Ken Burns’ documentary The US and the Holocaust in general is excellent, in telling the story of how the U.S. failed to rescue the Jews of Europe, and failed also to hinder the Nazi plan to carry out the “Final Solution” by destroying the rail lines taking Jews to Auschwitz and other death camps. The failure to admit Jewish refugees is correctly attributed mostly to certain members of the State Department, headed by the openly antisemitic Breckenridge Long, who blocked their entry. But FDR is given a pass in the documentary, even though it was he, in the end, who could have overruled Long and removed the strict limits on Jewish immigration.
The historian Rafael Madoff reminds us here that during most of the Hitler era, there was a quota for German Jews entering the U.S. of 26,000 a year, but only 25% of that quota was filled because “the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.”
Why did FDR’s administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn’t FDR tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
FDR had a distinctly cold heart when it came to Jews.
In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”
There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; expressing (to a senator) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins”; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.
FDR’s indifference to the plight of European Jewry leave one aghast. When the governor of the American Virgin Islands offered to take in Jewish refugees, FDR blocked that possibility. Similarly, when Jewish groups were urging that the US Air Force bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy refused to do so, claiming such bombing could endanger American planes and pilots, even though American planes and pilots were already bombing oil refineries just five miles from Auschwitz itself. FDR could have overruled McCloy, but did nothing. FDR’s failure to approve the Virgin Islands offer to take in Jewish refugees, his refusal to require the State Department to fill the “Jewish quota,” and his not overruling McCloy and giving the go-ahead for the bombing of rail lines to Auschwitz, deserved to be explained at length in the documentary, but were not.
In May 1943, Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called “the best way to settle the Jewish question.”
Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.” In other words, FDR was indifferent to Palestine as the future Jewish national home; it seems never to have occurred to him that rather than be “spread thin all over the world,” the Jews who survived Hitler, and were suffering great trauma, should be allowed to settle among their fellow Jews in their ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel, which was then called Mandatory Palestine, set up by the League of Nations for that express purpose.
There is the scanting, too, in Burns’ documentary, of the role that Palestine could have played, but did not play, in the large-scale rescue of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps as many as a million Jews from Europe. Burns does not make clear that Mandatory Palestine was kept closed to Jewish refugees from Europe by the British, even though, according to the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, the British as holder of the Mandate had the solemn duty to “facilitate Jewish immigration” into the Mandate’s territory. The US put no political pressure on Great Britain, at any time, to open Palestine to desperate Jews fleeing Europe. And there was plenty of pressure the Americans could bring, given the vast amounts of weaponry – planes, ships, tanks, artillery, and much else, that were delivered to Great Britain under Lend-Lease.
To emphasize the role Mandatory Palestine could have played, as a refuge for hundreds of thousands of European Jews whose lives would thereby be saved, is to offer a justification for Zionism. Is that why it was left out?
Elder of Ziyon discusses Burns’ documentary and its curious treatment of Palestine here:
For the past five months, in interviews and press releases about his upcoming documentary, filmmaker Ken Burns has been claiming that the Roosevelt administration accepted more refugees than any other sovereign nation during the Nazi era.
The phrase “sovereign nation” struck us as odd. Ordinarily, one would say, “than any other country.” Why emphasize the word “sovereign?”
Now Burns has let the cat out of the bag. Apparently responding to criticism of his handling of the immigration statistics, Burns admitted to an interviewer from The Daily Beast on September 4 that he has been using the term ‘sovereign nation’ to distinguish [it] from the fact that people escaped to other places, like Palestine.
Why is Burns trying to disqualify Palestine from the conversation? Why resort to a technicality about sovereignty in order to try to push Palestine out of the discussion?
Even though Palestine was not sovereign, the ruling authorities there – the British – certainly were a sovereign power and they had to make a decision about how many Jews to admit either to the United Kingdom or to the territories under its control. Likewise, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had to make a decision about how many Jews he would admit either to the mainland United States or to the non-sovereign territories it controlled, such as the US Virgin Islands.
We know what the British did. They refused to honor their solemn commitment, as Mandatory, to “facilitate Jewish immigration,” as required by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine. Instead, the government adopted the White Paper of 1939, limiting Jewish immigrants to Palestine to 15,000 a year for five years, after which the Arabs would have a veto, and all further immigration by Jews would of course come to an end. That law constituted a clear violation of Great Britain’s duty as holder of the Mandate.
Sadly, Roosevelt chose to keep Jews out of the Virgin Islands, despite the offer by the governor and legislative assembly of that territory to open their doors to Jews fleeing Hitler. Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. specifically raised the possibility of admitting the 930 refugees aboard the infamous ship, the St. Louis, to the Virgin Islands, in June 1939. But Roosevelt said No and the refugees were forced to return to Europe; many of them were murdered in the Holocaust.
Ken Burns does not make clear in his documentary that European Jews, refused entry everywhere in the world, by right should have been admitted to Mandatory Palestine in unlimited numbers. The U.K. is the villain of this piece, but the U.S. also deserves blame both for not admitting more refugees itself, and for not pressuring the U.K. to let more Jews into Palestine. Burns does what he can, as Elder of Ziyon notes, to keep Palestine out of his discussion, referring only to “sovereign nations” – which deliberately excluded Mandatory Palestine — that took in, or failed to, a handful of Jewish refugees.
What Ken Burns ought to have included in his documentary was a clear statement that while America had failed the Jews, giving refuge only to a few thousand a year, the one place on earth where Jews were not only supposed to be admitted, but that “facilitating” their admission was the solemn responsibility of Great Britain, was Mandatory Palestine. That was the place where Jews had been resurrecting their ancient commonwealth in their historic homeland. But access to that homeland was closed off to Jewish refugees by a pusillanimous British government that was more interested in not offending Arabs than in saving Jewish lives. Nor did the American government lift a finger to try to persuade the British to let Jewish refugees into Palestine. About Palestine as the Jewish National Home, that could have taken in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, who could have managed to make it safely there had there been no British blockade, Ken Burns has nothing to say. Burns was not eager to make the case for Mandatory Palestine as the one place where persecuted Jews, at their moment of maximum peril, ought to have been allowed to settle. That would have appeared to some as just a tad too favorable to Israel, and that would never do.
milo minderbinder says
Hugh Fitzgerald writes,
+100
“FDR had a distinctly cold heart when it came to Jews.”
– As I have for FDR. This article, supports my intense dislike of FDR, to put it mildly. The more I learn about FDR and his administration, the more I have to despise this individual.
“Ken Burns’ documentary The US and the Holocaust in general is excellent,”
– In general sounds right to me as I consider Ken Burns to be a leftist.
Wellington says
FDR was a political chess master but he also could be ruthless, mendacious and callous. Herbert Hoover was appalled that FDR regularly told anti-Semitic jokes and he was equally perturbed by the fact that FDR’s 1932 Presidential campaign accused Hoover of too much government interference (e.g., the Reconstruction Finance Corporation) to solve the Depression but then once in office FDR inaugurated the New Deal which resulted in ten times the amount of government interference to solve said depression that Hoover engaged in.
For the record, it is my conviction that first Hoover and then exponentially FDR mishandled the economy after the Wall Street crash of October 1929. Each should have done what Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, advised Hoover to do—nothing. Had Mellon been listened to, America (and the world) would have come out of the economic setback of 1929 no later than 1931. And since historians are in virtual universal agreement that the long worldwide Depression more than any other single factor is what brought Hitler and the Nazis to power by January of 1933, one can very plausibly argue that had Calvin Coolidge run for another term (and he would have won over Al Smith in 1928 just as Hoover did) another four years of Coolidge, who definitely would have follower Mellon’s advice—indeed Coolidge’s great common sense would led him on his own to conclude what Mellon did—this would have rectified the American economy forthwith and with results worldwide following thereto so that the Nazis would still have been polling only around 3% of the vote as they were in 1928, down from 7% of the vote in 1924, instead of garnering 18% of the vote by 1930 and 37% by 1932.
A huge opportunity lost. The world may very well have been spared a second world war. When Hoover’s government meddling and FDR’s New Deal are seen in this light they can be viewed as a major factor, if not the factor, in ensuring WWII because the Japanese on their own were not capable of starting a world war as Hitler was. And yes, it should be obvious by now for anyone who has had the patience to endure what I have just written that I am very “big” on Coolidge, my choice for the most underrated President in American history.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
Thank you for this most informative and important post.
Wellington says
You’re most welcome, James. I appreciate your reading what I posted.
gravenimage says
Fine post, Wellington.
milo minderbinder says
Wellington,
Thank you. Well said,
I have posted this on a prior article, seems to fit in with your comments.
The following information is from The Glenn Beck Program/The Blaze: Common Core and Education:
YouTube April 22, 2013 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz7XOKcyRE0
The Road We Are Traveling, 1914-1942; Guide Lines to America’s Future* (*)
By Stuart Chase (March 8, 1888 – November 16, 1985)
• Search Amazon using the Title: “When the War Ends The Road We Are Traveling 1914-1942”
(+) Glenn Beck states that Franklin D. Roosevelt included many of the ideas from this book in his speeches.
“The Free Enterprise System once we get out of this war (WWII) we will have to change a few things, we will have to change Capitalism and the Free Enterprise System to System X.”
• Strong Central Government
• Strong Executive Arm, stronger than the Legislative or Judicial Branch
• Government control of Banking, Credit and Security
• Underwriting of Food, Medical and Housing
• Deficit Spending to Finance Underwriting
• Abandon Gold for the Managed Currency
• Heavy Taxation of Estates and the Income of the Wealthy
• Youth & People Dedicated to the Government Ideology
From Wikipedia: Free Enterprise into “X”
On pages 95 and 96 of The Road We Are Traveling, under the heading of “Free Enterprise into ‘X'”
Chase listed 18 characteristics of political economy that he had observed among Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913 and 1942. Chase labeled this phenomenon “… something called ‘X'”. Characteristics include the following:
1. A strong, centralized government.
2. An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
3. The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
5. The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
7. The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
9. The control of foreign trade by the government.
10. The control of natural resources.
11. The control of energy sources.
12. The control of transportation.
13. The control of agricultural production.
14. The control of labor organizations.
15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
16. Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
17. Control of industry without ownership.
18. State control of communications and propaganda.
Does any of the above look and sound familiar?
milo minderbinder says
Correction:
The Road We Are Traveling, 1914-1942; Guide Lines to America’s Future* (+)
By Stuart Chase (March 8, 1888 – November 16, 1985)
somehistory says
I have watched many of his documentaries. I have found them enjoyable.
However, even if this one is also “excellent,” I will not watch as he has compared what Gov. Abbott and Gov. DeSantis are doing to what the hazi’s dd to the Jews.
It’s more like what biden and his henchmen are doing in allowing the cartels and coyotes to abuse, and kill little kids as they are using them to get illegals and drugs into the country.
gravenimage says
However, even if this one is also “excellent,” I will not watch as he has compared what Gov. Abbott and Gov. DeSantis are doing to what the hazi’s dd to the Jews.
………………………………………
That’s *just nuts*, Somehistory. These governors are not committing genocide against illegal immigrants by sending them to other states–unless he is claiming that “Sanctuary States” are murdering them?
somehistory says
burns and some woman were on one of the *news* channels…I don’t recall which one, and the ‘host” began talking about Gov. DeSantis, comparing the flight to martha;s vineyard to the Holocaust, and burns agreed; with the woman nodding her head. burns began speaking about how it was like the nazi’s and I turned to something else.
milo minderbinder says
somehistory says
Sep 19, 2022 at 3:55 pm
I have watched many of his documentaries. I have found them enjoyable.
………………………………………………………
I didn’t care for his documentary on WW II “The War.”
This excerpt is from a CNSNEWS article, September 28, 2016
Director Mel Gibson was recently in France promoting his new film “Hacksaw Ridge” when he was asked by France 24 if the film is “anti-war.” “Hacksaw Ridge,” which opens November 4, tells the story of Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield), a conscientious objector who served in World War II by rescuing wounded soldiers. In the Battle of Okinawa Doss saved 75 men without firing or carrying a gun. He received the Medal of Honor.
Gibson replied:
It is an anti-war movie. I think all war movies are anti-war movies, “but we do have to be compassionate to our warriors.” When I was a kid I moved to Australia, I would have been drafted in Vietnam at 18, but by that time the war had ended, I was like 17 and the war was over so I never got drafted. My father was not a big believer in that conflict, but – and here’s the truth of it – “I hate war, but I love the warrior. And those guys that went to war, I appreciate and honor their sacrifice, because many of them lost much, even when they come home they suffer. So they need some attention.” (Emphasis added)
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-judge/mel-gibson-i-hate-war-i-love-warrior
Ken Burns is good at what he does, unfortunately, too many people on the left, dominate the movie industry. I think Ken Burns is one of those people.
In his documentary on WW II, “The War,” I wasn’t comfortable with what I was watching, I’m still not sure, what it is about that documentary that disturbs me. Maybe, it has to do with the overall content?
He seemed to place too much emphasis on what was taking place back home, and not enough on the men on the battle field. The emphasis should have been on the hardships, the pain and suffering the young men serving their country endured, especially those in the Pacific War.
As Mel Gibson said; “I hate war, but I love the warrior. And those guys that went to war, I appreciate and honor their sacrifice, because many of them lost much, even when they come home they suffer. So they need some attention.”
PMK says
Excellent observations, Wellington. I would add that FDR was absolutely clueless where Communism was concerned. According to his own advisors, he didn’t understand the threat Communism posed to the West. He figured he could ‘handle’ the Communists, since he had Communist friends.
Had Coolidge run for another full term, he would probably have died in office. (He died in January, 1933), but the country might have been spared FDR as POTUS. There’s no telling whom the GOP would have nominated in 1932.