Talk:Douglas Reed

Importance?
I am surprised to see a tag on the page - particularly without any discussion on this page. Regardless of writing quality or general offensiveness, thirty years after his death Reed is still often quoted, and deserves to be recorded on that basis alone. Humansdorpie 12:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the importance tag. Also removed the pointless redlinking. Humansdorpie 14:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler Admirer?
Having just finished reading Insanity Fair - i can state in all honesty the man hated the Nazi's before they started WW2, and certainly hated Hitler. The point about anti-semitism, however, i accept. Insanity Fair does not put the Jews in a particularly good light, but there is some sympathy for them. If anyone comes up with evidence of Reed liking Hitler i'll restore the point. Pydos 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Insanity Fair does have high praise for Jews. He praises their hard work as the source of their money. Perhaps some other book he wrote might say something worse about Jews but what I read really didn't seem bad at all. Noting that someone has money and explaining the source of the money was hard work is not insulting to me. He is definately not a Hitler Admirer in this book. Reed carefully cites many National Socialist shortcomings, while he fails to cite anything good about National Socialism. He does say the Nazi's wanted war and they scare him.

Long quotes
Such long quotes do not belong in the bio. I guess that the insistence to reinsert them here is only because they contain Holocaust denial. That would explain the links to antisemitic websites as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just the fashion?
I'm a little troubled that such a short article on a very well-known person, who lived 81 years, mentions at the beginning that the NYT obit called him a "virulent anti-Semite." What else did the paper say about him and is that equally noteworthy? Others have clearly noted here that Reed was anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler, so is it just the current fashion to feel compelled to mention his thoughts about Jews? What did he think of other small groups: the Albanians, Montenards, Parsi? Maybe we should mention them all and forget other, more important factors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.15.66 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that would be useless, as I have witnessed over the past few days, that all articles regarding the jews is controlled either by jewish editors themselves, and this can be proven, or by heavily biased jewish sympathyizers who slant coverage of anyone oppsed to zionism or the like, as virulent anti-semite, perhaps someone should point out, that orginally a semite is two things, those from Africa and those from Sumer, civilizations, which scientifically have been proven to exist and flourish long before, Judah or Judea, or palestine, or now known as israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacanorgan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fairly insane article
This article is absolutely sub-standard. I lacks basic information about the life of its subject and takes complete leave of common sense in the paragraph about jews.

I do not possess the necessary insight to write something useful, but this is certainly of no use.

Jens Frederik Hansen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens Frederik Hansen (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The biographical information is contained in the "Biography" section. The article attempts to give justice to Reed's experiences as a journalist and his historical works. The paragraph about Jews at the beginning summarizes Reed's overall views about some of the underlying causes of major political events and the nature of and reasons for those causes.Theworldinstrument (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Orwell's piece on Reed can be found here. Maybe we can include more of it.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Supports Reed's Thesis
Generally, this article only supports Reed's thesis, which is meticulously developed in his work The Controversy of Zion. It's overarching theme is to condemn Jewish imperialism, or Zionism, or it can be said that movement that arises from whatever sector of what one refers to as Jewry (as Reed points out, the eastern Russian Talmudic variety) that manipulates, schemes and connives to incessantly work on one way, this way, that way or the other to steer the course of events on planet earth that will maximize the standing, power and influence of Jews, with the apex of this 'achievement' being all things Israel. As always, the Jewish dominated media, and all the sundry sympathizers, with a wave of a hand dismiss such 'nonsense', even when the facts pile up to the sky and overwhelmingly support the thesis, which even in Reed's time were so - today we only see a profound amplification of the same trend.

The vacuous and dismissive way in which this article treats someone who had risen to a senior correspondent for the London Times is par for the course for someone who dares to put his finger on the bull's eye of what troubles planet earth. Reed does make a distinction between the insane, wild-eyed Talmudic carrying freaks from Russia in the latter part of the 19th century who gave birth to the idea that the Jews should migrate to Palestine, claim it as their own, and carve out a Jewish state and name it 'Israel'. This fact is not made up out of whole cloth, drawn from the airy space of Reed's imagination, but is supported by dense and irrefutable facts. Yet, concurrently with this first wave of insanity came the reaction, so Reed tells us, of Jews in the west, namely of the British stripe and American, but primarily the British. These Jews were overwhelmingly opposed to such lunacy, and wanted no part in it.

Unfortunately, as time rolled along, getting into the start of the 20th century, and the horrid affair that turned into, it became more difficult to parse out where the opposition to this agenda within the ranks of Jews was in western parts, until by now we generally see a merging of what was then east (per Reed) and west. Indeed, how can one of the Jews of today speak out against the conspiracy if its very existence is denied?

At any rate, the article is inconsistent with Reed's own testimony concerning this quote, "Reed spent the duration of the Second World War in England". Reed recalls his whereabouts during that period in The Controversy of Zion, p 323:

"During these six years when "the unnecessary war" was brewed I watched the turbulent, darkening scene from Berlin and Vienna and all the great cities on which the long night was soon to fall: Prague and Budapest, Belgrade and Bucharest, Sofia and Warsaw. I saw as much as any man, I suppose, of the stoking of the furnace from which the ingot, war, was produced; and more than most, because I was not confined to any one country or faction, but had the run of them all. I knew the noise of the bravoes in the Storm Troopers' Stammkneipen, the furtive, bitter talk of their adversaries in private dwellings, and the nervous murmur of men on the run, who glanced ever over their shoulders. I saw the face of the mob, that dinosaur without a cerebral cavity, in both its moods: the inflamed one of illusory hope (in Berlin) and the hollowcheeked, sunken-eyed one of hopeless disillusionment (in Moscow). I met fear at every level, from the streetcleaner to the head of state or of government; I saw the terror in both its headquarter cities.

I knew or met many of the men who appeared to be powerful and to uphold opposing causes, and yet by their acts all brought "the unnecessary war" nearer and nearer. I talked with Hitler, Goering and Goebbels; I lunched quietly by the Geneva lakeside with chubby Maxim Litvinoff, a typical figure of the Café des Exiles, and wondered what he knew of Russia who so little Russia knew, though he was Foreign Minister of that communized land. I saw Mussolini, and Ramsay Macdonald, one of the British prime ministers who passed shadow-like across the blind during these years. I talked for long hours with Edouard Benesh in the old castle at Prague, with Austrian chancellors and Hungarian prime ministers, with Balkan kings and politicians. I went to watch the League of Nations, with high expectations then (for I was still callow) and was repelled by the manner of its proceedings, which was without dignity, by the lobbying and canvassing behind the scenes, and by the throng of hangers-on and intriguers which enfringed it; I think few enthusiasts for the "United Nations" would be found among those who knew the League of Nations. I went to Moscow, in the journalistic bodyguard of a rising young minister named Anthony Eden, and there saw a regime which was the facsimile of the National Socialist one in Germany in every major respect save the status of the Jews, who appeared to me to be predominant in the key-positions of the Soviet state."

Further up (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)further_upFurther up (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)