sábado, abril 15, 2006

El polémico

Christopher Hitchens en una entrevista principlamente dirigida a hablar sobre Irán, comenta sobre el paralelismo en cómo algunos medios británicos trataban la amenaza Nazi y los medios norteamericanos de hoy:
HH: Two minutes left. I'd like you to analyze the comparison between the American media today and the war, and the British media in the time of Baldwin and Chamberlain, particularly the Times of London, in their refusal to credit Churchill's warnings, and their allegiance. It's a little bit reverse, but I see that same ideological fervor in the media. Is that overstated?

CH: Yes, I'm afraid to say I think it is. I mean, the majority not just of the British, but also of the American media in that time believed that anything was better than war, which is of course a policy anyone's entitled to adopt at any time. And they essentially made the facts fit that idea.

HH: You don't think that's what's...

CH: I mean, the British press, the British conservative press, was much worse than that. It was much worse than pacifist or isolationist.

HH: Pro-German.

CH: In particular, the Times of London, yes, was openly pro-Nazi, or at the very least, pro-facist. I mean, it did believe that Hitler was the salvation of Germany, and had saved it from Communism, and might yet save Europe from Stalin. And so this was not, as what's often called, appeasement. I wrote a book about this, actually. It wasn't capitulation. The British ruling class is not pacifist. I can absolutely promise you it certainly wasn't then.

HH: Is the American ruling class now?

CH: It was infinitely worse. It wanted to make a military alliance with Hitler in order to preserve the British empire, and put down its rivals in Europe. I mean, it's far, far, far worse than blindness, or moral cowardice.

4 Comments:

Blogger Gemuina said...

Hola Leeuw,
bueno, esto que voy a poner directamente con lo de Irán que has puesto no tiene que ver mucho, pero ayer me llamó mucho la atención el premio Pulitzer de Why construido con los nombres de los americanos muertos en Irak. La verdad que yo creo que en cualquier guerra hay demasiadas víctimas, aunque dependiendo del lado en que se mire las víctimas serán unas u otras.
Besos

6:01 p. m.  
Blogger Leeuw said...

Desconozco lo del "Pulitzer de Why". He estado mirando los premios Pulitzer del 2006 y no encuentro nada. Tampoco en Google news. Dame un link o algo, que no sé nada de eso.

Víctimas las hay en todo estado donde falte paz y libertad, y recuerda; "paz" no siempre es aquel estado ausente de guerra.
Saludos

1:59 a. m.  
Blogger Gemuina said...

Buenas Leeuw,
aquí te dejo dos enlaces de ello Con foto en una noticia y Más sobre esta imagen y su premio Pulitzer

5:50 p. m.  
Anonymous Anónimo said...

Un offtopic:

Habla Hayek en Madrid de problema migratorio de EU

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/345124.html

9:40 p. m.  

Publicar un comentario

<< Home