5 ms·

"Dorothy Thompson (9 July 1893 – 30 January 1961) was an American journalist and radio broadcaster, who in 1939 was recognized by Time magazine as the second mo

"Dorothy Thompson (9 July 1893 – 30 January 1961) was an American journalist and radio broadcaster, who in 1939 was recognized by Time magazine as the second most influential woman in America next to Eleanor Roosevelt. She is notable as the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany in 1934 and as one of the few women news commentators on radio during the 1930s. She is regarded by some as the "First Lady of American Journalism." - Wikipedia

tamana 11y ago
First Lady of American Journalism is a horribly sexist and paternalistic title to give. It discredits her work. Reflective of the sexism of the time, though, that even a great leader of a field is imagined only as the Wife of something.
dang 11y ago
Dorothy Thompson is a fascinating and important historical figure, hugely famous in her prime, but much diminished when she died and largely forgotten now. She is due to be rehabilitated. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen in the next few years. I've been told that http://www.amazon.com/American-Cassandra-Life-Dorothy-Thompson/dp/0316507245 http://www.amazon.com/American-Cassandra-Life-Dorothy-Thomps... is a good bio.
- emgoldstein 11y ago
  Thompson, like many (if not most) American journalists of her time, was a Stalin apologist in the Duranty circle: http://spartacus-educational.com/USAthompsonD.htm http://spartacus-educational.com/USAthompsonD.htm I'm not sure any intellectual who collaborated with Hitler should get points for warning the world about Stalin. Or vice versa. If Harper's had written an article called "Who Goes Bolshevik" in 1941, it could have been much shorter: "pretty much everyone." Or at least, everyone who mattered. If you wanted the truth about Stalin in 1941, you'd do much better with the Voelkischer Beobachter than the New York Times.
  - dang 11y ago
    I don't know the details but that link doesn't come close to establishing that she was a Stalin apologist.
    - pvg 11y ago
      It doesn't seem like it at all. Things she apparently wrote in 1946: The West experienced moments of doubt, Thompson wrote, in which the outcome of communist belief and behavior was questioned: "Can communist cultism, organized like a medieval secret order, with a priesthood, a police and an inquisition, reform itself into a modem, liberal, democratic movement?" Why, during the war, did communist propagandists throughout the world demand an immediate "second front", an attack on heavily fortified Western Europe by the United States and Great Britain? "Did these obedient claques care nothing for the lives of American boys? Were they listening to any voices but the voice of Stalin?" "Yet, we said: No", Thompson continued. "We shall prove our confidence, trust and trustworthiness. We shall hold faith that it will not be betrayed. Loyalty, we said, begets loyalty." But as Germany collapsed, the Soviet Union began "reversing every wartime pledge and policy. And not only was the quarter of a century of communist despotism to be fastened again upon the necks of the long suffering, heroically,enduring, eternally,hoping, eternally,serving Russian people -but naked and unashamed it was seeking new people to subject. "
      - emgoldstein 11y ago
        Ah, but that was 1946. The (American) party line had changed -- most American liberals were anti-Stalinist in 1946. A quick google search turns up this from 1943: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11332745 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11332745 "Dorothy Thompson, the well-known columnist, writes: 'Russia does not want to make an isolationist policy. Russia wants a friendly Europe in a friendly world, with a system of collective security. There are signs of such hostility in both Europe and America to Russia that it gives Russian leadership some reason for suspicion. As things look at present, it is by no means certain that defeat of Germany will assure a non-Fascist Europe or one prepared to adopt a good-neighbor policy toward Russia." Her views in 1946 are standard 1946 post-FDR New Dealism (after the Anglo-Soviet split); her views in 1943 are standard 1943 New Dealism. You're just hearing the party line; God only knows what she actually thought, and when. It would be much easier to fight the memory hole if we didn't have these ridiculous copyright laws, but a lot of original WWII propaganda (not cherry-picked by modern hagiographers) remains on line. It's often pretty appalling reading.

tamana 11y ago

First Lady of American Journalism is a horribly sexist and paternalistic title to give. It discredits her work. Reflective of the sexism of the time, though, that even a great leader of a field is imagined only as the Wife of something.

dang 11y ago

Dorothy Thompson is a fascinating and important historical figure, hugely famous in her prime, but much diminished when she died and largely forgotten now. She is due to be rehabilitated. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen in the next few years. I've been told that http://www.amazon.com/American-Cassandra-Life-Dorothy-Thompson/dp/0316507245 http://www.amazon.com/American-Cassandra-Life-Dorothy-Thomps... is a good bio.

emgoldstein 11y ago
Thompson, like many (if not most) American journalists of her time, was a Stalin apologist in the Duranty circle: http://spartacus-educational.com/USAthompsonD.htm http://spartacus-educational.com/USAthompsonD.htm I'm not sure any intellectual who collaborated with Hitler should get points for warning the world about Stalin. Or vice versa. If Harper's had written an article called "Who Goes Bolshevik" in 1941, it could have been much shorter: "pretty much everyone." Or at least, everyone who mattered. If you wanted the truth about Stalin in 1941, you'd do much better with the Voelkischer Beobachter than the New York Times.
- dang 11y ago
  I don't know the details but that link doesn't come close to establishing that she was a Stalin apologist.
  - pvg 11y ago
    It doesn't seem like it at all. Things she apparently wrote in 1946: The West experienced moments of doubt, Thompson wrote, in which the outcome of communist belief and behavior was questioned: "Can communist cultism, organized like a medieval secret order, with a priesthood, a police and an inquisition, reform itself into a modem, liberal, democratic movement?" Why, during the war, did communist propagandists throughout the world demand an immediate "second front", an attack on heavily fortified Western Europe by the United States and Great Britain? "Did these obedient claques care nothing for the lives of American boys? Were they listening to any voices but the voice of Stalin?" "Yet, we said: No", Thompson continued. "We shall prove our confidence, trust and trustworthiness. We shall hold faith that it will not be betrayed. Loyalty, we said, begets loyalty." But as Germany collapsed, the Soviet Union began "reversing every wartime pledge and policy. And not only was the quarter of a century of communist despotism to be fastened again upon the necks of the long suffering, heroically,enduring, eternally,hoping, eternally,serving Russian people -but naked and unashamed it was seeking new people to subject. "
    - emgoldstein 11y ago
      Ah, but that was 1946. The (American) party line had changed -- most American liberals were anti-Stalinist in 1946. A quick google search turns up this from 1943: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11332745 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11332745 "Dorothy Thompson, the well-known columnist, writes: 'Russia does not want to make an isolationist policy. Russia wants a friendly Europe in a friendly world, with a system of collective security. There are signs of such hostility in both Europe and America to Russia that it gives Russian leadership some reason for suspicion. As things look at present, it is by no means certain that defeat of Germany will assure a non-Fascist Europe or one prepared to adopt a good-neighbor policy toward Russia." Her views in 1946 are standard 1946 post-FDR New Dealism (after the Anglo-Soviet split); her views in 1943 are standard 1943 New Dealism. You're just hearing the party line; God only knows what she actually thought, and when. It would be much easier to fight the memory hole if we didn't have these ridiculous copyright laws, but a lot of original WWII propaganda (not cherry-picked by modern hagiographers) remains on line. It's often pretty appalling reading.