BBC played an interesting role in WW2

mora

War Hero
#1
We know, of course, about the glorious history of the BBC - how millions in Nazi-occupied Europe kept their sanity by listening to BBC radio. How the BBC chronicled British and American set-backs as well as victories, thereby creating a lifeline of trust in a world full of lies. How men, women and children who were hunted mercilessly by day, took heart each night when they heard the familiar sound of Big Ben on their home-made crystal-set radios, crackling with background static, and sighed with relief when that reassuring British voice said, “This is the BBC.” It signified that all was not yet lost, that they might live another day.

As the end of the war neared, the BBC played its part as a forum for discussing the post-war order, preparing the way for the post-war welfare state. BBC microphones were on hand to record first-hand accounts of the liberation of the Nazi death camps. There was an irony here, despite knowing about Nazi mass murder of Jews well before 1942, the BBC failed to publicise the Holocaust, playing along instead with the Ministry of Information's emphasis on Nazi atrocities against Poles. It was felt that 'far from prompting sympathy among the British public' an emphasis on the persecution of Jews 'would instead arouse its latent anti-Semitism'.

Hundreds of thousands of Europeans tuned in to BBC World Service, expecting a truthful account of the course of the war. Many Jewish communities had yet to fall under Nazi occupation; they would have had a chance to escape had the truth been told. Questions remained like why did British governments from 1933 to 1945 deny Europe's Jews a place of refuge?Why did the British government and its mouthpiece, the BBC, suppress news about mass executions of Jews, or their failure to air the Warsaw Rising of 1944?





The Holocaust: why Auntie stayed mum

MARION MILNE
Independent, The (London), May 9, 1996

The Holocaust was the best-kept secret of the war. Then its horrors were revealed - apparently for the first time - by BBC war reporter Richard Dimbleby's now famous broadcast of 19 April 1945. So shocked was the BBC newsroom that it refused to transmit the recording until, on threat of resignation, Dimbleby persuaded them it was one of the most important news stories of the century.

What was not admitted at the time was that the Dimbleby dispatch from Belsen was by no means the earliest news the BBC had received of the destruction of the European Jews.

New material, from a five-page directive in the Public Record Office, reveals that by 1943 the BBC had evidence which conclusively proved Hitler's plan for the "total extermination of European Jewry". Entitled "Special annexe on Extermination of the Jews: Evidence of Nazi policy and practice", it was compiled by the Political Warfare Executive (PWE), the government body that guided the BBC's overseas broadcasting.

Surprisingly, the document says nothing about making public its harrowing contents. Indeed, government policy was the reverse. "Jewish sources are always doubtful," says one handwritten note in the margin of a Foreign Office memorandum on conditions in Poland. Another Foreign Office circular suggests: "The Jews tend to exaggerate German atrocities."

Other confidential internal memorandums show an unwillingness by the BBC to broadcast on behalf of the Jews. "Any direct action to counter anti-Semitism would do more harm than good," wrote Sir Richard Maconachie, controller of the home service, on 15 April 1943. May E Jenkin, Children's Hour assistant director, stated: "If you give Jewish broadcasters an inch, they come clamouring for a mile." Despite the evidence from the PWE, the BBC foreign and home news boards concluded: "It seems desirable to soft- pedal the whole thing".

Leonard Miall of the wartime overseas service says that the BBC was "very careful to avoid giving currency to rumours that might not be true. We didn't want to jeopardise our general credibility. In the process, we did undoubtedly play down the extent of the Holocaust." In wartime, government censors made sure that the BBC would never be able to say anything contrary to official policy.

The government line, echoed by the BBC, was to win the war, then save the Jews. "We wanted to keep the Middle East quiet," says Sir Frank Roberts, a Foreign Office mandarin in charge of monitoring German activities. "It was an important part of our war effort. We had to be careful we didn't give the Arabs the impression that we had suddenly turned over into a pro-Jewish, pro-Zionist organisation."

Lord Weidenfeld, a Jewish refugee publisher, adds: "There was nothing ideological or mythological about this. It wasn't deeply instinctive racial hatred. It was expediency."

Conclusive proof that the BBC avoided publicising the Holocaust until the war was virtually over comes from Paul Winterton, a wartime News Chronicle Moscow correspondent and BBC contributor. Eight months before Dimbleby walked into Belsen, he accompanied the Red Army into Majdanek, the first Nazi death camp to be liberated. His account survives in the BBC sound archive. Winterton speaks of "the most horrible story I will ever have to tell you" and describes in brutal detail this appalling extermination camp.

Winterton, now in his eighties, recalls the BBC's reaction to his broadcast. "I was given a kind of reprimand. They told me they didn't want this atrocity stuff. They seemed to think it was Russian propaganda."

Eventually, Winterton's dispatch went out in August 1944, but it was heavily edited and broadcast only on the overseas service.

There was an immediate outcry from the United States, demanding a war crimes commission, and Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, the British ambassador in Moscow, telegrammed London to seek clarification. The Foreign Office did its best to bury the story. "The Russians will manage this more effectively than we," one official was minuted as saying. "It may relieve us of unpleasant responsibilities in deciding what are and what are not war crimes," another noted.

The Foreign Office had not formulated its policy on war crimes; it had to keep the Middle East happy, and could not afford a loss of morale at a critical stage in the war. Ostensibly, Winterton's contract with News Chronicle did not allow his broadcast to go out. In reality, the BBC, in line with the Foreign Office, had the perfect excuse to maintain a very British silence on the Holocaust.

The writer is assistant producer on 'What Did You Do in the War, Auntie?'

In 1975, interview with Nathan Yallin-Mor, one of the three leaders of Lehi (the Stern Gang). On the assassinated Lord Moyne in 1943 (Moyne was the British High Commissioner for the Middle East). Yallin-Mor said that during World War II the British refused to allow Jews fleeing the Nazi Holocaust to go to Palestine. This policy led to such tragic incidents as the steamship Sturma, which, after being refused permission to land its several hundred Jewish refugees in Palestine, was then sunk by a German U-boat off the coast of Turkey; only one person survived. Yallin-Mor stated that because of censorship, the plight of these Jewish refugees was not receiving any publicity, that this policy would be "forced into the open" by the coverage of the death of a prominent British official.
 
#3
1. The article's appeared in the Indy, so the writer is obviously a f*cking pinko revisionist, who hates herself for being middle class and english.

2. What do you think the BBC ought to have done in the war, reported all the news the Govt didn't want them to, because of the people's right to know? Little snippets like "troops are preparing to invade Sicily / Italy / France", or "our allies the USSR are a right bunch of murderous c*nts, almost as bad as the Nazis", would not have been helpful in the slightest.

IMHO, the BBC did a pretty bloody good job in WW2, it was part of the country's war effort in what was a TOTAL WAR. To take cheap shots like this article does, placing present-day values on the actions of 60 years ago, is pretty pathetic, and the sort of thing I'd expect from a second year politics student. Or a journalist who writes for the Indy.

Edited for finger trouble. Twice. Mlaaar.
 
#4
Mora, what is your agenda?

Are you simply a travelling historian , wishing to tell us more of the history of the state of Israel post-1948 , or have you an axe to grind?
 
#5
MMMMMMM and the point being????????
As has been said to cast doubts over actions of an organisation that occured 60 years is
pointless. What can be gained by this?
We were fighting for freedom against tyranny, censorship of the press occured then and still occurs now, albeit not so much.
A little thing called operational security springs to mind.

In the hole with this thread methinks
 
#6
WTF?

So the BBC not the Nazis are to blame for the holocaust? 8O

Why do I bother to argue with these idiot, out of touch, hate themselves revisionists like Mora? :roll:

but I do bite because it is the least we can do to maintain an reasoned account of the sacrifices that took place, known and unknown , during a Total war against an evil regime for future generations.

or idiots such as this will bastardise history and leave future generations open to the same threat and the sacrifices would have been for nothing.

I have 3 questions for the sad pathetic publicity hungry misfits that author such drivel or go on to post it here.

1.Would you be able to peddle your self opinionated twaddle now if those targets of your contempt had not given so much to defeat evil?

2.Why do you have trawl over these events in a vain attempt to justify your chip on your shoulder self issues.

3. Why not make some valid and interesting point and show some Fcuking respect.

"razors! respect due here"

Edited due to rage
 
#7
would anyone have believed it?

"nazis are murdering millions of jews" as justification of war, big bad germans, boo hiss


I think that the rest of the world would have dismissed it as mere propaganda, akin to the "germans bayonetting babies" news that was used by the war propaganda office in WW1 - the likelihood of the rest of the world, particuarly USA not believing it, and as such shifting public support even further away from an intervention was high, there was already considerable ill feeling in the international community over the lies propagated in the great war and the govt/bbc probably judged as overall not worth the risk of losing the international comminity over what may well have proved to be untrue or exaggerated stories.


how times change eh??? Iraq/WMD bullshit & Iran/Nuclear sounding like another wolf story!
 
#8
Nice point Labrat,

that is the more reasoned answer I wish I could have come up with if I was not so wound up by these revisionists.
 
#9
It's a load of b0llocks anyway. Churchill made repeated speeches in the house and on radio about the deportation of the Jews, the 'bestail' treatment of them by the Nazi's and warned that history would never forget Germany. No-one knew the full extent of the carnage until cameras got into the death camps however - not even Winnie.

Nov 14 1941

'None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew the unspeakable evils wrought upon the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime. The Jew bore the brunt of the Nazi's first onslaught upon the citadels of freedom and human dignity. He has borne and continued to bear a burden that might have seen beyond endurance. He has not allowed it to break his spirit; he has never lost the will to resist. Assuredly in the day of victory the Jew's suffering and his part in the struggle will not be forgotten.'


June 1942

... the most bestial, the most squalid and the most senseless of all their offences, namely, the mass deportation of Jews from France, with the pitiful horrors attendant upon the calculated and final scattering of families. This tragedy fills me with astonishment as well as with indignation, and it illustrates as nothing else can the utter degradation of the Nazi nature and theme, and degradation of all who lend themselves to its unnatural and perverted passions.'

Bermuda Conference 1943

Churchill sought a means of halting German atrocities. It might, he told the War Cabinet, have a 'salutary effect' on the Germans if Britain, America and the Soviet Union announced, "that a number of German officers or members of the Nazi Party, equal to those put to death by the Germans in the various countries, would be returned to those countries after the war for judgement". All those responsible for, or having taken a consenting part 'in atrocities, massacres and executions' were to be sent back to the countries 'in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they might be judged and punished according to the laws of those liberated countries'.

'The Allies would pursue the ranks of the guilty to the uttermost ends of the earth.'


The Moscow Declaration

On November 1 1943 the Allies issued the Moscow Declaration, which followed almost exactly the wording of Churchill's proposal. The Allies would pursue 'the ranks of the guilty to the uttermost ends of the earth' and would deliver them to their accusers 'in order that justice may be done'.

To help refugees, in March 1944 Churchill by-passed the pre-war British government's restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. The new rules made it possible for any Jewish refugee who reached Istanbul to be sent on by train to Palestine, irrespective of the quota. Thousands of Jews benefited by this agreement.

1944

'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.'

The BBC did report the Warsaw uprising and you can find extensive coverage on it from their site but just in case that could be termed as 'tampered with' - here's quote from a Polish site:

The first reports concerning Home Army (AK) military operations against the German forces occupying Warsaw reached Western press agencies Aug. 2. On that evening, the Uprising was announced by the BBC. Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP) also reported the news worldwide in their services. "The Chief Commander of the Home Army has informed the Polish government in London that the army's forces launched a military campaign yesterday at 3 p.m. in an attempt to seize control of Warsaw," the AFP dispatched from London Aug. 2, 1944. http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/6324/


So whose truth are we seeing in the title post of this thread? Why are we supposed to believe something which is patently untrue?
 
#10
Themanwho said:
1. The article's appeared in the Indy, so the writer is obviously a f*cking pinko revisionist, who hates herself for being middle class and english.

2. What do you think the BBC ought to have done in the war, reported all the news the Govt didn't want them to, because of the people's right to know? Little snippets like "troops are preparing to invade Sicily / Italy / France", or "our allies the USSR are a right bunch of murderous c*nts, almost as bad as the Nazis", would not have been helpful in the slightest.

IMHO, the BBC did a pretty bloody good job in WW2, it was part of the country's war effort in what was a TOTAL WAR. To take cheap shots like this article does, placing present-day values on the actions of 60 years ago, is pretty pathetic, and the sort of thing I'd expect from a second year politics student. Or a journalist who writes for the Indy.

Edited for finger trouble. Twice. Mlaaar.
The writer is assistant producer on BBC's 'What Did You Do in the War, Auntie?'


BBC Documentry

http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/programme/NBSI351L

WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR,AUNTIE?
THE FACTORY OF ENTERTAINMENT
A television programme
BBC Programme Number: NBSI351L
First broadcast on 1995-05-02
Recorded on 1994-11-28

Broadcast history
02 May 1995 21:54-22:52 (BBC 1)
02 May 1995 22:30-23:29 (BBC 1)


BBC BOOKS
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0563371161/?tag=armrumser-21
What Did You Do in the War, Auntie?: BBC at War, 1939-45
Tom Hickman

Product Details:
Hardcover 224 pages (April 6, 1995)
Publisher: BBC Books
Language: English
ISBN: 0563371161
Category(ies): Society, Politics & Philosophy , History

Reviews

Synopsis
During World War II the BBC became part of people's lives. Not only was its reporting crucial to public awareness of the progress of events, but to a great extent it was responsible for maintaining day-to-day morale, with popular entertainment and practical advice. This book combines archive research and first-hand reminiscences to provide an account of broadcasting in wartime Britain. How closely did the Government control the BBC? What was the BBC's role in encouraging and supporting resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe? What did the BBC mean to the nation? Part nostalgia and part social history, the book includes interviews with people as disparate as Lord Weidenfeld and Dame Vera Lynn, war reporters and post-room messenger boys, to build a picture of what "London calling" really meant.
 
#11
I suspect that 'mora' actually is a fan of 'black propaganda', that he/she is a member of an anti Jewish organisation which is trying to rouse anti semitic feelings.........
 
#12
mora said:
Themanwho said:
1. The article's appeared in the Indy, so the writer is obviously a f*cking pinko revisionist, who hates herself for being middle class and english.

2. What do you think the BBC ought to have done in the war, reported all the news the Govt didn't want them to, because of the people's right to know? Little snippets like "troops are preparing to invade Sicily / Italy / France", or "our allies the USSR are a right bunch of murderous c*nts, almost as bad as the Nazis", would not have been helpful in the slightest.

IMHO, the BBC did a pretty bloody good job in WW2, it was part of the country's war effort in what was a TOTAL WAR. To take cheap shots like this article does, placing present-day values on the actions of 60 years ago, is pretty pathetic, and the sort of thing I'd expect from a second year politics student. Or a journalist who writes for the Indy.

Edited for finger trouble. Twice. Mlaaar.
The writer is assistant producer on BBC's 'What Did You Do in the War, Auntie?'


.
Your point being? The sort of people who now make programmes for the BBC have no particular loyalty to that institution, as they are invariably work for private production companies. And if you listen to half the drivel put out on Radio 4 nowadays, you'll have to agree that they tend to come from the same ideological spectrum as the Indy and the Grauniad, ie left wing graduate middle class self-haters...

Anyway, "Assistant Producer" probably means she isn't trusted to make the tea yet. And if this is the sort of rancid bullsh*t she comes up with, quite right too.
 
#13
But the BBC did suppressed the news of the Jewish Holocaust. I came with this thread after the Holocaust denial/revisionists thread in this board. Do you think people will be so suspicious if the BBC behaved differently?
 
#14
mora said:
But the BBC did suppressed the news of the Jewish Holocaust. I came with this thread after the Holocaust denial/revisionists thread in this board. Do you think people will be so suspicious if the BBC behaved differently?
As has already been conclusively proven the BBC did not suppress the news of the Holocaust. It reported on what was happening with the Jews from the very inception of the Nazi persecution of them in 1932, through the Nuremburg Laws and the repercussions of the Wansee Conference. The BBC expressed the outrage of the British and International communities.

Now is there any part of that you don't understand?
 
#15
Mora, what is your agenda?

Are you simply a travelling historian , wishing to tell us more of the history of the state of Israel post-1948 , or have you an axe to grind?
 
#16
PartTimePongo said:
Mora, what is your agenda?

Are you simply a travelling historian , wishing to tell us more of the history of the state of Israel post-1948 , or have you an axe to grind?
PTP!

Compare the message made by our friend Mora with another meggage (by stokeabbott ???) on another forum

http://medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5744&sid=0dd3b719fb8a9b38ab5b455e4767211c

We know, of course, about the glorious history of the BBC—- how millions in Nazi-occupied Europe kept their sanity by listening to BBC radio. How the BBC chronicled British and American set-backs as well as victories, thereby creating a lifeline of trust in a world full of lies. How men, women and children who were hunted mercilessly by day, took heart each night when they heard the familiar sound of Big Ben on their home-made crystal-set radios, crackling with background static, and sighed with relief when that reassuring British voice said, “This is the BBC.” It signified that all was not yet lost, that they might live another day.
It would be logical to suppose that Mora=stokeabbott or at least their positions are close. So the agenda is clear: "Nobody likes us. The whole World is against us (including BBC)"
 
#17
Then extensive- but very biased knowledge of Israel pre 1948 suggests a pro Zionist stance. Is this the main thrust of their involvement. It takes a fair amount of research to trot out the apologist line in defence of Zionist terrorism pre 1948.

My information on the pre 1948 terrorism was taken from the exhi bition at the old jail at Acco, an offical Israeli musuem. This was itself so pro isralei that I had some dejavue of communist era mueusms in Eastern Europe. So if Mora is MORE extreme , is it possible that we are dealing with someone on the extreme right of the israeli right, or pretending to be one??
 
#19
hansvonhealing said:
...an implacable hatred of anything British.
hate? what hate? not hate at all!
 
#20
Why the disinformation then when the true facts are in the public domain?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top