Skip to comments.What FDR said about Jews in private
Posted on 04/07/2013 8:00:57 PM PDT by Nachum
click here to read article
Well, at least those who couldn't help us build rockets.
They liked Hitler until he invaded their beloved Soviet Union.
God I love a clear thinker
I’m no FDR lover but that Jew hater hat is such bullshit
Just like Obama....the same smear yet outside the Michelle Jarrett inner core he is surrounded by prog Jews
Obama hates Israeli Likud hawks
But adores his socialist Jewish comrades
They call Churchill a Jew hater too....and again utter nonsense
The well of victim hood...the pail is never dry
Citizen s have the right to bring their relatives here, especially in a dire emergency. The Roosevelt state dept denied them entry because they were Jews.
I don't think they ever liked Hitler. They took their talking points from Stalin's Comintern operatives. As long as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was in force, and Nazi Germany was friendly with the Soviets, they were friendly to the Nazis. But that was always a marriage of convenience. They were always Soviet sympathizers first and foremost. Nazi Germany was too sympathetic to private enterprise for American leftists - their ideal was always state ownership of all productive enterprises and Nazi Germany was never going to be compatible with it.
Hitler only tolerated private enterprise to the point where it would help him build his war machine. A lot of Nazi rhetoric was as anti-capitalistic as the Soviet rhetoric was....Once the war was won, there is no question that the Nazis' next target for liquidation was to be the business class.
I think that's a stretch. I'd be interested to see which laws he broke. While it's possible for people here to apply to the immigration authorities for permission to bring their relatives here, it's a multi-year process and subject to lengthy reviews and procedures. They can't just show up on a freighter and expect to be admitted.
It was all for show. Soviet leaders were paupers. Nazi leaders were very, very rich, and had lavish lifestyles. Their objectives were completely different. Fascism's objective was to conquer and enslave the world for the nation. Communism's objective was to conquer the world and kill all the rich people so that capital would finally reside where it belonged - in the hands of the working people.
Soviet leaders had their nice dachas, they didn’t want for anything....Commie leaders from Stalin to Ceausescu lived lavish lifestyles.
I don't know if the event concedes to be in the same time period as WWII but many Jews left Europe to come to America but never made it because they were dropped off in Ireland and told it was America, after they were dropped off of the ships, the ships were quickly loaded with Irish women and children that had more money in their pockets and headed out to America. That is one of the reason why there is many Irish in the United States, and Ireland has many Jews.
Heck, even Enver Hoxha, from the poorest Commie nation of all, Albania, wore custom French suits.
But they had nothing to their names. Hitler's lieutenants had titles to vast estates and large amounts of loot liberated during their grand European tour.
And the Soviets did their share of looting after the war and sent tons of stuff from Germany and Poland back to Mother Russia, to be divvied out to the high Party Officials.
We need a new coin to represent $0.10 (even as the Bernank diminishes it).
But the moment they retired or were purged, they lost their access to those items. Nazi officials owned these things. Soviet officials merely had use of them until they no longer held office.
I'd say the difference is between having your own car vs driving the company car.
” What exactly was the response susposed to be beyond that...”
Did you read the article? The “tepid” part is reserved for not allowing Jewish immigration up to the quota numbers.
Nothing like picking at seventy year old scabs to stimulate a lively thread. War is hell. Should we have let that boat in? Should we have obliterated Dresden? Should we have interred the japanese? We have the luxury of judging it all in the rear-view mirror.
another non-reader. There was a quota for Jewish immigration. Roosevelt did not make any efforts to fill it. Au contraire he put obstacles in the way of filling it.
“How many genocide victims of a different religion has Israel - present or historical - taken in? “
Wrong question. Vis-a-vis the US, different religion than what? Since the US is not a religiously based country, that point makes no sense. We are founded on Judeo-Christian values but there is no state religion.
And actually Israel has taken in many Russian and Ethiopians who they do not believe are Jewish. They have also provided refuge to Sudanese fleeing across the Egyptian border.
But the real point is they have rescued millions of refugees.
Doubt it. Given FDR's views on how society should be organized, that would have been a reason to import as many as possible.
But the thing was, FDR was not that smart. His milieu was anti-Semitic, and he acted on his evil instinct, understanding that his execrable base might have reacted negatively to such a move towards diversity (was that word even coined yet?).
That’s a canard - it wasn’t about ethnic cleansing. The Dominican Republic suffered under Haitian oppression for decades, there were border issues.
you really are a piece of work.
“British leaders had no obligation to let large numbers of Jewish or other refugees into their territory..”
Yes, they did have an obligation upon which they reneged. It was called the Palestinian Mandate, as you seem to know. What does that mean? It was a document directing the British to establish a Jewish State.
Stop distorting history to suit your agenda.
Not quite so. They still accumulated vast amount of wealth that they kept frothier families even after retirement. Even the ones that were purged kept the so called “personal” property they had since under communism private property was abolished supposedly. We used to call them the “red aristocracy”. But you can believe the BS that somehow the communists were better than the Nazis. Both ran the countries they took over like their personal fiefdoms and the talk about the “working lass” is the same drivel you hear from the democrats today about the poor, the women, the children, etc. same song, different verse.
Spell check strikes again. Should read working class
We DIDN’T TRY most of the war criminals that were left. Every one of the SS soldiers involved in the Malmedy Massacre eventually went free with the heaviest sentence about 10 years for their leader, Siep Detrich (Blowtorch Division).
See Richard Gallagher’s book “Massacre at Malmedy” for the details. My friend was one of Patton’s intelligence officers who interrogated the Malmedy murderers, for which he was wrongly and irresponsibly harassed by Sen. Joe McCarthy (who bought the German-American Bundists propaganda lies about the interrogations).
Many other SS and Gestapo agents escaped any justice and even lived openly in Germany. Some even became cabinet ministers in the Communist East German government (SS Sturmfurher Ernest Grossmann, Deputy Commandant of Sachsenhausen slave labor/concentration camp), among others). The Russians wouldn’t give them up and we stopped trying to get them despite the massive evidence against them for war crimes.
The British were a little better, esp. killing Japanese war criminals in the Malaysia/Singapore theater for their atrocities. We did little to kill Japanese war criminals in the Phillipines, which was a national disgrace and a betrayal of the one million Filipinos who were slaughtered (Over 30,000 died on the Bataan Death March and in the camps. We lost about 10,000 and none of them were properly avenged).
We could have smashed the concentration camps, bombing their SS headquarters, blowing down fences and guard towers, destroying rail lines, etc. We didn’t, and my relatived died because of it (Belzec and Auschwitz).
A little more knowledge about history would help in discussing this issue.
By the way, another friend was a US military judge in post-war Germany and he did sentence convicted war criminals, spies, etc. to the max. Unfortunately those above on the Nuremburg Tribunal lost sight of how many war criminals there were and those only prosecuted a few at the top.
By the way, among my friends was one of the heads of the Polish Free Army; a young teenager from the Warsaw ghetto; another young teenager who worked with the Partisans in Yugoslavia; another man who once dealt with Eichmann regarding another matter (he was the Malmedy investigator later); B-25 pilots, and RAF pilots. Even knew a British commando who was Jewish. He and some friends did a little SS and Gestapo hunting at the end of war and beyond. They knew how to bring justice to the Nazi scum and did.
America never really knew how to clean out the Nazi house after the war. The Russians, on the other hand, executed them by the thousands, while recruiting some of the SS and Gestapo for the KGB. At least they killed some of the bastards.
WW2 was a very complicated war and they are still finding new information about Japanese war crimes and more Nazi killing fields.
My personal position would have been (had I been old enough to have been in WW2) would have been to kill all SS and Gestapo found. They deserved every bullet we could have put into them. The same for the Japanese. You don’t let feral animals escape.
Today this policy applies to (non-Jewish) white people. We call it affirmative action.
According to Harvard's website, 44% of students in the Class of 2016 are "minorities." Jewish percentage not listed, of course, but other sources say "over 30%," whatever that means. Rather wildly over-represented given their 1.7% of US population. Though both of these numbers depend on how you define the group in question.
This leaves <26% available for non-Jewish white people, even though they make up 72% of the population. (Less than that in the relevant age group, of course.)
Mossad was formed on December 13, 1949. Roosevelt dies in April 12, 1945. You do sound like a conspiracy nut.
The article is anachronistic. It assumes that actions taken before the war started or before the US got into the war should have been based on the knowledge that Hitler was going to launch a full-out attempt to kill all the Jews.
The problem here is that even the more or less “official” story of the Holocaust doesn’t have this becoming official German policy till January of 1942, when the Bad Wiessee conference was held.
Prior to this, as is obvious in the minutes of the meeting, German policy was to kick the Jews out of Europe. They were of course horrifically brutal in their persecution prior to this data and concentration camps had a huge death rate.
But the true extermination camps we think of when the term “Holocaust” is used were a fairly late development, decided on when the option of expulsion became impossible due to the War, and when massive numbers of additional Jews were brought into the Reich by its eastern expansion. The Nazi policy was always one of making Europe, not the world, Jew-free.
The true extent of the German extermination effort was not widely known or believed outside Germany till the very end of the war. Which explains much about why a lot of Americans and others thought the Jews were “whining.”
See: SS St. Louis.
In any event, Israel, the new nation, was recognized quite swiftly by FDR's successor, Harry the Bomb Dropper with a D after his name.
At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. On that same date, the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31, 1949).
The haberdasher was cut from a superior bolt of cloth, as compared to his predecessor.
And now "diversity" requires exactly that.
In other words, if a Repub says it, it is anti-Semitic.
The Nazis and the Muslims were working together. Look it up.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Someone not in one of the ethnic groups targeted for extermination was clearly better off in Nazi Germany - it was a capitalist dictatorship with all of the economic benefits that capitalism provides. If he had only one of two choices, a rich Jewish landowner was infinitely better off in Soviet Russia, given that with the Soviets, landowners had the choice* of converting to Marxism-Leninism along with all of its shibboleths (including Party leaders being Marx-anointed high priests of a kind), whereas being a Jew in Nazi Germany meant a one way ticket to a death camp.
* Of course, too many landowners did not understand that the Communists were sociopathic stone killers and complained instead of giving up their land while bowing and scraping and making an escape plan or simply keeping their heads down. They paid the ultimate price. However, many who correctly read the Communists for the pitiless predators they were lived to see the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Obummer and his spendthrift wife have probably squandered almost that much on an unprecedented series of lavish vacations in exotic locations plus Obummer's luxurious golf outings all around the globe. All this travel and recreation has of course been supported by a large fleet of military planes and a huge retinue of assorted attendants and camp followers in general ever since his gaggle of America-hating far-left wingers took over the White House.
Some of the Obummer family's spending habits must have rubbed off on the harebrained clown who claims to be Obummer's VP. He recently managed to somehow blow a cool half million of the US taxpayers' frogskins on one night's room and board in Paris. That has to be a record of some kind, although his boss probably thinks he's just a small time piker in comparison to his own family's profligate spending habits.
Not to worry though, the Fed is no doubt warming up the presses to print another 2 or 3 trillion frogskins backed by nothing less than the US treasury department's endless supply of paper and ink. Who needs heavy gold bullion when ink and paper is so much easier to handle?
Actually, I'd say we are Israel's best friend in all the world, whereas Israel hasn't been any kind of friend to us. Friends provide direct economic subsidies or troops in wartime. Subsidies obviously flow in the opposite direction, and Israel hasn't provided troops in any war that anyone knows of, and certainly not in the quantities of our ABCA allies like Canada, Britain, New Zealand and Australia. In practice, Israel is an economic and military dependent further down on the scale than most of our allies, meaning it isn't much of an ally, let alone a friend. And I say this as someone who's an Israel supporter and have no problem with the annual subsidy, because the alternative is the murderous Muslim troglodytes populating the region.
None of which applies to this particular comment or the article. The US at the time was supplying war material to the Brits and others fighting the Germans.. Roosevelt sent a ship load (over a thousand) German Jews back to their certain death because of his dislike of Jews AND his general uselessness as a president.
We are talking about roosevelt’s anti-semitic bent which was ( and probably still is) prevalent in the US.
Be sure and tell us all abut how kind the Chinese Communists are to their citizens
2) Even politicians with no prejudices and the best of intentions would have had to cater somewhat to the prejudices of others if they wanted to bring in refugees at a time of high unemployment.
3) Different times: everybody was more (what we would call) racist back then.
That doesn't excuse away his attitudes, but it's not terribly surprising to find someone in power back then who had those attitudes. More credit to anyone who didn't.
I would have been happy to have Germany wiped out as soon as they started invading countries (with and without gunfire) instead of having that quisling Chamberlain go to Berlin and wave his crappy little piece of paper around declaring ‘peace in our time....’ But obviously what I want and what happened are two different things....just ask Patton
As a member of the Board of Overseers (not directors), Roosevelt presumably did he did have a hand in approving the policy -- to his discredit -- but it wasn't an idea he came up with. It came from the administration of President Lowell.
Roosevelt's own boastfulness may have given Medoff the impression that it was FDR's own idea, but it's sloppy on Medoff's part not to examine further. FWIW, FDR did oppose Lowell's plan to create a segregated "Jim Crow" dorm for African-American students (this at at a time when some colleges like Princeton weren't even admitting Black students).
I'm not Chinese, but that's actually a relevant point, but not necessarily in the way you've stated. Where was the outcry from Jews for millions of Chinese to be admitted to these shores when China's Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions? How many Chinese did Israel take in during that period? The same point can be repeated by filling in the names of any number of other nationalities facing mass death.
Again, every nationality in the world thinks we owe it a refuge, but nowhere has this special pleading been twisted into some kind of moral principle as has the fate of Jewish refugees during WWII. There were plenty of refugees everywhere, and the US had no more of an obligation to admit them than any of the Latin American countries or European-ruled African colonies.
Weirdly enough, they would probably have been accepted with open arms in Latin America or the European-ruled African colonies, but they had to pick the Ritz Carlton of destinations, these United States. Instead of settling in Latin America, South Africa or Rhodesia, they opted to stay in Europe, which became one vast hunting preserve for the Nazis when they overran the Low Countries and France. They bet it all on one roll of the dice and lost. It wasn't neither FDR's fault nor theirs (although their bad judgment turned what would have been a descent into penury abroad into a death sentence) - it was Hitler's.
In fact, your orthogonal point brings to mind an interesting factoid - Jews who made it to China survived WWII - in the midst of great wartime-induced privation on both sides, both Imperial Japan and Nationalist China not only admitted them into their respective regions of China, they did so against the express wishes of the Nazis who, in a weird twist of history, were allied with both Imperial Japan and the Chinese Nationalists, the latter of which the Nazis were arming against the Chinese Communists. And when the Chinese went through the famine of the Great Leap Forward during the late 1950's, was there any call from Israel to admit refugees from China, out of sheer gratitude? Not that anyone knows of...
In the memoir I remember best, by a woman interned as a little girl in Idaho, there weren't any great-greats. She described a lot of grandparents and parents who were born in Japan, and kids who were born stateside, mostly in California. A lot of the old men and many of the young men talked about fighting for the Empire of Japan, because America was vulnerable and undisciplined.
I read that Israel has been accepting Chinese Jews in recent years. Their settlements in China date from Persian caravans on the Silk Road. . .
But in the run-up to the Holocaust, South Africa and Franco's Spain saved a lot of Jews.
Again, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The Jews tried to go any and everywhere. No one would take them.
South Africa, one of your examples where Jews supposedly declined to go, passed a series of laws to strictly prevent Jewish immigration - the Quota Act in 1930 and the Alien’s Act in 1937.
Why do you keep claiming that no should have taken in Jewish refugees, that Jews had all kinds of places to go but opted to stay, and that they are somehow deserving of their fate because at a later point in time you don’t think Israel accommodated enough Chinese refugees?
Why don’t you just shut up and stop pushing your agenda.
and that was because China was NOT communist at that time.....so at least get the fact that I refer to the horrors that are Communist China
Fascinating. Has anything been written on this similarity?
Of course, from a Christian perspective I might say that the same warlike demonic spirits may be behind both religions. But even apart from metaphysical speculation which can't be proven on this side of eternity, I would be interested in seeing more about the similarities in the pantheons from a comparative religion perspective.
See #41 and click on the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.