British papers regarded [Fascist] anti‐Semitism initially as a propaganda show to rouse the support of the discontented. The Times and the Manchester Guardian reported extensively on the aims of the NSDAP, including its blatant Jew‐hatred, but did not seriously believe that Hitler would turn his anti‐Semitism into a policy.³⁵

The Manchester Guardian stated ironically that ‘the great majority of Germans could have nothing but dislike for the hysterical nonsense of Herr Hitler […] who blames impartially the French, the Russians, and the Jews for all his country’s ills’.³⁶ It reassured its readers that a share in political responsibility would have a sobering effect on the [Fascists]. Apparently the paper doubted that Hitler could maintain his political success in the long run if he did not adjust his programme.³⁷

Similarly, The Times trusted that Hitler’s revolutionary movement would come to reason and ‘develop into a constructive force’.³⁸ This attitude is a reflection of the liberal theory of politics which argues that the exercise of power makes politicians inevitably more responsible.³⁹

[…]

The New York Times also drew attention to the implications of [Fascist] Jew‐hatred. Under the headline ‘A Menace to Jews Seen If Hitler Wins’ the paper wrote in December 1931 that the possibility of Hitler assuming power […] should be of great concern to American Jews, as anti‐Semitism was an integral part of his political programme.⁴⁹ In September 1932 it warned that if the [Fascists] attained power in Germany there would be ‘substantial ground for fear that the movement itself might get out of control, producing racial excesses with the worst results’.⁵⁰

Still, Anglo‐American journalists did not discuss the roots of German anti‐Semitism or the possibility that Germans might vote for the [NSDAP] because they were anti‐Semitic.⁵¹ They paid attention to the violent outbursts of [Fascist] anti‐Semitism the moment they happened but quickly closed their eyes when they were over.

More importantly, it seems that they did not believe that a civilised nation could regard anti‐Semitism as an acceptable or even attractive political stance. Nor did they expect the [German Fascists] to turn their Jew‐hatred into practical politics.⁵² The extent of the assault on the Jews after Hitler’s seizure of power therefore came as a shock.

[…]

From the first day of Hitler’s rule the Manchester Guardian was suspicious of his designs. Referring to the [German Fascists’] previous exploitation of anti‐Semitism, the paper asked: ‘What is to be expected of this Government […]? Will Hitler […] drive the Jews out of Germany and distribute the profits and property of capitalism among the impoverished middle class?’ [sic!] Yet the paper believed that it would be difficult for the [German Fascists] to realise their racial ideals in a Cabinet dominated by the conservatives.⁵⁷

The New York Times was initially relieved that ‘Herr Hitler’s attainment of the Chancellorship [had] not provoked any anti‐Semitic outbreaks’. Like the Manchester Guardian it argued that Hitler’s moderation was due to the weakness of the [Fascists] in the Cabinet: ‘[… Hitler] will have to compromise with those who are opposed to isolating the Reich from the rest of the world. He is not expected to carry into effect the rabidly anti‐Semitic part of his program’.⁵⁸

Moreover, the New York Times claimed that ‘perhaps the post of great responsibility which the leader of the German [Fascists] now held might curb his avowed extremist policies and particularly his anti‐Semitism’.⁵⁹ The other three papers reported very little during February 1933. The Chicago Daily Tribune briefly mentioned that the Völkischer Beobachter predicted an exodus of the Jews from Germany.⁶⁰

The Manchester Guardian reported sporadic anti‐Semitic incidents provoked by [Fascist] students.⁶¹ The Times referred to [Fascist] anti‐Semitism only once in passing.⁶² It reiterated its conviction that Hitler deserved a chance to prove his statesmanship and warned that it was too early to judge ‘whether the street‐orator will become an efficient ruler’.⁶³

In early March reports of [Fascist] anti‐Semitism increased in number. […] Yet the New York Times qualified such disquieting reports by printing a statement by James W. Gerard, American Ambassador to [the Second Reich] during 1913–1918, who argued that Hitler would eventually dissociate himself from the anti‐Semitism of his party as ‘Nothing sobers like the attainment of high office.’ Moreover, world public opinion would not tolerate ‘a return to the prejudices and policies of the Middle Ages’.⁶⁶

Both arguments — that the takeover of political responsibility would render the [Fascists] more reasonable and that world public opinion would have a restraining effect on Hitler — mirror once more the liberal understanding of government politics by the journalists.⁶⁷

[…]

The Times’ coverage was marked by the following points: First, the anti‐Semitic outburst was treated as a passing revolutionary side‐effect. Although the paper reported the [Fascist] boycott of Jewish department stores and shops and acknowledged that incidents of violence and intimidation in relation to Jews were occurring daily, it argued that ‘much of this, as Government circles suggest, is inevitable in present circumstances […]; fine distinctions cannot always be drawn in the stress of a national revolution’.⁸³ A leader of 15 March acknowledged that ‘indiscriminate violence and persecution’ was occurring but insisted that ‘no one expects revolutions to be made with rose‐water’.⁸⁴

Second, the paper maintained that Hitler was a ‘moderate’ who initially had difficulties in controlling his radical followers but who would soon restore order.⁸⁵

Third, The Times considered the treatment of the Jews an internal German affair in which Britain had no right to interfere.⁸⁶ The paper was alarmed at Hitler’s unpredictable foreign policy and worried that he might upset the international status quo. It therefore held that ‘the internal excesses of [Hitler’s] regime should not debar foreign statesmanship from examining with an open mind the external claims of the German, as they would of any other, Government’.⁸⁷

In this The Times followed the official line of the British government that strongly favoured a policy of non‐intervention on behalf of the German Jews for fear of worsening diplomatic relations with the new [Fascist] rulers.⁸⁸

(Emphasis added.)

In addition to these, it is worth noting that the Wall Street Journal published an article reading ‘BERLIN VIEWS HITLER CALMLY’; ‘Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation’s Affairs’.