Video: Of course we’d invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia dean

posted at 6:47 pm on September 22, 2007 by Allahpundit

Webloggin’s also on this. I have it in my head somehow that Dwight Eisenhower, when offered the opportunity to personally accept the surrender of a German general, refused. So unspeakably loathsome did he find the Nazis that he wouldn’t dignify them with his presence, even at the moment of triumph. I can’t find an account of that online, though. Anyone able to help?

Apparently 60 Minutes is going to let Ahmadinejad speak directly to the American people, which won’t be the first time a broadcast news outfit has invited a pig to propagandize. In the meantime, as we await the arrival of the world’s foremost Holocaust denier, a few words to meditate on from a then-future, now former president of Columbia University:

The things I saw beggar description. While I was touring the camp I encountered three men who had been inmates and by one ruse or another had made their escape. I interviewed them through an interpreter. The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so over powering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”

Note what Coatsworth says about there being no shortage of willing media outlets. Hard to argue with that.

Update: As it turns out, Columbia’s been Nazi-friendly for more than 70 years now. It’s part of the Ivy tradition of enlightenment.

Update: I guess this video was worth cutting, huh?


The link goes to my YouTube clip.

Update: Gaius e-mails with a link to the story of Ike and the German general.

The German government tried to surrender to the Western Allies only. On May 6 Colonel General Alfred Jodi was flown to SHAEF headquarters in Rheims, France, to negotiate a surrender. Eisenhower refused to negotiate a separate capitulation to the West, and he refused to deal with Jodi in person. To Eisenhower, Jodi was not really a soldier, and the German military was not worthy of the respect given to real soldiers, sailors, and airmen. He believed it was part of a gangster regime that stained the honor of soldiers. With little negotiating leverage, Jodi accepted Eisenhower’s terms on May 7. Officially, at midnight as May 8 began, Germany surrendered to the Western Allies and Russians alike. At the insistence of the Russians, however, a second surrender ceremony took place in Berlin later on the 8th.

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Boy, this Dean loves himself, huh? It’s just more of the self important bullshit by snotty kids. We should get some real college kids, you know…spring breakers in there to throw pork chops at him, not these “I’m better than you” fuck fucks.

LtE126 on September 23, 2007 at 6:57 PM

A mind so open you trip over it.

Somebody get the tweezers.

profitsbeard on September 23, 2007 at 8:52 PM

Joe Kennedy Sr. would be proud.

Ugly on September 23, 2007 at 9:33 PM

The Cowboy tilted up his hat, adjusted his tooth pick and said, “That’s cause we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet.”
– Unknown

MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 8:39 PM


PRCalDude on September 23, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I have it in my head somehow that Dwight Eisenhower, when offered the opportunity to personally accept the surrender of a German general, refused. So unspeakably loathsome did he find the Nazis that he wouldn’t dignify them with his presence, even at the moment of triumph. I can’t find an account of that online, though. Anyone able to help?

I just watched that bit of news along with actual newsreel footage of Eisenhower and other U.S. military, as to accepting the presence of Hitler’s assistant, “JURL” or something like that, on THE HISTORY CHANNEL. Eisenhower was said to have “entertained” him but only so much as that meant Eisenhower allowed the man to be somewhat in his presence long enough to be told he was due punishment and that the surrender was accepted. Eisenhower, like a gentleman and a sane and conscienable human being, would not shake the man’s hand nor otherwise interact with him. HISTORY CHANNEL just last night…

S on September 24, 2007 at 3:17 AM

Sorry, “Jodl.” Hitler’s assistant, guy who appeared before/in the vacinity of Eisenhower, to surrender. Not “Jodi” but “Jodl” (pronounced, “YO-dull”).

S on September 24, 2007 at 3:22 AM

Are you saying that Hitler would be considered a liberal speaker??? Oi Vey. Whenever the Left wishes to denigrate someone, they use either the word Nazi or the word fascist. That’s their F-word. That is why they always paint George Bush as Hitler…No, the Left only tolerates marxists, socialists, communists, feminists, muslims, africans, or any enemy of western, Christian civilization.== jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:18 PM

The FACT is that Hitler represented a totalitarian end-result of SOCIALISM. Which is where fascism actually originates: socialism. Fascism is, in fact, the end result of socialism. Today’s Liberals refuse to accept their own behaviors for what they are, as also the damages they inflict on others, and have throughout time. It’s a form of dictatorship by Liberalism run through to it’s extreme (look at all socialist dictators, look at the overall lexicon of Liberals today about everyone else, their intolerance for Conservativism, for Christian morality [for Christianity in general], etc.).

Fascism, in the “Hitler version” or “permutation” that was the Socialists in Germany under Hitler, was socialism, much like today’s Leftwing really, really, really wants to put into place in the U.S. And with that, would come most if not all the same suppressions and punishments upon everything not among the Liberal “state” — one does not have to look very far today to see it in action among the Left, the actual deployment of fascism.

The use of “Nazi” in regards Bush is just more of the insanity from the Left — they don’t even understand what “Nazi” actually means, or, if they do, they’re repeatedly trying to point down the street to redirect the attention away from the actual fascists (again, like all fascists tend to do, try to redirect responsibility away from themselves, as in, “I know nothing,” “I wasn’t involved,” “it wasn’t me, it was them/him/it”) while they continue to do their damage.

The actual fascism in our world today is quite alive and unwell among today’s Leftwing.

S on September 24, 2007 at 3:36 AM

The German Socialists sprung forth from among Berlin’s “theatre people,” a group of performers and otherwise theatrical “worker” types who wanted to ensure they got paid for their work. It was, in fact, a sort of tyranny of the theatre upon the world, what they authored…Socialist Workers’ Party in Germany. Hitler and all the rest came later but the origins of the political party were born in Berlin from among the “theatre” crowd.

S on September 24, 2007 at 3:39 AM

The actual fascism in our world today is quite alive and unwell among today’s Leftwing.

S on September 24, 2007 at 3:36 AM

Thank you. Well put.
I am tired of this lie that Nazi were on the right side of the political agenda. They were leftists through and through. Free speech, nein…free enterprise, nein…state run schools, ya…state run papers, ya…freedom of thought, nein…state provided for all, ya…freedom of expression, nein (like the shouting down of conservatives on college campuses)…Oh and hate the Jews, YA!!
Sounds like the liberal movement to me.

right2bright on September 24, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Columbia is one messed up school.
SoulGlo on September 22, 2007 at 8:59 PM

No more than Yale and Stanford, not to mention Beserkley.

Sad to say, after Richard Shaw proudly recruited the Taliban (Hashemi) to Yale, Stanford (my alma meter, I’m embarrassed to say) recruited Shaw. BTW, note what TV network the Taliban’s ‘close friend’ worked for – CBS!!

In a second email, Shaw discussed Hashemi’s ability to contribute politically and wrote that he has “the potential to make a positive difference in seeking ways towards peace and democracy.”

Officially the second foreign secretary for Afghanistan in 2001, Hashemi toured the United States for several weeks in the spring of that year. During his trip, which included a visit to Yale, he defended the Taliban’s bombing of ancient Buddhist statues and the regime’s treatment of women.

Upon the attacks of Sept. 11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Hashemi and his family fled to Pakistan. There, Hashemi received a high-school equivalency degree and, after consulting with close friend and CBS reporter Mike Hoover, applied to Yale’s non-degree program for special students.

fred5678 on September 24, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Refusal to meet recalls a story about Geo. Washington from Rebels and Redcoats

this a a summary of how I remember the passage in the book:

A British officer was sent to deliver a letter from General Howe (I believe) addressed to ‘George Washington’. It was refused because Howe intentionally did not address Washington by his proper military title. On being told this, Howe scribbled ‘esq’ for ‘esquire’ after Washington’s name. Again the letter was refused but the courier was brought to Washington. The British officer argued that the word ‘esquire’ was proper address, because it can stand for everything. Washington replied: yes and and ‘anything’.

The letter was refused.

Washington was a great, great man

Gee, what would Bollinger have done. Danced a jig if the British asked and call them pigs later

entagor on September 27, 2007 at 1:05 PM