The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning

[Behind the Aegis]

On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.

--snip--

But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):

He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

more...

This is the link to the actual NY TIMES 1922 article (It is a .pdf.)

[PATRICK]

1. The byproducts of the ploy

are now fairly well known. Of course it can start out as a political move. Then out come the knives. You can see this appeal to the lust of hate and the arming of the "rubes". Some things are not satiated by a trip to the ballot box.

[malthaussen]

2. Not the first time they've gotten it wrong...

... the crystal ball of a reporter is no less cloudy than that of anyone else. Prognostication often finds itself refuted by the actual result.

-- Mal

[Igel]

3. They also got Stalin and Mao wrong.

On the other hand, the people whose anti-Semitism wasn't as virulent as one could suppose aren't really remembered, so we are looking at the universe of egregious errors and pointing out that they're errors.

Some agrarian reformers really were. Some anti-Semites weren't that bad or were thwarted.