FDR and the Holocaust

[boyntonstu]

"The document which Dr. Medoff sent me last week, concerning FDR and the Holocaust, was frankly shocking. It had to do with the Allies’ occupation of North Africa, which they liberated from the Nazis in November 1942. At the time, President Roosevelt publicly pledged the Allies would do away with the anti-Jewish laws that had been in force in the region. But when FDR met in Casablanca with local government leaders in January 1943, he took a very different line. The transcript of those discussions, which Dr. Medoff cites, reveals what FDR said about the status of the 330,000 Jews living in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia: “The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population...The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany, were Jews.”

Hard to believe a president would say such a thing? Maybe, but the source is unimpeachable: the transcript appears in Foreign Relations of the United States, a multivolume series of historical documents published by the US government itself. The Casablanca volume was published in 1968, but did not attract much notice at the time. Dr. Medoff has done a public service by bringing it to our attention again."

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/war-against-jews-goes#


Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

And the beat goes on.....

 

[Thunder]

Roosevelt was a good and decent man, who helped rid the world of the Nazi menace and helped save the lives of tens of thousands of Jews.

Calling FDR an anti-Semite, is unfair.

 

[boyntonstu]

Roosevelt was a good and decent man, who helped rid the world of the Nazi menace and helped save the lives of tens of thousands of Jews.

Calling FDR an anti-Semite, is unfair.

How would you classify this FDR statement?

“The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population...The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany,...

 

[Laeke]

Truman also said things that were borderline/outright anti-semitic, in private. Before WWII and the global realization of its outcome (which was not yet complete in 1943 at that conference), such beliefs and remarks were common and a lot of people did not think much of it.
But in their case action speaks way louder than words. Roosevelt, whatever he may have said, was pivotal -albeit perhaps unconsciously at that point- in deflating drastically anti-semitism up until this day.

 

[A'isha]

You can read the complete original text that Dr. Medoff is citing (and that former mayor Koch is talking about) here.

Bizarrely, it seems that Roosevelt thought his proposal was doing the Jews a favor: "Such a plan would therefore permit the Jews to engage in the professions, at the same time would not permit them to overcrowd the professions, and would present an unanswerable argument that they were being given their full rights." Yeah, not so much, there, FDR.

In Dr. Medoff's op-ed column in the Jewish Ledger, he leaves that bit out, but otherwise accurately describes the tone of the conversation. Especially since the conversation apparently was even more viciously anti-semitic on General Nogues' end of things, as he's described as saying "it would be a sad thing for the French to win the war merely to open the way for the Jews to control the professions and the business world of North Africa" (the statement to which Roosevelt made his comment about the "understandable complaints" the Germans had).

 

[A'isha]

Truman also said things that were borderline/outright anti-semitic, in private. Before WWII and the global realization of its outcome (which was not yet complete in 1943 at that conference), such beliefs and remarks were common and a lot of people did not think much of it.
But in their case action speaks way louder than words. Roosevelt, whatever he may have said, was pivotal -albeit perhaps unconsciously at that point- in deflating drastically anti-semitism up until this day.

Yeah, as both Koch and Medoff note (and the Foreign Relations documents from later in 1943 show), while it's undeniable that the conversations with Nogues and Giraud had a definite anti-semitic tone, the specific plan discussed was never implemented, and the Jews of North Africa were indeed fully liberated, albeit at a slower pace than should have happened.

 

[Thunder]

How would you classify this FDR statement?

listen, go ahead telling yourself that the whole world hates the Jews, is against the Jews, loaths the Jews..yada yada yada.

But don't expect folks to join you.

 

[boyntonstu]

How many countries in the last 2,000 years loved their Jews and never expelled them?

Stated another way:

How may countries hated Jews enough the expel them, and what were the reasons?

 

[egslim]

listen, go ahead telling yourself that the whole world hates the Jews, is against the Jews, loaths the Jews..yada yada yada.

Before WWII anti-semitism was a common, and generally acceptable position. When at the end of the war the truth about the Holocaust came out it shocked the Western world such that anti-semitism became considered a terrible sin. People blamed the Nazis, and forgot what their own position on the matter had been previously. Or maybe many privately felt and embarassed, and focussed that on hatred of the Nazis and support for Israel.

Today real anti-semitism in the Western world is fairly rare. Criticism of Israel's political action is another matter entirely.

I think most people nowadays consider Roosevelt and Churchill great people. But like everyone, they were people of their time. They held the same general beliefs as others of their time. Several of those beliefs we consider unacceptable today. And that's okay, they never had to live in the 21st century.

ETA: I guarantee you they were racist too, and considered homosexuality as something terrible. Churchill was openly imperialist. All opinions that are widely considered bad today, but were quite normal back then.

 

[boyntonstu]

http://tinyurl.com/yjhz4wq

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes

"When she first arrived in Sweden after her rescue from a Nazi concentration camp, Judith Popinski was treated with great kindness.

She raised a family in the city of Malmo, and for the next six decades lived happily in her adopted homeland - until last year.

In 2009, a chapel serving the city's 700-strong Jewish community was set ablaze. Jewish cemeteries were repeatedly desecrated, worshippers were abused on their way home from prayer, and "Hitler" was mockingly chanted in the streets by masked men.

"I never thought I would see this hatred again in my lifetime, not in Sweden anyway," Mrs Popinski told The Sunday Telegraph. "....

 

[Laeke]

So FDR burns churches in Sweden?
What is it that you are trying to say exactly? That would help us discuss the matter at hand.

 

[boyntonstu]

So FDR burns churches in Sweden?
What is it that you are trying to say exactly? That would help us discuss the matter at hand.

Sorry, in response to:

"Today real anti-semitism in the Western world is fairly rare."
egslim

 

[Thunder]

http://tinyurl.com/yjhz4wq

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes

the world hates the Jews!!!!

its the end of the world!!!!

 

[Laeke]

Sorry, in response to:

"Today real anti-semitism in the Western world is fairly rare."
egslim

I am not sure I see the exact problem with his statement: "Fairly rare" does not mean inexistant. Antisemitism does exist and it is ugly. Social tolerance in our current societies for this type of discourse is fairly low though, and it is "defended" mostly by fringe & radical elements (more prone to violence). While some are worried that antisemitism is strenghtening itself as the lessons of WWII fade away, I think it is evident that statements like the one you quoted from FDR is not even possible to conceive today coming from Western democracies heads of state: the public outrage would crush them at the very second it was known.

Would you agree with the point being made that FDR was a key man in winning WWII, exposing Nazi barbary and the consequences of anti-semitism? That as such he had a major hand in deflating antisemitism?

 

[egslim]

Sorry, in response to:

"Today real anti-semitism in the Western world is fairly rare."
egslim

Small groups can make a lot of noise, especially when they do it anonymously. That makes them annoying, but not significant politically. Anti-semitism is opposed by the vast majority of the population.

Any person from a large party today who repeats the anti-semetic statements from Roosevelt and Churchill commits political suicide.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Making the statement that today anti-semitism is fairly rare is based on what? Genocide? Pogroms? Number of attacks against a specific group? What?

The evidence/studies/research/polls that I've read states that anti-semitic attacks are not 'fairly rare'. Deflecting the argument to one of superlatives ('majority', 'many', etc.) doesn't state anything at all either. Shoving it under 'its not anti-semitism, its against Israeli policy' is also fallacious.

I'm sorry too for the argument that the Allies winning WWII was actually to stem the genocide of Jews, Communists, and the 'unwanted' from society, especially judging by the US government's active efforts up until 1943-44 to classify what was happening in concentration camps in Europe as Top secret.

 

[Laeke]

Making the statement that today anti-semitism is fairly rare is based on what? Genocide? Pogroms? Number of attacks against a specific group? What?

Memorial laws in place in several countries regarding the Holocaust, Holocaust awareness, public outrage over any ambiguous statements. Lack of institutionalized racism aimed towards the Jewish community. Vilification of the Nazi regime. Things like that.
Is it your contention that open antisemitism is an accepted discourse in Western countries as of today?

The evidence/studies/research/polls that I've read states that anti-semitic attacks are not 'fairly rare'.

Please share with us said studies for further discussion on the matter.

I'm sorry too for the argument that the Allies winning WWII was actually to stem the genocide of Jews, Communists, and the 'unwanted' from society, especially judging by the US government's active efforts up until 1943-44 to classify what was happening in concentration camps in Europe as Top secret.

I never said so, but it is what happened nonetheless. If you mention 43-44, why not mention what they did in 1945? Did the allies classified "Top Secret" the whole thing? Didn't they made a point of making the Holocaust public and proving it happened without any doubt (except for denialists)?

 

[egslim]

Making the statement that today anti-semitism is fairly rare is based on what? Genocide? Pogroms? Number of attacks against a specific group? What?

Based on public support for anti-semitic actions. Which exists only among a few fringe groups, the vast majority of the public is opposed.

The evidence/studies/research/polls that I've read states that anti-semitic attacks are not 'fairly rare'.

You have to distinguish between 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-semitic attacks'. It takes only a small fringe group to perform a large number of anti-semitic attacks.

But when the general population is opposed to, outraged and/or embarassed by these attacks, then it means anti-semitism among the people is rare. And that's the case in the Western world today.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How would you classify this FDR statement?

“The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population...The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany,...

Do you have more than one source for that? IHR, anyone?

 

[Laeke]

Do you have more than one source for that? IHR, anyone?

The wiki about Casablanca Conference gives this source for the quote
From Manfred Jonas, Harold D. Langley, and Francis L. Lowenheim, eds., Roosevelt and Churchill: Their Secret Correspondence, New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Saturday Review Press, 1975, p. 308. This quote is according to a memorandum of a conversation prepared by Captain John L. McCrae, Roosevelt's naval aide.

The original article mentions
the source is unimpeachable: the transcript appears in Foreign Relations of the United States, a multivolume series of historical documents published by the US government itself. The Casablanca volume was published in 1968

EDIT: Which ANTPogo has already linked in his first message (Page 608 of the Casablanca Volume). The source is both official (published by the State Department) and as primary as you can get (transcript of the meetings). I could perhaps look for another account in French on General Nogues side, but the claim here already seems pretty strong.