Giordani: An ironic side note to this despicable situation is that the actual Commanding General of the entire European theater of war............ Dwight Eisenhower (later president of the US) demanded that his troops liberate the concentration camps ASAP.
The irony is that Eisenhower had been raised as a JW or what passed as a JW (which was a WT affiliated Bible Student), his mother’s living room served as the local Kingdom Hall. He, his father and all of his brothers left the religion and Eisenhower went on to become one of the 21st Centuries most important and successful Military and political figures we have had.http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Dwight_Eisenhower.html
Rutherford or the apostate Eisenhower? Who was mentally diseased?
Ah yes...Eisenhower. The WTS sure tried to get mileage out of that man. I think of "Ike" as the WTS' Michael Jackson of the 50s - celebrity status with a JW connection.
The WTS did not view Ike as an apostate - not by any stretch of the imagination - apostates don't get favourable articles written about them in WT literature.
The WTS printed two articles about Dwight Eisenhower - both favorable. I say they are favorable articles, contrary to what some who claim that they were 'neutral' articles, simply because the WTS didn't criticize him and there were favorable comments scattered through each article. When the WTS wants to be unfavorable, the reader is left in no doubt. There is no such concept as 'neutral' when discussing politics - by default, the neutral position is always on the side of the power position.
The first article was printed in the December 22, 1952 Awake magazine and was titled President by a Landslide - Report of the United States' Presidential Campaign.
The second article was printed in the January 8, 1957 Awake magazine, titled America Still Likes Ike.
I find both articles to be evidence of another one of those amusingly ironic things about the WTS - on one hand they shout from the rooftops that they are "politically neutral!!" and on the other hand, they are constantly making political statements and publishing political news stories.
When a person compares the early Golden Age articles to the articles later, after the major schism that saw the upturning of the Zionist theology and the adoption of the replacement theology, the political shift is glaringly obvious. The Golden Age magazines prior to 1925 were overtly socialist in nature - left wing politics were compatible with the Zionist stance that was heavily represented in much of the magazine. The Golden Age editors also included many articles that were pro-labour and featured articles on prominent Democrats.
After 1925, the switch to right wing politics was evident in the choice of articles (and in Rutherford's 'bedfellows' that financed Beth Sarim, et al), and that stance continued for years and was made even more evident in the articles published about the Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower.
Politically neutral? I think not.
*truthseeker and DrivingForce, thanks...and you are welcome. :)