To discuss the Zionists of the 30s and 40s without mentioning the research of Lenni Brenner, much less the views of Hannah Arendt, is a curious absence. Nonetheless, for these Zionists to portray FDR as an anti-Semite while ignoring their own roots of sometimes collaboration with the Nazis to allow immigration to Palestine is a most vile form of hypocrisy.
Yonah Fredman
July 25, 2013 12:08 pm
I am not up to date on the research of what actually could have been done by the allies and specifically by command of FDR during the war. I know what my prejudices were thirty years ago and I know that I have calmed down. (When my Italian barber spoke glowingly of Pius, I did not object, even in my heart. I haven’t done the research on what he could and couldn’t do.)(Is it racist to go to an Italian barber? Not in Brooklyn.)
Here’s a thought experiment question: Should the Allies or whomever have notified the Hungarian Jews what awaited them at the end of the train ride. They suspected, but what if they had known. These aren’t real questions, in terms of what can be historically divined. These are theoreticals. But I propose it only to show the emotional landmines involved.
Historians have a responsibility to study devoid of emotion. Policy makers have a responsibility to make the wisest decisions possible. (What role emotion should play is still being determined. Obama, with his professorial style, has had to avoid emotion, as the first black president it may have been useful for the George Zimmerman case, but maybe not as useful in the Syrian intervention case.)
I would vote with Meir Dagan against Israel attacking Iran and if Dagan changes his mind, I will look for someone else with soldierly credits to back up my desire to avoid a war with Iran. It is feasible that the study of the past is being used to justify current policy choices.
I just think that the genocide is such an intense emotional topic that it is absurd to think one’s personal attempts to compartmentalize the experience can be proposed for the next man’s emotions.
Walid
July 25, 2013 12:46 pm
Putting aside the usual holocaust propaganda in this piece, was there anything mythic about FDR’s participation or non-participation in the July 1938 Evian Conference to save Jews that he had called but not supported? The US, Canada, the UK and the rest of the world refused Hitler’s offer to take in Jews to save them from being killed. Only the Dominican Republic offered to take in some Jews provided they were doctors and in good health; all the rest turned their backs on the Jews.
We’re mixing apples and oranges here with this piece about today’s Zionist propaganda and whether or not FDR was anti-Jewish.
Dan Crowther
July 25, 2013 1:00 pm
“FDR’s Jewish Problem: How did a president beloved by Jews come to be regarded as an anti-Semite who refused to save them from the Nazis?”
Who cares? Seriously, who gives a shit? Everybody’s an antisemite and only 6 million people died in WWII according to clowns like Crowne, neither view really engenders a lot of good will in others, same with attacking FDR, not a good look.
Chu
July 25, 2013 1:34 pm
These groups excel at pointing the finger at everyone else, with their whisper campaigns, yet never accept responsibility for their actions.
All the rightwing orthodox sites blame everyone in the world for the Holocaust and jewish suffering. The Jewish Press publication was good at blaming everyone. I think it’s what establishes the solidarity of Zionism – blame the world, until the world accepts our point of view.
In 50 years Barack Obama will be the subject of their ire – I can see it now ‘he didn’t do enough to support the colonisation of Judea and Samaria’.
To discuss the Zionists of the 30s and 40s without mentioning the research of Lenni Brenner, much less the views of Hannah Arendt, is a curious absence. Nonetheless, for these Zionists to portray FDR as an anti-Semite while ignoring their own roots of sometimes collaboration with the Nazis to allow immigration to Palestine is a most vile form of hypocrisy.
I am not up to date on the research of what actually could have been done by the allies and specifically by command of FDR during the war. I know what my prejudices were thirty years ago and I know that I have calmed down. (When my Italian barber spoke glowingly of Pius, I did not object, even in my heart. I haven’t done the research on what he could and couldn’t do.)(Is it racist to go to an Italian barber? Not in Brooklyn.)
Here’s a thought experiment question: Should the Allies or whomever have notified the Hungarian Jews what awaited them at the end of the train ride. They suspected, but what if they had known. These aren’t real questions, in terms of what can be historically divined. These are theoreticals. But I propose it only to show the emotional landmines involved.
Historians have a responsibility to study devoid of emotion. Policy makers have a responsibility to make the wisest decisions possible. (What role emotion should play is still being determined. Obama, with his professorial style, has had to avoid emotion, as the first black president it may have been useful for the George Zimmerman case, but maybe not as useful in the Syrian intervention case.)
I would vote with Meir Dagan against Israel attacking Iran and if Dagan changes his mind, I will look for someone else with soldierly credits to back up my desire to avoid a war with Iran. It is feasible that the study of the past is being used to justify current policy choices.
I just think that the genocide is such an intense emotional topic that it is absurd to think one’s personal attempts to compartmentalize the experience can be proposed for the next man’s emotions.
Putting aside the usual holocaust propaganda in this piece, was there anything mythic about FDR’s participation or non-participation in the July 1938 Evian Conference to save Jews that he had called but not supported? The US, Canada, the UK and the rest of the world refused Hitler’s offer to take in Jews to save them from being killed. Only the Dominican Republic offered to take in some Jews provided they were doctors and in good health; all the rest turned their backs on the Jews.
We’re mixing apples and oranges here with this piece about today’s Zionist propaganda and whether or not FDR was anti-Jewish.
“FDR’s Jewish Problem: How did a president beloved by Jews come to be regarded as an anti-Semite who refused to save them from the Nazis?”
Who cares? Seriously, who gives a shit? Everybody’s an antisemite and only 6 million people died in WWII according to clowns like Crowne, neither view really engenders a lot of good will in others, same with attacking FDR, not a good look.
These groups excel at pointing the finger at everyone else, with their whisper campaigns, yet never accept responsibility for their actions.
All the rightwing orthodox sites blame everyone in the world for the Holocaust and jewish suffering. The Jewish Press publication was good at blaming everyone. I think it’s what establishes the solidarity of Zionism – blame the world, until the world accepts our point of view.
In 50 years Barack Obama will be the subject of their ire – I can see it now ‘he didn’t do enough to support the colonisation of Judea and Samaria’.