The Sun Newspaper

A board for news and views on what's happening in the world

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Suff » 18 Jul 2015, 12:49

Rodo wrote:You have to ask yourself though - who was taking the photograph and why. Also, why wasn't the photo destroyed in later years.


It's fairly obvious that it was just a family affair. If you think back, in the 30's, Cine equipment was pretty rare and very expensive. I assume it was dad playing with the new toy, which is as good an assumption as any.

As to why the film wasn't destroyed? This was a personal family film taken years before Nazi ism became the scourge of the world it is today. I must admit I find it curious that someone might have to destroy personal family memorabilia because the press might get their hands on it and present it as some kind of..... Coup....

Perhaps they might want to go after the Oswald Mosely memorabilia or even the photographs of the 50,000 supporters that he had before WWII.

Personally I'd rather find out how the Sun got hold of the film and then lock the perpetrator in the stocks for 48 hours. But that's just me. I don't like the press fiddling with personal family stuff and I don't care if it's the Queen's or mine, it's wrong!

Now if they had video of the Queen in a brownshirt in 1940 standing in a group of brownshirts and doing a Heil Hitler on command, that might be news.

This is garbage and it is an indication of how low our press have sunk that it is even being talked about.
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Workingman » 19 Jul 2015, 18:45

So everybody swallows the Princess Elizabeth red herring!

Put the film in the context of 1933 or 34, when it is said to have been taken.

The wife of the 2nd heir to the throne (Elizabeth (Queen Mother)) and her daughters messing about in the garden with her BIL, their uncle, Edward (1st in line and eventually Edward VIII). He is a known Nazi admirer/sympathiser and they both, along with P Elizabeth, all give the salute as part of their "game".

Given the events in Germany of 1933 can anyone imagine the damage that would have been done to the Monarchy had the film 'got out' in that period?

At the very least is shows an extreme lack of taste and understanding by members of the Royal Family (no surprises there) but, given the obsequiousness shown to them by the establishment elite, who knows what turn the run-up to the war might have taken had Edward VIII not been forced to abdicate.

Do not even try to convince me that the film is not in the public interest.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Suff » 19 Jul 2015, 21:21

One of the things I really dislike is second guessing people's motives and actions with 20:20 hindsight.

As you said, 1933. Before even the first "Work Camp" was ever built. Before Hitler came to power.

It is most certainly NOT in the public interest. It is in the interest of people who don't like the Monarchy. Nothing More.
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Workingman » 19 Jul 2015, 22:24

One of the things I really dislike is second guessing people's motives and actions with 20:20 hindsight.
Straw man. Nobody has "second guessed" anything or mentioned "motives" of any sort. I suppose you must be talking about what The Sun did and not the film. It claims public interest, and I agree.
As you said, 1933. Before even the first "Work Camp" was ever built. Before Hitler came to power.

About as wrong as things get.

Edited, with my comments, from the Wikipedia article linked above. I removed some of the less controversial moves.
30 January — Nazi leader Adolf Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany by President of Germany Paul von Hindenburg. I call that coming to power.
28 February – The Reichstag Fire Decree is passed in response to the Reichstag fire, nullifying many German civil liberties. The fist step to a police state.
15 March – Hitler proclaims the Third Reich. And so sets up the beginning of his next move: See 23 March.
20 March — Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp, is completed (it opens 22 March). I suppose it could be called a "Work Camp".
23 March – The Reichstag passes the Enabling Act, making Adolf Hitler dictator of Germany. More power for Hitler
26 March – Air minister Hermann Göring denies that Germany's Jews are in danger. Now what does that mean?
7 April – The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service is passed, forcing all "non-Aryans" to retire from the legal profession and civil service. Only members of the Master Race (Germans) could be employed.
21 April – Germany outlaws the kosher ritual shechita. Jewish foodstuffs banned.
26 April – The Gestapo is established in Germany. The Secret State Police, with ultimate powers over life and death.
26 May — The Nazi Party introduces a law to legalise eugenic sterilisation. Those who were deemed "inferior" to be sterilised.
14 July – Forming new political parties is forbidden in Germany. The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring is implemented. All non-Nazi parties are forbidden in Germany. One party, one state.

All of the above took place in 1933, same year, or one before, the film and are things the future King admired or sympathised with.
It is in the interest of people who don't like the Monarchy. Nothing More.

Wrong!. It is in the interest of giving an historical fact of what was going on in the Royal Family at the time and is, therefore, well within the public and historical interest.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Suff » 20 Jul 2015, 17:41

OK clearly I should have read up the fine detail before posting but I was swamped with other things.

My abiding impression, also upheld by this article (which is not so good given that they can't tell the difference between the 19th and 20th centuries, but), which pretty much states what I though. That Hitler's real take over of power didn't start to roll until 1935 and onwards.

So he had the makings of power. So he had passed acts to give him overall control of the Jews. BUT, he was not, at that time, doing all the things which give "Nazi" the connotation it does today. Dachau, which I have been to and stayed for the tour, was an SS training camp. Yes it was a work camp but it was the initial camp where Hitler dumped his political prisoners and, whilst extremely brutal, was not the kind of camp which, for instance, Auschwitz was designed to be.

At that time, in fact, it was perceived as no worse than the concentration camps Kitchener had used in the Boer war. Something _we_ were hardly likely to complain about given that we allowed 26,000 women and children to die in them.....

So, to put the background to the entire thing, Germany, in 1933, was in an unholy mess. The country administration had essentially collapsed, it was bankrupt, being pillaged by wealthy French and people were out of work and starving. A wheelbarrow was worth more than the money it could carry.

Hitler was seen as a stabilising force and his arcane tactics was "allowed" in the name of bringing order out of total chaos.

IF the world had known generally about the laws passed against Jews and racial purity, I doubt very much whether they would have actually bothered that much. Certainly it would only have been certain portions of the press who would have cared to report it. Before 1933 Germany had actually been one of the Least hostile places in the world to live, for a Jew. Russia? Poland? Ghettos where the Jews were separated by race and Pogroms were carried out regularly by the high born. Even after the advent of Communism in Russia Jews were still seen with suspicion and ostracised in the "Great Workers Republic".

Are we to believe that the western world _knew_ the horrors Hitler was building up for the Jews and both DID and SAID nothing, by word or action, to condemn it? Are we to believe that the world attended the 1936 Olympics knowing that Hitler was planning (if not actually executing), mass murder of Jews in the Death Camps. 1936 being either 2 or 3 years after this film is supposed to have been taken.

No, I'm not going to believe for one second that we can view the actions of this film in the light of full foreknowledge of the nightmare of terror which the Nazi regime was to become. To me it was simply an aping of a stupid salute. I must admit that only the Adults would remember what was being said on that film and there is no soundtrack and the Adults are all dead.

Could the voice from the back of the camera be saying "Go on make that stupid salute again for the camera". Of course it could. Could it also be saying "Go on practise that salute so we can also be like them"? It could be, yes. BUT, in the absence of evidence, it would take me a lot to persuade me that it is true.

So, Yes, it is a political manipulation of the people trying to garner outrage at a salute, given in full innocence of the horrors that salute was to preside over, to present that film now and try and use it as a weapon to discredit the monarchy.

Sadly, also, this is personal. After my Grandmother died my Grandfather entered into a relationship with a Jewess which only ended with his death. Had she not had a sister who needed constant attention and chosen to marry him, I would probably have a Jewish Uncle or Aunt right now. My Grandfather, due to his involvement in the Jewish community, wound up the owner of a family company of whom all the rest of the family had died in the Holocaust.

Anyone who wants to try and use this situation for their own political gains and their sordid attacks on the Monarchy makes me physically want to vomit. I never really liked the Sun but they are now, officially, on my hate mail list....
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Workingman » 20 Jul 2015, 19:47

Let us stop pretending that this film was taken in some time of innocence, or outside of events happening at the time, or with the knowledge that WWII, if it was to be, was years away. The unofficial start to the war (Saarland) was only months away and everybody knew it was on the cards. The phoney war had already begun. What Hitler and his cronies would do in the future was obviously kept top secret by them, but there were signs. The Nazi salute would one day become synonymous with all the horrors of the War and the Holocaust, but at the time it was already a salute to, and acceptance of, all the horrors I listed above.

Germany had, not so secretly, been rearming since the mid 1920s. It's Heinkel bomber flew in about 1929 - 30 with the Me 109 and Fw 190 fighters following in the mid 30s despite the German Luftwaffe being illegal. Fleet of the line ships for the illegal German navy the Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen, Tirpitz and Bismark were all laid down in the early to mid 30s and launched shortly after. All of these armaments had to be designed and modelled many years before, as did the half-tracks, small tanks, personnel carriers, Howitzers and artillery, which retook the Saarland and remilitarised the Rhineland in 34-36. Then think of the production of all the uniforms and small arms for the thousands trained troops.

Please do not try to tell me all of this activity went unnoticed.

Germany a financial mess? Well it was not the only place to face tough times during the Great Depression, or so I believe, but it was an organised mess despite the punitive reparation laws of the Treaty of Versailles.

I freely admit to being a Republican, but this film has nothing at all to do with today's Monarchy or the Queen, however, it is a massively important piece of historical relevance of its time.

Put yourself in the mid 1930s with the fear of war looming larger by the day.

One morning the Daily Sketch and Daily Herald print stills of the future King and other senior members of the Royal Family giving the Nazi salute, the camera operator being the actual future King. Pathe News shows the film in cinemas.

It never happened, but it could have.

Nobody knows what events could have followed such revelations, but it is not hard to imagine the sky falling in on the Monarchy

We cannot air-brush history. It has been tried many times.

One other thing. The film was not stolen or leaked, it was part of a Royal exhibition held last year and inadvertently released from the Royal archives to documentary makers.

As for the film being an innocent prank: let's see: The EU referendum is only weeks away...

So Prince Harry is in the gardens with Kate, George and Charlotte. They are all having a great time when Harry gets them to wrap themselves in EU flags. Wills is operating the camera.

A show of bad taste? A bit of silliness to ridicule, or support, the EU? Not in the public interest? Or would it be it one to be hidden away from view?

The saying goes that people in glass houses should not throw stones....... I would add: especially not at oneself. And if you do, don't keep the evidence in your archives.

BTW the first I heard about this was when I read the Editorial in the Independent on Sunday and it's take was that we should protect the Monarchy and Royal Family. Maybe, but at all costs?
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Suff » 20 Jul 2015, 20:08

WM if we had a soundtrack, or a narrative or anything which tells us about that film then I would tend to agree with you.

OK so it was released as an archive. But the context and connotation that is being put on it, for the monarchy today, is outside of the bounds of a normal reasonable reaction. Which, to my mind, makes it political.

Yes if the Royal Family made a public appearance or released a public filming in the way you say it would have massive significance. Because it is now and it is in context.

This is not the same and not that case. It was private, personal archive material which was never intended for public release.

I know where you are coming from but I'll never be convinced that what is being attempted is other than a Nazi slur on the Royal Family. Nothing more and nothing less. Just like they go on about how much the RF costs. Those press would do well in Enron who had a wonderful facility for reversing reality and a true talent for selling it....

My £0.02 worth.
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Workingman » 20 Jul 2015, 20:53

Yes if the Royal Family made a public appearance or released a public filming in the way you say it would have massive significance. Because it is now and it is in context.

Suff, I meant my example to be of a private nature, not public, but either way it could be a disaster.

The fact remains that the 1933 film was contemporarily in context, and with the same possible significance. Had it been made public it would have been a disaster of massive proportions for the Monarchy.

I, as much as anyone, find it abhorrent to attack the Queen in the present day for something she was involved in as a totally innocent seven year-old, and I say that as a Republican.

However, the film does exist and it has historical significance.

Many years from now it will still be being discussed and argued over by many in academia and the public at large. That has to be a good thing to my mind.

Just my £0.02 worth.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby Aggers » 22 Jul 2015, 12:35

Personally I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.

No-one could hate the Nazis more than me, who has vivid memories of WW2, but I can remember, that,
when I was a schoolboy in the 1930's, we often used to do the 'funny' Nazi salute in fun.

So, please do not try to put any significance on this photograph, which, in my opinion, has only been
published by some anti-royalist.
Aggers
 

Re: The Sun Newspaper

Postby victor » 22 Jul 2015, 13:21

my view is that it does'nt matter that the Queen as a 7 yr old was doing it,probably a lot of kids were not understanding what it stood for--it matters that her Mother & Uncle were doing it,so you have to wonder where loyalties lay.

in my opinion all royal families have skeletons in the cupboard ,that is how they are where they are -because of their ancestors
victor
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:00
Location: Gosport

PreviousNext

Return to News and Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 122 guests