Replies

Circular reasoning. You accuse me of supporting bad US laws, but it’s all right that FDR did what he could within the scope of bad US laws, presuming he did anything in the first place (and again, he wrote the most executive orders of any US president in history). I see no denial of justification of bad laws.

And Rosen, really? The same guy who wrote The Jewish Confederates and posited Saving The Jews in the fictitious case of FDR being on trial and he being his jailhouse lawyer? This site is not DU or Stormfront, remember. So since he is suddenly a primary source via argumentum ad verecundiam, it is all right to post this as counterpoint.

You are accused of using a biased and unreliable source, and I find the report credible. Shame, shame, shame.

Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust, by Robert N. Rosen, was published by Thunder’s Mouth Press in April 2006. Soon after the book’s publication, Rosen was invited to speak at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York and at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, Georgia. He has also been interviewed by various media.

Rosen, 57, is an attorney with the Rosen Law Firm, in Charleston, South Carolina, specializing in divorce law. He earned a B.A. at the University of Virginia (1969) and an M.A. in history at Harvard (1970), before graduating from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973. He has practiced law full time since then. Rosen has also authored several books on the history of Charleston and Southern Jewry. He is not known to have previously written about America’s response to the Holocaust.

While still at work on the manuscript, Rosen privately described Saving the Jews as “a defense attorney’s brief” for FDR. He made the statement in a conversation on November 4, 2001, with Benyamin “Buddy” Korn, former executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, and son of American Jewish historian Rabbi Dr. Bertram W. Korn, at a conference of the Southern Jewish Historical Society, in Norfolk, Virginia.1 Asked by Korn what his next book would be, Rosen replied that he was writing a book about FDR and the Holocaust, explaining, “I see myself as FDR’s defense attorney; I am writing a brief on his behalf.” "My research in the archives and the history of the times [was what] led me ... [to conclude] that Roosevelt did not abandon the Jews of Europe," according to Rosen. (p. xxiv) Likewise, Rosen's web site describes the book as "based on vigorous research." However, a close examination of the sources listed in Rosen's end notes finds that 91% of them are secondary sources --that is, other authors' published books or articles-- rather than original archival research by Rosen. In 135 instances throughout the text, Rosen quotes other authors by name, and in many additional instances he quotes or closely paraphrases other authors, sometimes without appropriate attribution.

Olog-hai: "So since he is suddenly a primary source via argumentum ad verecundiam, it is all right to post this as counterpoint."

Seriously, thanks for the link.
I have read it, saved it to my favorites and will refer back to it in the future.
It is very informative.

But let us please look at the bigger picture: since the 1960's "the Left" (writ large, meaning Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Communists, academia, the media and other such synonyms), the Left has blamed the following for the Holocaust:

Pope Pius XII -- "Hitler's Pope"
Winston Churchill -- restricted Jewish access to Palestine.
Franklin Roosevelt -- callous indifference to the fates of millions.
Conservatives/Republicans -- since we are to blame for everything else, why not the Holocaust too?

I even have some of the books which make these accusations.
In response, defenders of the Pope have launched a vigorous counter-argument saying that not only was he not "Hitler's Pope", he actively opposed Nazism and protected tens of thousands of Jews.
And I have some of those books.

Likewise, distinguished defenders of Winston Churchill have gathered up relevant historical data demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that Churchill too was a great friend & supporter of Jews.
And I have some of those books too.

And likewise, defenders of Franklin Roosevelt.... well... er... I mean, who does Roosevelt have to defend him on this subject?
Apparently, just Rosen.
The rest of the liberal academic elite declares FDR's WWII leadership to be essentially conservative & Republican so fair game for any & all smears, distortions & throwing under the bus.

So, with the Pope and Churchill now excused, that just leaves Roosevelt and us conservatives solely responsible for the Holocaust, after all in those days, weren't 82% of Americans effectively anti-Semites?

Verdict: guilty as hell, and therefore we have to pay, and pay, and pay, and, yes, pay some more.

My opinion is that Rosen did a workman's job trying to defend Roosevelt against any number of scurrilous accusations, and I note his work is supported strongly in comments by Alan Dershowitz, who comes out on the right side of things surprisingly often these days.

Sure, no doubt Rosen made mistakes here or there, but the sum total is a welcome antidote to the Left's relentless guilt-mongering.

What I don't understand, dear sirs, is why you are taking up arms with the Left in this case?
Why shouldn't FDR be given more benefit of the doubt than the Left is offering?

Ology-hai: "I see no denial of justification of bad laws."

Those laws seemed rational & appropriate to a peaceful, law-abiding world, when they were written in the 1920s.
By the mid-1930s they were becoming untenable, but the vast majority of Americans simply did not want to face reality -- 82% opposed large increases in immigration quotas.
Whether FDR's active leadership on this could change those laws is anybody's guess, but Roosevelt is universally acknowledged as the greatest political mind of his era, and the fact is, he did not risk offending the sensibilities of his fellow countrymen.
Instead, he put uniting Americans in the war against Axis powers as his number one priority.

I personally cannot fault him for that.