Op-Ed: "Complicit": FDR's Refusal to Save the Jews on the MS St. Louis

INN ^ | Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:04 PM | Prof. Phyllis Chesler

[af_vet_1981]

am certain its authors are also biased, and thus you admit the author you introduced into evidence is biased.

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: "And yet you just introduced them into evidence as if they were true ..."

And, so far as I know, they are true.
They are quoted from an author I consider learned and reliable.
In response, our FRiend Olog-hai posted a link which disputes them.
So I acknowledge they are disputed, while at the same time I doubt the veracity of those doing the disputing.

As I said above, the Rosen book, Saving the Jews is an enthusiastic full-throated defense of Roosevelt's actions during the 30s and 40s.
Sure, an impartial jury might wish to look at both sides of the case, but I would not automatically dismiss as "wrong" every point of Rosen's which is somehow disputed.

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: " and thus you admit the author you introduced into evidence is biased."

FRiend, go back and re-read my post #146.
Here is the key sentence:

"For a full-throated defense of FDR's actions toward the Jews, you must turn to Rosen's 2006 book:"

"Full throated defense" -- do you have a problem with that?
Do you think he doesn't deserve a defense?

[BroJoeK]

Re: Rosen's 2006 book Saving the Jews (see post #52)
Re: Breitman's 2013 book FDR and the Jews (see post #146)

Turns out that my recommendation of Breitman's 2013 book in post #54 above was a senior-moment mistake -- I intended to show Rosen's 2006 book, which is highly favorable to President Roosevelt.
By explanation: I travel a lot, about half my posts come away from home, meaning no access to my little home library.
Which means, sometimes I'm dependent on less than perfect memory. ;-(

Anyway, everyone needs to understand that there are several books out there, both pro and con FDR's efforts to save Europe's Jews.
Of those, Breitman's is the most recent, and purports to be an entirely "fair and balanced" report, weighing both what FDR did do, and what he failed to do.
So Breitman's is not 100% pro-Roosevelt.

The following comes from the introduction to Breitman's book:

"Still at times Roosevelt acted decisively to rescue Jews, often withstanding contrary pressure from American public, Congress, and his own State Department.
Oddly enough, he did more for the Jews than any other figure, even if his efforts seem deficient in retrospect.
He was a far better president for Jews than any of his political adversaries would have been.
Roosevelt defied most Republican opponents and some isolationist Democrats to lead political and military opposition to Nazi Germany's plans for expansion and world domination..."

[af_vet_1981]

"Full throated defense" -- do you have a problem with that? Do you think he doesn't deserve a defense?

Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?

[LS]

I don’t see it as taking sides. In both “Patriot’s History” and “48 Liberal Lies” I argued that in fact FDR was not aware in any specific sense of the PeRl Harbor attack. I find it odd that conservatives want to race to his defense on this but again, I haven’t read the two new “defenses” and will. Until then, I rely on scholarship that may well be out of date-—but I won’t know till I read the stuff.

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: "Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?"

They absolutely deserved admission to Cuba, which is where they were sailing, and had permission to land.
I don't remember why the Cuban government changed its mind, and I don't know how their perfidy made those voyagers President's Roosevelt's responsibility.

Further, you love to forget that none -- not one -- of those passengers was returned to Nazi Germany.
All found refuge in free countries such as Britain, France, Belgium and Holland.
That some of these countries were later overrun, and some passengers did die in the Holocaust, was certainly not knowable from Neville "Peace in Our Time" Chamberlain's administration in Britain.

Of course, in hind-sight, it's obvious that President Roosevelt shoulda-coulda done much, much more to rescue Europe's Jews.
But under the circumstances, I think he did as much as he lawfully could, and in the end, more than any other leader.

[BroJoeK]

LS: "In both “Patriot’s History” and “48 Liberal Lies” I ar gued that in fact FDR was not aware in any specific sense of the PeRl Harbor attack. "

As a boy I was taught that FDR did know and did nothing, but having debated it at long length on Free Republic, have come to think there's no "smoking gun" to prove that, and that a more generalized statement of FDR's actions does not need to include specifically that he knew the attack was coming on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor.

LS: "I find it odd that conservatives want to race to his defense on this but again, I haven’t read the two new “defenses” and will."

It's important to remember that those immigration laws which FDR dutifully enforced were passed by Republican Congresses and signed by Republican presidents in the 1920s, when they made good sense.
Further they were still supported by circa 82% of all Americans in the late 1930s, when they made much less sense.

And enforcing restrictions on illegal immigration is precisely the largest political issue of our own day -- are we going to finally "seal the border", or are we going to make all illegals permanent Democrat-voting citizens?

I favor legal immigration, not so big on making illegals into citizens.

I am also reading the new Breitman book, so far find it quite "fair and balance.". Will be most interested in your views on it.

[af_vet_1981]

af_vet_1981: "Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?"

Of course, in hind-sight, it's obvious that President Roosevelt shoulda-coulda done much, much more to rescue Europe's Jews. But under the circumstances, I think he did as much as he lawfully could, and in the end, more than any other leader.

You have a difficult time answering "yes" or "no." I think you have indicated "yes," the Jewish refugees deserved to be denied refuge by Roosevelt and returned to Europe.

[LS]

Will be a while. I’m way behind.

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: "You have a difficult time answering "yes" or "no."
I think you have indicated "yes," the Jewish refugees deserved to be denied refuge by Roosevelt and returned to Europe. "

You're being ridiculous.
The key word you used is "deserved," which I answered: clearly they deserved entry to Cuba, which they were promised and had paid for.
Failing that, they clearly deserved return to some European country not then in the grasp of anti-Semitic Nazis, which is what they all got.

But if you wish to argue they deserved refuge in the United States, then we have to ask: how many millions of others also "deserved" refuge here?
Remember, WWII killed circa 75 million people, half of them Europeans and none of whom (except some top Axis leaders) truly "deserved" to die.
Plus, on top of the 75 million who died, there were hundreds of millions wounded and/or driven from their homes.
Didn't all those hundreds of millions face reasonable fears of persecution & death, and therefore "deserve" refuge in Franklin Roosevelt's America?

And while we're on this subject, think of today -- around the globe, hundreds of millions are being persecuted and sometimes killed, especially Christians because of their faith.
If everyone who is persecuted and has reasonable fears of death "deserves" refuge in the USA, why don't we today open the flood gates for hundreds of millions worldwide?

So, the obvious answer is: because that's totally insane.
There's no way the US can or should be the refuge for everybody anywhere who's been mistreated & fears death.
The best we can do is pick a few extreme cases, while internationally supporting the remainder where they are.

In April 1939, the MSS St. Louis passengers were not in imminent danger of death, so long as they didn't return to Germany, and safe-havens for them is just what was arranged.

That's why I don't blame President Roosevelt as some heartless SOB, but credit him for doing good under difficult circumstances.

[af_vet_1981]

The key word you used is "deserved," which I answered: clearly they deserved entry to Cuba, which they were promised and had paid for.

af_vet_1981: "Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?"

Yes, you have a hard time answering "yes" or "no" to the question I asked. You compose a different question and answer that instead. Still it serves to answer my question "yes." You indicate those hundreds of Jews deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and returned to Europe. It seems to me you delight in it. So be it.

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: "Yes, you have a hard time answering "yes" or "no" to the question I asked.
You compose a different question and answer that instead."

Because, FRiend, the issue here is a definition of your word "deserved", which I have been trying at length to explain to your deliberately obtuse mind.
A synonym of "deserve" is "merit", so we might ask, did those MS St. Louis passengers "merit" entry to the USA?

The answer is clearly, by US laws which President Roosevelt was charged to enforce: no.
But they certainly deserved better treatment than the Cuban government gave them, which first offered, then revoke permission to land.
In that context, we might note that the Dominican Republic had expressed its willingness to take more Jewish refugees, but for some reason, the ship's captain never went there.

Of course, today we would look at it much differently.
Today, with perfect 20-20 hindsight we'd see a very different situation.
Indeed, FRiend, if you and I could go back in Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine and design President Roosevelt's immigration policies for him, we would have a much different sense of urgency and priorities.
We would grasp that the real issue was not a few hundred Jewish passengers, but hundreds of thousands in Western Europe and millions in Eastern Europe.
We would design programs to allow escape of millions to... somewhere... including the United States.

And for our troubles, Mr. Peabody's brilliance not withstanding, we would be tarred, feathered and road out of town on a rail by an outraged American citizenry which in no way wished to become deeply involved in European insanity.
Americans of 1939 would not believe what you and I told them was coming, and would not accept that it was their responsibility to make right all the world's evils.

Of course, we know where history went, and they would be proven wrong, but I don't so harshly condemn them, or President Roosevelt, for their desire to stay out of the world's insanities.

So, who "deserved" or "merited" what?
Well, let me ponder that some more, while I pluck these feathers out of the tar all over me...

;-)

[af_vet_1981]

af_vet_1981: "Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?"

You confirmed again, in your own words, that the Jews deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe. There is no need to be insulting and claim to be a friend. Own your words and await the verdict.

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: "that the Jews deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe."

Of course, that's not what I said, not even once.
But I "get" that you wish to play stupid, because you think you've designed such a clever word trap that you'd rather look dumb than admit you're wrong.

So let me say it, yet again: if you & I could set the policy, those passengers would be admitted, because we know how it all turned out.
But US law at the time did not allow it, and I do not blame President Roosevelt for, unlike our current president, faithfully enforcing US laws.

[af_vet_1981]

af_vet_1981: "that the Jews deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe."

Of course, that's not what I said, not even once.

False; in your own words, "did those MS St. Louis passengers "merit" entry to the USA? The answer is clearly, by US laws which President Roosevelt was charged to enforce: no."

"Further, you love to forget that none -- not one -- of those passengers was returned to Nazi Germany. All found refuge in free countries such as Britain, France, Belgium and Holland. That some of these countries were later overrun, and some passengers did die in the Holocaust, was certainly not knowable ..."

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981 quoting BJK: "did those MS St. Louis passengers 'merit' entry to the USA?
The answer is clearly, by US laws which President Roosevelt was charged to enforce: no."

First, notice the word I used here was "merit" not "deserved", simply meaning: they did not meet criteria established by US law for admission.
Second, your claim is that I said: "that the Jews deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe."

Word usage of "deserved": you "merit" or "deserve" admission, but you don't "deserve" or "merit" a denial.
For analogy, think of college -- you may "merit" admission, but if you are not admitted, it's not because you "deserve" denial, you may have been well qualified, but not selected for some other reason.

Denial says nothing about how much you "deserve", only that for some reason, or no particular reason, you were not selected.

But, FRiend, you've asked this question, and then restated my answers in such a way as to make it look as if I said Jews "deserved" or "merited" rejection, which is simply not accurate.
By prior contract, they deserved entry to Cuba, or could have gone to the Dominican Republic which had offered sanctuary.
Since President Roosevelt did not offer them sanctuary, they deserved safe haven in free European countries, which is what they got.

But neither in 1939, nor today does every refugee in every part of the world deserve entry to the US.
That doesn't mean they "deserve" to be rejected, only that by whatever criteria we use at the time, they didn't meet it.

Surely that explanation is clear enough to get you to stop playing dumb on me, FRiend?

[af_vet_1981]

You yourself, not me, substituted merit for deserved with this comment "A synonym of "deserve" is "merit", so we might ask, did those MS St. Louis passengers "merit" entry to the USA?" as you have continually struggled giving as simple "yes" or "no" answer to my actual question, af_vet_1981: "Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?".

You have continually argued that these Jewish refugees deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt, and returned to Europe. Own your words, which are evident from the start (post 24). In post 34 you wrote " Just so we're clear about this: there were no Nazi death camps in 1939, none."

[af_vet_1981]

edit typo

post 34 should read 24 in

In post 34 you wrote " Just so we're clear about this: there were no Nazi death camps."

[BroJoeK]

af_vet_1981: "my actual question, af_vet_1981: "Do you think the Jewish refugees on the MSS St. Louis deserved to be denied a port of refuge by Roosevelt and sent back to Europe ?". "

To which I've never answered "yes", not once, though you have repeatedly mis-stated my answers as meaning, "yes".
What I've repeatedly tried to point out, and you have obtusely refused to grasp, is that the word "deserve" is inappropriate when matched with "denied".
A person might deserve or merit or qualify for admission or acceptance, to college, to a job or entry to the USA.
But a person does not deserve, merit or qualify for rejection because in all those cases, there are no standards for rejection, only for acceptance.
Indeed, in many cases, people who are fully qualified & deserving are not accepted simply because a position has already been filled.

And so with the MS St. Louis passengers who, to my knowledge, never applied for entry to the US, and so were not "rejected" any more than you or I are never "rejected" from jobs we never applied for!

So, it's your phrase, "deserved to be rejected" which I reject as inappropriate, and I question why you obtusely refuse to grasp that's what this discussion is all about?

You know, FRiend, at some point the Ninth Commandment comes into play here.
As a biblical scholar, you might want to refresh your memory on that one.