the fall of 1943… Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met and affixed their signature to what is known as the Moscow Declaration, which warned that ‘Germans who … have shared in slaughters inflicted on the people of Poland or in territories of the Soviet Union… will be brought back to the scene of their crimes and judged on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged.’ Nowhere in the declaration were Jews even obliquely mentioned, a phenomenon the press simply ignored.” (Pg. 251)

She adds, “Another example of confusion or myopia was the persistent appearance during the spring of 1945 of press reports describing the CONCENTRATION camps, as opposed to the death camps such as Maidanek and Auschwitz, as sites where the worst atrocities were committed… The death camps, i.e., those camps which contained gas chambers for the express purpose of killing victims, were in the east and were therefore liberated by the Russians. The camps liberated by the Americans and British were in Germany and Austria.” (Pg. 258)

She states, “There are those who are inclined to suggest that little was done because of contempt the Allies harbored for these particular victims because they were Jews. One is loath to accept that as true, but it must be acknowledged that many government officials, members of the press, and leaders of other religions behaved as if Jewish lives were a cheap commodity. The government and the press reacted much more forcefully when non-Jewish lives were threatened.” (Pg. 276)

She concludes, “The press had access to a critically important and unprecedented story. Yet it reacted with equanimity and dispassion. In these pages I have analyzed and explained its skepticism; I find it much more difficult---if not impossible---to fully comprehend its indifference. That indifference may be a part of the history of the Holocaust which, despite the efforts of scores of historians, will remain unfathomable.” (Pg. 278)

This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the presentation of information about the Holocaust.

[Brian Katz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great book, it needed to be written. The media failed miserably to inform the public, which negatively shaped public opinion on the matter. Because FDR relied very heavily on public opinion to shape his policies, he never really gave this matter serious consideration during the war years. A colossal failure that cost millions of lives. The author has the timeline at about 3 years from the time between when the world knew of the systematic killing of European Jewlery, until the liberation of the camps in the spring of 1945. During this time, efforts were made to attempt to shape a solution to “rescue” the refugees, but there was not enough “will” in the human spirit to make this happen.

The author did a great job of explaining why there was so much skepticism in the press and in our population that resulted in no action. They included (1) the US’ experience during WWI and the realization that some alleged atrocities were determined to be propaganda, as well as the desire to avoid being dragged into another war, 2) an Allied policy which chose to hide rather than publicize information relating to the Jewish atrocities, (3) the absence of credible eye witnesses (there were only Jewish ones), (4) distrust of information coming from Russia, (5) the press needed to be shown (and that could not happened until the camps were liberated), (6) the allegations were so horrifying that the press could not believe them, (7) the US’ aversion to increasing immigration quotas to allow the refugees an escape haven, (8) various rationalizations such as the fifth column fears, where the US was concerned about Germany exporting spy’s to the US as refugees, (9) the rise of American anti Semitism, and (10) the media burying stories in the middle or back of the paper.

An interesting observation was made about Britain’s lack of willingness to allow Jewish refugees to enter Palestine, for which the British were the Mandatory following WWI. Only a few short years later in 1948 Israel declare statehood. I sure would like to read more on why this happened as hindsight says this was the perfect solution. I’ve read some articles that put the reason at wanting to disconnect the future Land of Israel from Nazi Germany, that is, global diplomats wanted Israel to exist for the self determination of Jews, and not as a place for Jews escaping Germany. This has some merit, given the long history associated with the founding of the Jewish State and the process that began to unfold in the late 1800’s.

So if the media can influence public opinion to the point of stifling a sitting President from acting, what responsibility does it have in this saga ? And what reforms are needed in the press ? A simple look at the press’ reporting over the past several years ending in the spring of 2020 would suggest that the media has too much influence over the opinions of our population. And when the media is wrong, those errors can be devastating to our society.

[James Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Beyond Belief: The American Press And The Coming Of The Holocaust, 1933- 1945"
by Deborah Lipstadt

Deborah Lipstadt has written a wonderful book -- "wonderful" in the sense that what she has revealed is that during WWII there existed an unbelievably broad base within the world of American journalism for the denial or the minimization of the horror of the Holocaust at the same time that the Nazi death machine was monotonously reaping is toll, day after day, year after year.

Ms. Lipstadt explains how the initial disbelief in facts of the mass murder of Jews in Europe in the early months after the German invasion of the Soviet Union gradually congealed into a strong tendency to deny what was actually happening. The most influential newspapers, such as the New York Times, quickly developed policies to avoid raising alarm over the mass murder in Poland while at the same time continuing to accumulate evidence of its scope and speed. Stories were buried in the back pages of the newspaper, with small-type headlines, as if this were no more important than a paper-boy accidentally struck by a car.

Deborah Lipstadt is best known for her successful defense against the lawsuit filed against her by Holocaust denier David Irving in 2000. (The legal battle was later filmed as "Denial," starring Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson and Timothy Spall.)
See:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/s...

Ms. Lipstadt writes:
"Both the journalist’s and historian’s professions consider objectivity the highest ideal and believe that facts and values can and should be separated. In reality, neither the journalist nor the historian is completely objective. Their values inform their view and understanding of events, and thus influence the creation and interpretation of the historical record. And since people’s values tend to reflect those of the society they are part of, our examination of how the American journalist—both the reporter and the editor—treated the news of the persecution of European Jewry will also be an examination of the values of this society which watched from afar as the Holocaust erupted in all its fury and horror."

[Stefanie Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think that people either forget or have never been told that the United States was deeply anti-Semitic (and still is) during this time period. That probably has a lot to do with the fact that coverage of World War II was mainly focused on the fact that Germany was trying to control the globe. Who cares if the leader of Germany hates Jews as long as he doesn't invade everyone! (Insert eye roll.) The laws enacted against Jewish people in Germany and invaded countries were just simply not a source of concern for the United States. Once there was absolutely no denying that the genocide of thousands of people took place, the media half heartedly called for something to be done. (But made no effort to do something.) They limited the amount of refugees coming in, and also got in cahoots with other countries to steal land from Palestine and create a country just so they wouldn't have Jewish people coming into their country. (I have a whole paragraph of opinion about this, but this isn't the time or place.)

The fact of the matter is, the United States did not cover the Holocaust in a factual and unbiased manner. They did not care what was happening to people as a whole. If they had covered this and taken these reports coming out of these places seriously, something could have been done to save plenty of people. Aid could have been given to people who were displaced and suffering effects of malnourishment and other diseases. The United Stated media in this time period was pathetic in this regard, and I see a lot of the same kind of nonsense throughout history. As a nation, we are so happy to turn a blind eye to things we do not want to talk about or be involved in, but happy to stick our noses where they are not welcome if it furthers our agenda. It's sad, really. It's terrible that so many people thought that their troubles were being reported to these great superpowers and that they were going to come save them while they wasted away and wondered if today would be the day they would die. It's gross.

Pick this book up, because this is an important thing to know and understand about media coverage of events like this.

[Rob Weinhold · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great and thorough history of the Holocaust

This is a fantastic read that should be experienced by anyone who has an interest in the anti-Semitism and hate that pollutes our country and those who believe in freedom and liberty. I take exception to any comments about labeling any individual or group in today’s environment as racist or anti-semitic, although I believe such people exist. My ancestors came to country from Germany in 1736, before it became a country. This was 200 years before anything like Nazis or socialists existed. It is a terrible mistake to categorize anyone with opposing political views as a white Nationalist or enemy of our country. Such glittering generalities serve no purpose other than to fire the flames of division and descent. I’m sure the victims who perished in the flames and gas chambers of WWII would not agree with such an assessment and characterization of someone with an opposing political view. Those people knew the depth of hate and moral absence of the perpetrators who sent them to their final death. I pray that such a Holocaust never happens again. We can start by refraining from labeling those who we disagree with politically and calling out the denizens of hate who openly show their intentions through violent and criminal actions as we saw in the attacks on Israeli citizens on 7 October of 2023. Peace be with you! Shalom!🙏

[Kenneth Barber · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an interesting but disturbing analysis of how the press handled the Nazi persecution of the Jews. The different steps the Nazis took in this persecution were mostly treated with skepticism and relegated to the back pages. Excuses for this were varied but consistent. The events were labeled as not verified,exaggerated or not aimed only at Jews. Often Jews were blamed for the persecution. Even when reports were relayed by reporters on the scene, the events were not give front page space and presented in such a way to cast doubt on their veracity.
The author researched major newspapers and magazines from across the country to compile this book. It is a sad commentary on America the way we reacted to the plight of the Jews during this period.

[Kerrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad and well researched, but begins to read like stereo instructions by the middle of the book. Very repetitive, but I gained a lot f insight.

[Jeffrey Freeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The subject matter is astonishing, but it reads too much as a history textbook.