FDR and the Holocaust

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll have a look at it, in context this week then.

 

[Visual Purple]

The prevalence of the polite, quiet style of antisemitism--which was, apparently, Roosevelt's style--is of course, inherently difficult to measure. If you think that the Jews are a bunch of arrivistes using sharp practices to push their way into the proper preserve of the WASPs, you aren't going to go around desecrating cemeteries. Personal experience, for the little that it's worth, makes me think that there's more of that lurking than--well, than I expected.

I'd never run into what you might call "country-club-style antisemitism" until I got engaged to a Jewish person. Then, for a little while until I was actually married, it was as if I had turned over a rock that I hadn't know was there. Nothing frightening, just quite a bit of "Those Jews are a strange people, very good at business." I read the comments as more or less "Wouldn't want my daughter to marry one" kinds of statements. I found this very disconcerting. If my experience is any kind of insight into prevalent thinking, the bias is not that uncommon, even if there's a recognition that the laws shouldn't reflect it.

 

[Laeke]

That's a sensible point but the FDR comment (and the general discussion he has with General Nogues) is slighty more vitriolic than that: while he limits the "understandable grievances of the germans" to the "over-representation" of Jews in certain professions, that still kinda sounds terrible and excusing the violent acts that erupted in Nazi Germany.

I do not doubt that even "mild and polite" antisemitism can exist today, and that some social circles might be more tolerant of it, but I still believe those are less frequent than at the time of FDR or before the war, if only because even "ambiguous" statements can be the source of a public controversy.

 

[Eddie Dane]

That's a sensible point but the FDR comment (and the general discussion he has with General Nogues) is slighty more vitriolic than that: while he limits the "understandable grievances of the germans" to the "over-representation" of Jews in certain professions, that still kinda sounds terrible and excusing the violent acts that erupted in Nazi Germany.

It is a very good assessment of how many Germans saw the situation during the recession.

They were standing in line for soup kitchens and the Jews had monopolised the middle class.
When poor unemployed Hans would walk through a fancy street he would see all those name plates on the fancy businesses. many of them said Dr. Cohen and such.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is a very good assessment of how many Germans saw the situation during the recession.

They were standing in line for soup kitchens and the Jews had monopolised the middle class.
When poor unemployed Hans would walk through a fancy street he would see all those name plates on the fancy businesses. many of them said Dr. Cohen and such.

I think any demographics as to just how many Jews were "monopolizing" the middle class would have to be from Nazi sources, so I don't give them much credence.

 

[Mark6]

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

Georgia. OK, maybe not "loved", but treated them no worse than any other minority.

There were other countries for which it was true for a while (Andalusian Spain comes to mind), but Georgia is the ONLY example I can think of which had Jews for 2000 years and was never overtly antisemitic.

 

[Laeke]

It is a very good assessment of how many Germans saw the situation during the recession.

They were standing in line for soup kitchens and the Jews had monopolised the middle class.
When poor unemployed Hans would walk through a fancy street he would see all those name plates on the fancy businesses. many of them said Dr. Cohen and such.

Roosevelt is saying this in 1943. Not in 1936. By then the "grievances" were not just words, but has translated in racial laws, pogroms, Kristallnacht, expropriations and a long list of abuses, including in Germany, that was documented and well known.
So yeah, maybe I can see and understand where Hans got his resentment from, even if it is a racist BS fallacy. But I cannot empathize when Hans in his SA uniform is beating a jew to death, a few years down the road.

I'm not trying to paint FDR as an horrible man (see first message), but the discussion and this particular statement do come across as terrible.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, it looks like it's been established that FDR suffered from human fallibility to the extent of not being free from some of the prejudices that were endemic to his time. I suspect that his views on the rights of African-Americans or the abilities of women to compete with men in the employment market were not entirely in line with early 21st century mores either. Does any of that actually change our view of his role in history?

Dave

 

[Eddie Dane]

Roosevelt is saying this in 1943. Not in 1936. By then the "grievances" were not just words, but has translated in racial laws, pogroms, Kristallnacht, expropriations and a long list of abuses, including in Germany, that was documented and well known.
So yeah, maybe I can see and understand where Hans got his resentment from, even if it is a racist BS fallacy. But I cannot empathize when Hans in his SA uniform is beating a jew to death, a few years down the road.

I'm not trying to paint FDR as an horrible man (see first message), but the discussion and this particular statement do come across as terrible.

When FDR made that statement, my grandfather was walking around Poland in stripy pyjamas.
The part of Poland within the barbed wire parameter, anyway.

But the widely accepted anti-Semitic feelings started with what I described above. And I still hear it occasionally.

 

[Laeke]

I was not trying to be rude or anything by giving a conclusion of your Hans story, but I think the context is important: The quote from FDR does strike me harder because he said it in 1943. And while the extent of the antisemitic madness was not yet known in details at that point, some of it was public and documented.

But the widely accepted anti-Semitic feelings started with what I described above. And I still hear it occasionally.

I think we can all agree that Hitler was able to ignite and play such sentiments because of the German context of the interwar, but my understanding was that antisemitism was deeply entrenched in Europe. Which is why you could still find it in a more casual form, even in the mouth of American presidents.

 

[NiceGuyCody]

Roosevelt was a good and decent man,

Be sure and pass that bit of information along to the some-110,000 people he had forcibly removed from their homes and businesses and sent to barb-wire prisons with no running water or cooking furnishments, on the sole basis of their race.

 

[Thunder]

FDR personally ordered the rescue of tens of thousands of Jews.

 

[bigjelmapro]

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?

How do laws in place against anti-semitism have to do with the 'fairly rare' argument? Whether its accepted in society also doesn't have much to do with it.

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

Do a search yourself. Google's there for a reason.

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)?

What happened in the concentration camps was a top secret up until 1943-44 regardless of what happened in 1945, at which point the cat was out of the bag with what was reported in the media. The issue really is as to why it was a top secret in the US government, albeit that public knowledge of these camps would have forced the US to enter the war at an earlier stage.

 

[Laeke]

What happened in the concentration camps was a top secret up until 1943-44 regardless of what happened in 1945, at which point the cat was out of the bag with what was reported in the media. The issue really is as to why it was a top secret in the US government, albeit that public knowledge of these camps would have forced the US to enter the war at an earlier stage.

I was under the impression that the Allies (especially the Americans) were very thorough in documenting the Holocaust, there was a rigorous method in collecting testimonies and video evidence by the Army Documention just after the troops opened the camps. All this video evidence was then instrumental in the Nuremberg trial, which itself is of considerable importance in today's Western societies.

Plus the denazification process and all that.

I started from the bottom because it leads us to...

How do laws in place against anti-semitism have to do with the 'fairly rare' argument? Whether its accepted in society also doesn't have much to do with it.

Laws limit and punish hate speech, negationism (in some european countries). They do participate in stigmatising antisemitic speech.
That antisemitism is now longer an accepted form of discourse, even in its "mildest" forms is both evidence that the majority of people reject it in European societies, and ensures that those ideas continue to stay where they belong, at the fringe.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a correlation between the level of rhetoric and the concrete consequences and violence that speeches and words can summon?

Do a search yourself. Google's there for a reason.

Well, you mentioned studies, I was kindly asking of you to share them, so we could speak of the same thing.

So speaking for France, which I believe has the most numerous Jewish population in Europe, I could take the annual report from the Service de Protection de la Communauté Juive. This organism works with the French ministry of interior and make statistics each year. I will cite the numbers from the 2010 report, that you can download on the home page.

They have recorded 466 antisemitic acts in France, all included (threats, insults, violence) and 131 violent acts that would break down like this:
- 1 attempted murder on a man at Strasbourg (please note that the former antisemitic murder recorded was in 2006).
- 56 "Violence" (Aggressions)
- 8 Fires or attempted
- 66 Degradations

So now let's go for the national statistics
I do not have the statistics for 2010, but in 2009 there was 755 homicides and 948 attempted homicides (WP), and that was a fairly quiet year.

And the 2009 statistic for "Violences against persons" (from Homicide, Agressions, threats, etc...): 455.911

Hence, "fairly rare". I realize my sources are in French, so I can go into more details or translate relevant parts if you like.

Of course I have only taken France as an exemple. And criminal statistics have their limitations.
Please also note, the antisemitic agressions that records the SPCJ do vary a lot from year to year. They observe that antisemitics acts do often peak depending on what happens in Israel and Palestine.

I will not deny that antisemitism has shown its ugly head in the last decade or so. But I stand by my claim.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I was under the impression that the Allies (especially the Americans) were very thorough in documenting the Holocaust, there was a rigorous method in collecting testimonies and video evidence by the Army Documention just after the troops opened the camps. All this video evidence was then instrumental in the Nuremberg trial, which itself is of considerable importance in today's Western societies.

Plus the denazification process and all that.

Now its an argument of documenting? As opposed to the one of acceptance of anti-semitic attacks? All side arguments from the 'fairly rare' position (not your argument I might add). This issue of concentration camps top secret I brought up on the side.

Laws limit and punish hate speech, negationism (in some european countries). They do participate in stigmatising antisemitic speech.
That antisemitism is now longer an accepted form of discourse, even in its "mildest" forms is both evidence that the majority of people reject it in European societies, and ensures that those ideas continue to stay where they belong, at the fringe.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a correlation between the level of rhetoric and the concrete consequences and violence that speeches and words can summon?

All of which I'm not arguing, but thanks for bringing up more deflections to muddy the argument here. I never denied that the times of FDR and political correctness have not changed.

Well, you mentioned studies, I was kindly asking of you to share them, so we could speak of the same thing.
...
Hence, "fairly rare". I realize my sources are in French, so I can go into more details or translate relevant parts if you like.

Of course I have only taken France as an exemple. And criminal statistics have their limitations.
Please also note, the antisemitic agressions that records the SPCJ do vary a lot from year to year. They observe that antisemitics acts do often peak depending on what happens in Israel and Palestine.

I will not deny that antisemitism has shown its ugly head in the last decade or so. But I stand by my claim.

Except I wasn't arguing against your claim to begin with.

Anti-semitic attacks overseas based on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also a form of anti-semitism, albeit more 'accepted'/'justified' as a form of political activism, which is a problem within itself.

Cherry-picking statistics and taking them out of context for one country also doesn't help the 'fairly rare' argument either. This isn't an argument over crime against Jews versus crimes overall, it never was. Its the need to sideline the core issue. The same argument applies to crimes against Muslims or whatnot.

I could just as easily argue that rape or murder with firearms is fairly rare in South Africa compared to the overall violent crimes rate even when ranked 1st (per capita) and 2nd respectively in world ranking. Its still an issue. Same applies to the 'fairly rare' defense.

And no, please don't come back with more of the 'its better than it was in WWII' or anti-semitic attacks are not as bad as rape/murder defense, or my favorite, superlative defense.

 

[Laeke]

All of which I'm not arguing

Cool.

You know, i am not a stubborn man: I may have misunderstood you, since you seem to think I am trying to muddy the issue.
So let me know if the following is correct: we shall only limit this discussion about antisemitic violent acts in the Western world? I am perfectly fine with that.

Anti-semitic attacks overseas based on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also a form of anti-semitism, albeit more 'accepted'/'justified' as a form of political activism, which is a problem within itself.

I agree with you.

Cherry-picking statistics and taking them out of context for one country also doesn't help the 'fairly rare' argument either. This isn't an argument over crime against Jews versus crimes overall, it never was. Its the need to sideline the core issue. The same argument applies to crimes against Muslims or whatnot.

I was not under the impression that I cherry picked. If I wanted to obscure the problem further, I wouldn't have mentioned that the number of antisemitic acts recorded was fluctuant and could peak higher (on the possible account of the Israelo-Palestinian situation, but I did not bring this as an excuse, really). Last I heard, France also had the most important Jewish community in Europe, so that was as good of a starting point than any.

I did limit myself to France (and I did not deny this) because the source I use has several advantages: it is official, works in coordination with the police, and seems to have overall a pretty reliable system to collect data.

You mentioned studies, polls, etc... and I am all willing to discuss about them with you, but I cannot do so if I do not know what you refers to.

This isn't an argument over crime against Jews versus crimes overall

Well, OK, but certainly we need some point of comparison? Another country, another point in time?
Because I do not believe having stated that antisemitic violence was any less abhorrent, no matter their frequency.

 

[bigred]

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...

Oh my GOD that SOB - the horror!!

er this has what to do w/the Holocaust exactly?

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.

Why? It's working quite well for blacks. OOPS I MEAN...."African Americans"

 

[Thunder]

FDR was not an anti-Semite.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The full paragraph:

The matter of political prisoners was then discussed. General Noguès stated that for the most part the Jews had now been released from the concentration camps. It was also stated that the Jews, especially those in Algeria, had raised the point that they wish restored to them at once the right of suffrage. The President stated that the answer to that was very simple, namely, that there just weren't going to be any elections, so the Jews need not worry about the privilege of voting. Mr. Murphy remarked that the Jews in North Africa were very much disappointed that "the war for liberation" had not immediately resulted in their being given their complete freedom. The President stated that he felt the whole Jewish problem should be studied very carefully and that progress should be definitely planned. In other words, 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. 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. To the foregoing, General Noguès agreed generally, stating at the same time that 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 President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards 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.

Source.

Tempest in a teacup.

 

[Beerina]

How's North Africa doing since the war, without "the Jews running everything"?