Some days it feels like Franklin Delano Roosevelt is still in the White House, jauntily waving his cigarette holder, tossing back his head and smiling as debate rages over his policies. The Obama administration’s first hundred days are so frequently touted as the second coming of FDR that some columnists have begun reminding the public that the economy actually tanked in Roosevelt’s second term and have even trotted out his disastrous 1937 Supreme Court-packing plan to illustrate the dangers of presidential hubris. Now, the forthcoming publication of the papers of Roosevelt’s refugee advisor has reignited a far more emotional controversy over Roosevelt’s legacy: whether he should be credited with having saved Jewish lives in Europe or blamed for having abandoned European Jewry to the Nazis.
It is an often bitter debate. The historical probing of Roosevelt’s moral failings, especially regarding his response to the Holocaust, tends to fall into the “you are either for him or against him” paradigm.
If Roosevelt were truly great, one school asks, then why didn’t he do more to help the Jews? Why didn’t he rescue more Jewish refugees and admit them to the United States? Why didn’t he bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz? He failed in the face of the greatest crime in civilization’s history, and therefore, goes the subtext, he was not a great man.
The other school argues that Roosevelt, in successfully prosecuting the war, did more to save Jewish lives than any other person. In this telling, he was a great man, who did the most important thing he could do to save Jewish lives — he destroyed Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Both sides have their own spins on the refugee papers, which reveal that Roosevelt secretly conceived a plan in 1938 to find a refuge for German Jews in other countries. The pro-Roosevelt school claims the new documents demonstrate that Roosevelt’s heart was in the right place. The anti-Roosevelt historians dismiss the revelations as nothing new and point to the barriers that his administration later erected against Jewish refugees.
Why, 64 years after Roosevelt’s death, does his response to the Holocaust still provoke pitched battles between historians? After all, the world has changed several times over, and soon there will be no one left who, crouching on the living room floor, fiddling with the dials of the family’s radio, heard the new president tell the stricken country that “the only thing we have to fear is — fear itself.”
But one only has to recall the impact of those words to grasp why debates over Roosevelt are so emotionally charged. After that address, 450,000 Americans almost immediately sat down at their desks or kitchen tables and wrote the president to thank him, because his speech was the best thing any of them had heard in a long, long time. Roosevelt was the crippled man who put a crippled America back on its feet and then led it to wartime triumph over fanatical dictatorships. He was the presidential father for whom every generation since has yearned.
And that’s part of the challenge we face today in making sense of Roosevelt’s record. How do we examine the moral legacy of a leader through eyes that are moist with gratitude?
Roosevelt was beloved by so many Americans, and particularly by so many American Jews. That’s one reason there’s a real sense of betrayal when Roosevelt’s moral failings surface. As a result, the historical dialogue tends to become very polarized, with little in the way of middle ground.
The reality is that both sides in this debate have plenty of evidence they can marshal in making their respective cases. Not long after the 1938 rescue proposal, World War II began and Roosevelt’s calculations shifted. He was so fearful of fifth columnists and saboteurs — and of isolationist and antisemitic American public opinion — that in 1940 he allowed the State Department to block Jewish refugees from entering the United States, using American consuls in Europe, in the words of one State Department memorandum, “to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.” But then, in 1943, Roosevelt approved a plan brought to his attention by an important American Jewish supporter to rescue tens of thousands of Jews in Transnistria, then within Nazi-occupied Ukraine, and bring them to Palestine.
Rather than trying to squeeze Roosevelt into neat categories, let’s recognize him for who he really was: a tough-minded, politically dexterous leader who saved the lives of countless Jews by defeating Hitler but demonstrated cold-blooded indifference toward the fates of untold others when it was not politically expedient to do otherwise. It’s a record for which he deserves great historical credit but for which he also must pay a historical price — and it’s a record that dooms the rest of us to forever debate his elusive humanitarian legacy.
Gregory J. Wallance, a lawyer and author in New York City, is working on a book about the State Department’s response to the Holocaust.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"In this telling, he was a great man, who did the most important thing he could do to save Jewish lives — he destroyed Hitler and Nazi Germany."
FDR certainly helped defeat Nazi Germany, but it's the Soviet Union that deserved most of the credit.
Mr. Wallace's presentation is serenely academic. One reason he overlooks as to " why we fight about FDR" is breathtakingly political. The recent revisionist attack on FDR's legacy is part of an effort by neoconservative and other GOP partisans to undermine traditional Jewish support for the Democratic party and its policies by discrediting long-time liberal icon President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Jonathan Tobin, in a piece in the Philadelphia Jewish EXPONENT many years back, virtually said as much.)
A principal in this enterprise is Rafael Medoff at the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, located outside Philadelphia.
Roosevelt was being fed a great deal of lies from his antisemitic, Sec'y of State whose family had enormous investments in Nazi Germany. On the other side Morgenthau was also trying to sway FDR but he had no lies; only the truth that was constantly being hidden by the Nazis, the Vatican and other other antisemitic organizations. I can't understand why this aspect of the the situation is never discussed. The impact of the 'Black Shirts', Father Coughlin's semi-nazi group was, I am sure, also in the back of his mind.
Before the war FDR did what he could in the face of political realities. The US was in a major depression with serious unemployment, Congress want few if any strangers coming in, whether they were Jewish or not. FDR ordered the entire quota for Germany and Austria reserved for Jews. There are plenty of books around that detail more he did. Once the war began there was little one could do, other than protest and threaten, which was done in several joint statements issued by the Allies.
One might add that many millions were slaughtered all over the world. Who to save and how? Where and how to allocate much needed and scarce troops, fliers and resources? Perhaps faced with such an overwhelming slaughter the best tactic was indeed to defeat the bastards as quickly as possible.
One of the other political realities FDR faced was the adamant opposition of Zionists to any plan that did not send Jews to Palestine. Ben Gurion opposed the 1938 Kindertransport. Rabbi Wise (conflicted as usual) testified before Congress in 1938 and again in 1943 against changing the quotas. Zionists opposed and sunk plans to spirit Jewish refugees to Central America, Alaska, and Africa.
Perhaps more enlightening than once again kicking FDR around would be an open investigation into Zionist collaboration with the Third Reich from 1933 - 1941 along with their dismal record sacrificing rescue for the so-called good of the Zionist state.
"Why, 75 years after Roosevelt’s death, . . . "
If Mr. Wallance's historical analysis is equal to his math skills, well what more can be said. Last time I checked, 1945 was 64 years ago.
The primary reason for the polarization of opinion for or against FDR regarding his role during the Holocaust is because of his greatness. Aside from Lincoln, FDR was our greatest President during both the Great Depression and World War 2. All too frequently we expect our great Presidents to be flawless supermen beyond perfection. Unfortunately this is not reality. Our great presidents have had to deal with the realities of the times and then transcend them. Like Lincoln, FDR did just that within reason. As an ardent Roosevelt supporter I realize he was not flawless. However, given the context of the times he probably did more to help our people than the rest of the world combined. The statistics speak for themselves. Even his most ardent critics reluctantly concede that largely do to his efforts the United States admitted more Jewish refugees than the rest of the world combined during those turbulent years. One must remember that this was not the same America that elected Barak Obama president. This was an America plagued with the Great Depression with an official unemployment rate of 25%. It was probably much higher if measured by today's standards. It was also I highly nativist country with a virulent hatred of Catholics, Jews and peoples of color. In 1944, the late Gunnar Myrdal who in his time was regarded by his peers as a leading authority in race relations in America felt that anti semitism was far more pronounced in America than in Europe. He made no bones about it in his best selling book "An American Dilemna." Yet given all this Roosevelt showed his concern by all the actions taken. To look back and say that he could have done more is like fighting the Battle of Gettysburg for the 25th time. It is so easy to look back and write about a historical incident 75 years later from hindsight. This is where the revisionists go off the deep end. Even if FDR and the State Department did everything his critics condemn him for not doing there was still no guarantee that the Nazis would have let those individuals go. It takes two to tango and the revisionists seem to trust the Nazis more than FDR. However as with Lincoln his greatness seems to increase with criticism and condemnation. He would probably be flattered.
Everything is always so complicated for the Left and the American Jewish supporters of FDR's Holocaust record, who even use irrelevant and highly suspect Gunnar Myrdahl statistics to back their contentions. A Holocaust survivor recently revealed that allied bombing of a German war plant near the Vernichtungs Lager (whose name I can't recall) where he was interred was so ferocious that it actually killed several of the Waffen SS guards at the camp. I can't wait to begin reading how the 72% of American Jews, who voted for Obama, will once again rise to the occasion to slavishly defend their man's attack on Israeli sovereignty and security. Another Holocaust is in the making and we find American Jews supporting the wrong man. Amazing!
F.D.R was a great president, nor flawless but still great. I heard him broadcast his "Fireside Chats" on radio as he lifted America's spirits out of the depression. As an officer in the Air Force I, and the American people did not know what was happening to the Jews in Germany. We heard rumors but no hard news until the camps were freed and we could then see the results of the holocaust. We had only radio and newspaper reports then, no TV or internet. America was an anti-semitic country at the time and many Govt. Officials did not want floods of Jewish refugees coming to America. The German Amercan Bund, and Father Coughlin had many followers. Roosevelt concentrated on WINNING THE WAR, not on rescuing Jews, of which I am one. We also condemn Pres. Truman for using the Atom Bomb, but I would not be here writing this had he not used it. Roosevelt and Einstein developed the bomb and ended the war. He was a great president and I am appaled at the ambivalence of American Jews today. They think with their guts, not their brains.
Arthill,
Actually, it's not clear that the atomic bombs ended WWII. During the same period the bombs were dropped, the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. It is very possible that this, instead of the atomic bombs, is what persuaded Japan to surrender. It should be remembered that the U.S. was already destroying Japanese cities before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing huge numbers of civilians in the process. The firebombing of Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945 killed about 100,000 Japanese civilians, more than died at Hiroshima.
And with all due respect, you cannot say with any certainty that "I would not be here" if the bombs hadn't been used. No one knows what an invasion of Japan would have been like, or how many casualties there would have been. Statements like yours simply substitute raw emotion for thoughtful analysis.
Sorry, I accidently gave my name as Arthill. Rather, my comment was addressed to Arthill.
Lee- you know nothing about what you are talking about. I know from you writings that you were not around when the Bombs were dropped and your comments about Russia was that factor that won the War with Germany is aasinine. I served with the 20th Air Force based on Guam, and I was there when the Enola Gay took off with the first Bomb. Japan dithered about surrendering after the Hirosima Bomb was dropped and that was why Nagasaki was hit with the second. For your information those were the only two bombs we had in our arsenal. if that failed it was on to the beaches of Japan. If you think that the casualties would not have been great look at Iwo Jima, a pint sized Island half way to Japan in which 7,000 Marines lost there lives in two days of figting.There were 30,000 casualties before Iwo was secured. If it took that many lives to take a pint sized Island what do you think the Invasion of Japan would have been like. Just to let you know it was the Bombs that ended that portion of the War. Russia Jumped in after the war had been won in order to take possesion of the Sakaline Islands they wanted. AS far as the bleeding hearts of today, who know nothing of the tribulations of WW II, can now abuse that great effort by saying it was inhumane to use the bombs, can go to hell. I guarantee you that the 16,000,000 American Soldiers living and dead could not have been happier to see those bombs go off. Your prolem is that you have had it easy your whole life, having really given nothing to your country in return for the benefits you derived You haven't even got the decency to thank those veterans for the life you have today. If we had lost you wouldn't be hear today. Whats with this Russian BS about winning both Wars. Are you out of your mind. If you did serve in the Military in defense of this great country of ours, my apologies, but I think I am right about you.
Leonard,
Spare me your self-righteous sanctimony. You offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that my suggestion about the Soviet Union is "asinine." No, I wasn't alive in 1945, and I haven't served in the military. That does not mean I'm incapable of becoming well informed about this subject matter (I have a master's degree in history). And the fact that you served in WWII does not make you an expert on it. You come across as a completely hysterical person who is utterly incapable of approaching this subject objectively. What exactly is so threatening about the idea that the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War may have caused Japan's surrender? The Soviet entry came two days after Hiroshima, but one day before Nagasaki. Japan surrended on August 14th. The sequence of events alone does not conclusively prove which factor--the bombs or the Soviets--caused the surrender. The reason why the Soviet Union entered the war is irrelevant to judging what effect their entry had on Japan.
Oh, and by the way it's "asinine" not "aasinine." If you're going to attack my character at least learn to spell!
Hello Lee:
Your Comments are typical of the Academic you are. You undoubedly know nothing of the real world, and as far as your History Backround, So called Historians such as you, are constantly revising history to fit your perverted idea of what was.
Your only knowlege of WW II is what you read in books of other revisionists. I'll take my being there as a more accurate discription of what took place then your reading of second or third person version of what happened. Russia contributed nothing to the War in the Pacific. It was too busy fighting for survival in Russia. If the US had not started the "so called second front, Stalin was constantly begging for, do you think the Russians could have stopped the Germans. It was US mateial aid, and the destruction of the German "heartland" by US and Brit Bombers and, of course, the Invasion of Normandy that set up the Russian advance. The US could have reached Berlin before the Russians, but in deference to the Russian suffering we allowed them to enter Berlin first in an agreement. There were many in the Military and Government who would have liked to seen the Western Armies contiue on to the Russian Border, but Eisenhower was too much the Politician to let that happen. Maybe if that had happened we wouldn't have had the Cold War, and Communist Russia wouldn't have become the threat that it did.
As far as being an expert on WWII, I certainly know more about it then you. Pose an hypothetical, about Russias contribution to WW II, and then demand proof of that Hypothetical is beyond my comprehension. My what a devious kind of argument. You keep throwing things against a wall hoping something will stick to prove your point. I will reverse the argument, show me any kind of proof, in fact, that Russia's late, late entry into the Pacific War had any bearing on its outcome.
As for spelling, I grant you it is not one of my strong point but you got the message and that all that counts. By the way where did you come by those ideas thAT Russia had any bearing on contributing to the Defeat of Japan?
As for being hysterical, you are correct. Its people like you who present these false arguments, who know nothing of the realties of the topic, that make me that way.
Have a nice day, Lee.
Enough of this argument, I reiterate, you know nothing of what happened in reality in that
Leonard:
"Russia contributed nothing to the War in the Pacific. It was too busy fighting for survival in Russia."
Russia (or to be accurate, the Soviet Union) entered the war against Japan after Nazi Germany had already been defeated.
"If the US had not started the "so called second front, Stalin was constantly begging for, do you think the Russians could have stopped the Germans."
It's unclear whether the Soviets would have defeated Germany on their own or not. In terms of what actually happened, the Allied victory in Europe was a team effort.
"Pose an hypothetical, about Russias contribution to WW II, and then demand proof of that Hypothetical is beyond my comprehension. My what a devious kind of argument. You keep throwing things against a wall hoping something will stick to prove your point. I will reverse the argument, show me any kind of proof, in fact, that Russia's late, late entry into the Pacific War had any bearing on its outcome."
You're completely distorting what I said. I didn't say that the Soviet entry into the war definitely caused Japan to surrender. All I said it that it is unclear whether it was the Soviet intervention or the atomic bombs that were decisive. It could have been either, or a combination of both. But if you're going to call something "asinine," you should be able to say why it is asinine. An idea or suggestion can simply be wrong without being asinine. And you still haven't shown why what I said warrants a word like that.
Leonard,
You might want to check out "Racing the Enemy" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. Hasegawa argues that the Soviet intervention was decisive.
I think it's amusing how this discussion started off with FDR's role during the Holocaust and has now shifted to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan and the Soviet's subsequent intervention that might have contributed to Japan's surrender.There is obviously something to be said for both sides of the coin. Sticking to issues and not personalities, most historians (with a dissenting few in the revisionist school) pretty much conclude that the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war sooner and ironically saved many more lives on both sides in that a major invasion of Japan was fortunately precluded. The Soviet's role is also an interesting one because it was Harry Truman who was primarily influential in getting Russia to declare war on Japan at the Potsdam Conference in late July of 1945. Truman felt he needed Stalin's support in order to force Japan to surrender as quickly as possible and thus avoid a full scale invasion. Since the atomic bomb had never been used he was not exactly sure of the fullest extent of its' actual impact. I know this sounds rather naive by today's standards but once again we have to view things within the context of the times. We even had to induce Stalin with giving him the Northern part of Korea then under Japanese control in order to go along. Once we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima, the Soviet Union formally declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. After Nagasaki Japan surrendered. Just which was more important, in retrospect it was the dropping of the bombs but Russia's involvement deserves some scrutiny as well. Of course Truman agreeing to a divided Korea in return for Stalin's support had its' subsequent consequences. But that is another story, for another time and place.
I think it's amusing how this discussion started off with FDR's role during the Holocaust and has now shifted to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan and the Soviet's subsequent intervention that might have contributed to Japan's surrender.There is obviously something to be said for both sides of the coin. Sticking to issues and not personalities, most historians (with a dissenting few in the revisionist school) pretty much conclude that the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war sooner and ironically saved many more lives on both sides in that a major invasion of Japan was fortunately precluded. The Soviet's role is also an interesting one because it was Harry Truman who was primarily influential in getting Russia to declare war on Japan at the Potsdam Conference in late July of 1945. Truman felt he needed Stalin's support in order to force Japan to surrender as quickly as possible and thus avoid a full scale invasion. Since the atomic bomb had never been used he was not exactly sure of the fullest extent of its' actual impact. I know this sounds rather naive by today's standards but once again we have to view things within the context of the times. We even had to induce Stalin with giving him the Northern part of Korea then under Japanese control in order to go along. Once we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima, the Soviet Union formally declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. After Nagasaki Japan surrendered. Just which was more important, in retrospect it was the dropping of the bombs but Russia's involvement deserves some scrutiny as well. Of course Truman agreeing to a divided Korea in return for Stalin's support had its' subsequent consequences. But that is another story, for another time and place.
"a tough-minded, politically dexterous leader who saved the lives of countless Jews by defeating Hitler but demonstrated cold-blooded indifference toward the fates of untold others when it was not politically expedient to do otherwise"? A little more nuanced than it needs to be. Roosevelt was one of the most politically adept leaders America ever had. But he was always lacking in the moral dimension. As the leader of the US, he was willing to fight the Nazis with every soldier that Stalin and the Soviets could provide. As such he had to allow Stalin to do whatever could be done to stop Hitler's plans for the east. He abdicated any responsibility and as such he allowed millions of Jews, not to mention Poles and Gypsies to go up in smoke and allowed Stalin to impose his brand of dictatorship over a hundred million in Eastern Europe. As the leader of the US during the Great Depression, he was perfectly willing to abdicate any responsibility for ending the horrible racism that existed in the American South because it would cost him the political support of a key part of the Democratic coalition. And he was indifferent to the plight of Americans of Japanese ancestry who were imprisoned in concentration camps in his name.
Not a great record for someone who thought of himself as a great social reformer.
Jack,
"He abdicated any responsibility and as such he allowed millions of Jews, not to mention Poles and Gypsies to go up in smoke and allowed Stalin to impose his brand of dictatorship over a hundred million in Eastern Europe."
This is grossly unfair. There is no way Roosevelt could have saved most of the Jews and others who were killed. What is in dispute is how many could have been saved. But to suggest that "millions" could have is absurd. If the Allies had the physical power to do that, how could Germany have continued the war at all? And how exactly could FDR have prevented Stalin from taking over Eastern Europe? It was inevitable that Eastern Europe would be in Soviet hands if the Soviets won the war on the Eastern Front. What was Roosevelt (and Truman after him) supposed to do, start World War III to "liberate" Eastern Europe? A war that, in addition to being enormously costly, that the U.S. would probably have lost anyway?
Lee, you are absolutely correct. Jack's statements are totally out of historical context. As I indicated earlier, the America of FDR was not the America of today, the one that elected Barak Obama to the Presidency. It was radically different in tone and FDR had to deal with America and the rest of the world the way it was at the time and not would one wished it should have been. FDR did not have the political capital to change our immigration laws or the opinions of nearly 90% of all Americans who wanted nothing to do with European affairs back in the 1930's and early 40's. As is, he risked impeachment when he defied a radically isolationist Congress and shipped military supplies to England after the fall of France in total violation of the Neutrality Acts of 1936, 1938 & 1940. For at least a generation he was the hapless victim of a malicious lie and rumor that he and his inner circle knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor beforehand and deliberately sacrificed our Pacific Fleet in order to change public opinion to get the US into WW2. From the late 1940's through the early 1970's this rumor circulated with impunity until it was finally put to rest when the late distinguished historian named Gordon Prang in 1980 published his classic "At Dawn We Slept." It consists of several hundred pages drawn on over thirty seven (37) years of research and interviews with every living American and Japanese official even remotely connected with Pearl Harbor. He literally turned the "Conspiracy Theory" on its' head. Yet even today in the face of the facts there are still a demented few who still believe FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor. It should also be known that still as of this very moment, nearly thirty years after his premature death, Gordon Prang is still regarded by his peers and students alike at the major authority on Pearl Harbor. The same kind of second guessing exists among the revisionists regarding his role during the Holocaust. As I indicated in my first entry, even if FDR and/or the State Department more aggressively pursued the Axis's "offers" to supposedly release more Jews and others still did not mean that they would done so when pushing came to shoving. Hitler and his thugs were not stupid. They understood the tactics of public relations quite well. It seems that David Wyman, Henry Feingold & the rest of the revisionists seem to place more faith on Hitler's tactics than the realities faced by FDR. Let history be the judge.
his duty was to win the war not save foregin citizens.there were no good choices, my hat is off to men like arthill,esienstein who did their duty.
I now recommend readers to Saving the Jews, Roosevelt and the Holocaust by Robert Rosen. Robert is my life-long friend, historian and colleague as an attorney in Charleston. He saw the legitimacy of this debate years ago and bravely joined the issues. I am the child of Holocaust Survivors. My Mother was liberated in January, 1945 and tells of being in Warsaw the day Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. She said it was announced over loud speakers and people simply stopped and wept. He was a good man who throughout the War was faced with monumental dilemmas. I carry no grudge against him.