How a 1938 Homes and Gardens story turned into a media farce
Ah, Mr. Hitler. What a wonderful person, painter, visionary. And what a sense of glamor he had in his Haus Wachenfeld home. “It is a mistake to suppose that week-end guests are all, or even mainly, State officials. Hitler delights in society of brilliant foreigners, especially painters, singers and musicians. As host he is a droll raconteur.” While visiting his father-in-law one beautiful summer evening this year, Simon Waldman came upon a yellowed, November 1938 copy of Homes & Gardens. While leafing through the magazine he suddenly realized that one Adolf Hitler was staring at him from a chaise longue. Waldman read the accompanying text: “This is the only home in which Hitler can laugh and take his case—or even ‘conduct tours’ by means of the tripod telescope which he operates on the terrace for his visitors.” Obviously, that telescope did not see all the way to Dachau—the reader of this text is transported to the most beautiful of all worlds. The author of the piece—a British journalist who wrote the article under the smacks-of-pseudonym byline “Ignatius Phayre”—visited Hitler at his alpine Berchtesgaden retreat, Haus Wachenfeld (later dubbed “Berghof”), in 1938. The resulting article in the high-gloss magazine is nothing less than a eulogy of grotesque subservience: “The site commands the fairest view in all Europe. This is to say much, I know. But in those Bavarian Alps there is a peculiar softness of greenery, with snow-white cascades and forest-clad pinnacles, like the Schönfeldspitze and Teufelshörner.” First of all, anyone who would lavish such praise on Schönfeldspitze and Teufelshörner obviously doesn’t know much about Bavarian geography. Beautiful, newly annexed Austria, where both peaks can be found, was just a few minute’s drive from Hitler’s retreat—but we’ll overlook that little detail. It is simply all too pleasant up here: “The Frauen Goebbels and Göring, in dainty Bavarian dress,” arrange dances for children from neighboring villages, “while the bolder spirits are given joyrides in Herr Hitler’s private aeroplane.” And, look, here comes Reich Field Marshall Göring, “the chief of the most formidable air force in Europe, taking a turn with the bow and arrow at straw targets of twenty-five yards’ range.” Make no mistake, this article appeared in November 1938. The Rhineland was occupied, people knew of the concentration camps. Shortly before the article came out, Chamberlain sat up there, perhaps in the “wood-paneled study.” Shortly after the article appeared, Hitler unleashed the Reichskristallnacht on the Jews. Oh yes, in those days there were still many British aristocrats who thought of Hitler as a hotshot, an entrancing man with grand ideas: “Even in his meatless diet Hitler is something of a gourmet—as Sir John Simon and Mr. Anthony Eden were surprised to note when they dined with him at the Presidial Palace at Berlin.” Waldman, keeper of the UK’s Guardian Web site, decided to post the article on his “blog” (or weblog, a sort of virtual diary). “This article is an important, historical document,” he wrote. “It’s only when you see it in this almost comically fawning forum that you realize how someone who can seem utterly abhorrent with hindsight can appeal to people at the time.” The editorial board at Homes & Gardens—the still-prospering publication for well-groomed land barons—was unpleasantly surprised by Waldman’s find. The editor-in-chief threatened him with legal action should he not immediately remove the text and images from the Net. This was, after all, a copyright infringement. Waldman did as he was told, knowing, however, that the article had already been linked on sites around the world. Sites ranging from Israeli ones to that of infamous Holocaust denier David Irving feature the piece. The discussion in many an Internet forum is whether or not the latest “publishing” of Phayre’s article is a good thing: Is it seen as a “vindication of the Führer,” or, rather, considered a valuable lesson? “After all,” says one British “Internaut,” “we have continued on this path by supporting such loathsome characters as Ceausescu, Saddam and the Apartheid regime.” The attempt to make this article just go away is yet another lesson in Internet copyright law. In the US, courts would likely allow its publishing on the Net. In the UK, however, it is illegal to take any article you like and put it up on your site. But, what happens when the article ends up on sites around the globe? When the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies recently approached Homes & Gardens to request permission to publish the article, the situation took on a new dimesion. The New York Times told the story of Waldman’s find as did the Internet publication Wired. Suddenly, Homes & Gardens “cried uncle,” announcing that it would be impossible to straighten out the copyright mess and that Waldman should, in God’s name, do as he wished with the text and images—which is exactly what Waldman has done on his blog (wow.blogs.com). Under such smug titles as “Hitler and I” and “At Home with Hitler,” he outlines the entire, outrageous media farce, illustrated by the bucolic photos of Hitler’s entourage atop Obersalzberg. It turns out that Homes & Gardens never had the copyright to those images and that the 1938 editorial staff helped themselves to many more works of Hitler’s photographer Heinrich Hoffman than Waldman had.