The US and the Holocaust

[CWSmith]

Anyone else watching it? Some of the internal US politics is a surprise to me. Roosevelt's Democratic opposition in the election did agree with him that the US needed to support Britain. That was a surprise. Lindbergh was not. The level of anti-Semitism is shocking.

[WX]

Well the US did have a pretty good Nazi party.

[epoxyboy]

Google IBM Hollerith, for a depressing little read on one US corporates part in that exercise.
Here's one take on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Pete

[Hallam]

What interests me is how the eugenics movement was a thing in Australia USA England and elsewhere but Hitler took it to another level and after the war everyone previously involved in eugenics became very silent on the subject. It was a serious movement within universities etc etc with some very drastic measures being contemplated so there was a cultural thing going on much wider than Germany yet Germany is singled out. Ok, for obvious reason, but all others pretend that they never contemplated such things…….

[skuthorp]

Yes, the Australian Natives Association for one thing….
And it goes back a while
https://twitter.com/tomdcroberts/sta...67874570899457

But then White Australia was the thing then, mostly stirred by the Chinese on the goldfields. The local Aboriginal population was expected to die, or be bred out at that time. Even in school text books as I remember well. And while that was being taught the full blood twin Meats brothers sat just in font of me in class.

[Concordia...41]

Man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds

[CWSmith]

^ Truth, but still our capacity for evil surprises me.

[John Smith]

I recorded it. Last night recorded part two, tonight part 1. Want to watch it in order.

[Boatbum]

Anyone else watching it? Some of the internal US politics is a surprise to me. Roosevelt's Democratic opposition in the election did agree with him that the US needed to support Britain. That was a surprise. Lindbergh was not. The level of anti-Semitism is shocking.

The very respected NY Times despite being owned by a Jew was very weak in its stories about Nazi Germany almost to the point of being a sympathizer. At least until the US entered the war.

[Breakaway]

The very respected NY Times despite being owned by a Jew was very weak in its stories about Nazi Germany almost to the point of being a sympathizer. At least until the US entered the war.

Huh?

Nazis Invade Poland;1937
https://archive.nytimes.com/learning...gworld-war-ii/

Reich Denounced; 1938
https://www.nytimes.com/1938/12/21/a...sultPosition=1

Plenty more here: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropm...tDate=19381008

Screen Shot 2022-09-21 at 12.04.30 PM.jpg


Kevin

[Boatbum]

Huh?

Nazis Invade Poland;1937
https://archive.nytimes.com/learning...gworld-war-ii/

Reich Denounced; 1938
https://www.nytimes.com/1938/12/21/a...sultPosition=1

Plenty more here: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropm...tDate=19381008

Screen Shot 2022-09-21 at 12.04.30 PM.jpg


Kevin

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...t-during-wwii/

A case in point is the New York Times coverage of Adolph Hitler’s so-called Final Solution – the plan to exterminate all Jews living in Europe. According to Journalism Professor Laura Leff of Northeastern University, “No American newspaper was better positioned to highlight the Holocaust than the Times, and no American newspaper so influenced public discourse by its failure to do so.”

The New York Times, which began publishing in 1851, is regarded as one of the world’s best newspapers. Its reputation for reliable, comprehensive coverage was secure by the early 1940s. Its foreign correspondents, including 30 reporters stationed in Europe, were well-positioned to uncover and report the Holocaust. Indeed, the Times did not ignore the story. In fact, historian David Wyman argues that “the Times provided by far the most complete American press coverage of Holocaust events.” Yet, as Laura Leff points out in her book, Buried By The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper total coverage mattered less than the placement of the news and the frequency of stories about the Holocaust. Although the Times published nearly 1200 stories on the Holocaust during WWII, only 26 of 24,000 front-page stories dealt with the Holocaust, and many of those failed to report the targeting of Jews by the Nazi regime.

or Pick up a copy of "Buried by the Times"

An in-depth look at how The New York Times failed in its coverage of the fate of European Jews from 1939–45. It examines how the decisions that were made at The Times ultimately resulted in the minimizing and misunderstanding of modern history's worst genocide. Laurel Leff, a veteran journalist and professor of journalism, recounts how personal relationships at the newspaper, the assimilationist tendencies of The Times' Jewish owner, and the ethos of mid-century America, all led The Times to consistently downplay news of the Holocaust. It recalls how news of Hitler's 'final solution' was hidden from readers and - because of the newspaper's influence on other media - from America at large. Buried by The Times is required reading for anyone interested in America's response to the Holocaust and for anyone curious about how journalists determine what is newsworthy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report...caust-coverage

Between 1939 and 1945, The New York Times published more than 23,000 front-page stories. Of those, 11,500 were about World War II. Twenty-six were about the Holocaust.

[rbgarr]

FDR's reluctance to propose greater immigration allowances was (according to the series) based on his concern that opening up a congressional consideration of them could lead to a result of ALL immigration being closed off by isolationists... which then happened for Jews anyway.

I think the same thing is at work today. MAGA, etc., would prefer all immigration be eliminated.

The notion that Jews were/are considered a 'race' is so indescribably pernicious!

[Boatbum]

FDR's reluctance to propose greater immigration allowances was (according to the series) based on his concern that opening up a congressional consideration of them could lead to a result of ALL immigration being closed off by isolationists... which then happened for Jews anyway.

I think the same thing is at work today. MAGA, etc., would prefer all immigration be eliminated.

The notion that Jews were/are considered a 'race' is so indescribably pernicious!

Perhaps, but not from the people I know. They think it is good an necessary that the country bring in immigrants, but that it should be done legally and in a manageable rate. You can't have 6,000 people crossing the boarder illegally every day in addition to those that have entered legally. What they don't like is people coming into the country illegally and ahead of those who waited patiently in line. It is easier to villainize someone if you think they just want to keep brown people out but I have not seen that from any of my conservative and/or MAGA friends.

[skuthorp]

……and climate change refugee flows have barely started……...

[CWSmith]

……and climate change refugee flows have barely started……...

This will not be a haven from climate change. Predictions are that the dust bowl will rise again.

[Breakaway]

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...t-during-wwii/



or Pick up a copy of "Buried by the Times"



https://www.thedailybeast.com/report...caust-coverage

First of all: You moved the goalposts.

Your post stated the times reportage of" as very weak in its stories about Nazi Germany almost to the point of being a sympathizer. At least until the US entered the war."

The Holocaust--the tragedy of genocide-- wasn't known about til near the end of the war.

Second, you don't have to rely on third-party sources to see what the Times ( or any paper) covered or didnt cover. Simply go to the archives of the publication in question and see for yourself.

Kevin

[Boatbum]

First of all: You moved the goalposts.

Your post stated the times reportage of" as very weak in its stories about Nazi Germany almost to the point of being a sympathizer. At least until the US entered the war."

The Holocaust--the tragedy of genocide-- wasn't known about til near the end of the war.

Second, you don't have to rely on third-party sources to see what the Times ( or any paper) covered or didnt cover. Simply go to the archives of the publication in question and see for yourself.

Kevin

How could I move the goalposts? Wasn't the thread labeled "The US and the Holocaust?

Actually it was known and reported pretty accurately on a couple of very small US newspapers.

As for going to the archives. Seriously? First of all I would need a subscription and if I did you are thinking I would review every day's coverage for seven years of WW2 and the decade before to see if something was missed or minimized? Best of all, I don't need to as it has already been done if you would look for it.

Just curious. You don't think that news reporting of Nazi Germany was "weak" if stories about the Holocaust were omitted or buried inside the paper? Seems to me this one one of Hitler's major causes. Actually a 1922 NYT report on Hitler accurately reported Hitler's strong antisemitism, but speculated this was just an election issue and that he wasn't serious.

In 1922, Adolf Hitler was a rising power in German politics, just having become the leader of the newly founded Nazi party. In its first mention of the future dictator, The New York Times downplayed Hitler’s anti-Semitism, writing that it was merely a tool of propaganda, employed to gain more followers.
Several “reliable, well-informed sources” told the Times that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was “not so genuine or violent as it sounded.”

At the outbreak of the Second World War, The New York Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was known to sit in the bar of the city’s famous Adlon Hotel spouting “a loudmouthed defense of Nazism,” eventually provoking another reporter to complain to the Times’ publisher: “Isn’t it about time that The New York Times did something about its Nazi correspondent?”

But the Times had no intention of doing anything about Enderis. In fact, it valued his close connections to the Nazi government, as it had throughout the 1930s. All American newspapers found reporting in Nazi Germany difficult. The government tightly controlled information and harangued and threatened reporters who managed to publish what it didn’t like. The Nazi regime also didn’t hesitate to use its strongest weapons—banning a newspaper from distribution in Germany, kicking a reporter out of the country, or denying a reporter’s reentry. As a putatively “Jewish-owned” newspaper, The New York Times considered itself a special target. Bureau chief Enderis’ job therefore was “administering reasonably soothing syrup” to Nazi officials, as another Times reporter put it.

Yet, Enderis’ actions weren’t purely strategic and their consequences were grave. Throughout the 1930s, Enderis helped steer Times coverage to play down Jewish persecution and play up Germany’s peaceful intentions. He kowtowed to Nazi officials, wrote stories presenting solely the Nazi point of view, and reined in Times reporters whose criticism he thought went too far, shaping the news in favor of a genocidal regime bent on establishing a “Thousand Year Reich.”

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/h...-correspondent

[CWSmith]

One of the things that surprised me was that Germany and Russia signed a 10-year non-aggression pact and then carved up Poland. Soon after, the two are at war and we are saying good things about Russia even though many Poles had been transported and died in the frozen north of Russia.

[Osborne Russell]

Estonia, I believe, is rejecting Russian applications for asylum, in order to keep out Russian agents. Perhaps several other nations. The very same policy employed by the US and others WRT to the Jews, justly condemned by the Ken Burns series. But before we saddle up a foolish consistency hobgoblin, let's remember:

1. Unlike the Jews, all Russians have to do is turn east and go home, without a passport, let alone a visa.

2. Unlike the Jews, they aren't being discriminated against. Russia provides a guaranteed state-provided minimum level of basic zhittyness to all its citizens equally.

As for the exarchates, how delicious to think of the last hold-out Russians being wrung from the remaining scraps of Stalinist Europe like dirty water wrung from a dish towel with a vigorous twisting motion, like they wrung out their "enemies" the Jews, and the rest. Hit the road, Ivan. Keep walking east.

Or simply remain a citizen of your country from which Russia got booted. Drop the irredentism like a bad habit.

[rbgarr]

Perhaps, but not from the people I know. They think it is good an necessary that the country bring in immigrants, but that it should be done legally and in a manageable rate. You can't have 6,000 people crossing the boarder illegally every day in addition to those that have entered legally. What they don't like is people coming into the country illegally and ahead of those who waited patiently in line. It is easier to villainize someone if you think they just want to keep brown people out but I have not seen that from any of my conservative and/or MAGA friends.

The GOP through Trump eviscerated the asylum courts process. It slowed down legal immigration to a virtual halt. https://immigrantjustice.org/timelin...rts-end-asylum

[CWSmith]

What is the parallel? Are the Russians applying for political or humanitarian asylum?

I'd prefer to provide Russian revolutionaries with the means to attack their government.

[Osborne Russell]

This seems kind of harsh, but these countries are much closer to Russia. In fact they were conquered by Russia, and Russia shows signs of wanting to re-conquer them.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation...-20220919.html

Baltic nations close their borders to Russians over the Ukraine war

The prime ministers of the three Baltic nations — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — and Poland agreed earlier this month to stop admitting Russian citizens.

WARSAW, Poland — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania closed their borders Monday to most Russian citizens in response to the wide domestic support in Russia for the war in Ukraine.

Under the coordinated travel ban, Russians wishing to travel to the Baltic countries as tourists or for business, sports or cultural purposes will not be allowed in even if they hold valid visas for the European Union's checks-free Schengen Area.

The prime ministers of the three Baltic nations and Poland agreed earlier this month to stop admitting Russian citizens, saying the move would protect the security of the four European Union member nations.

“Russia is an unpredictable and aggressive state. Three-quarters of its citizens support the war. It is unacceptable that people who support the war can freely travel around the world, into Lithuania, the EU," Lithuanian Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite said Monday.

[Osborne Russell]

The German center/left raises the lamp of liberty:

https://www.baltictimes.com/estonian...ers__madness_/

Estonian MEP: German parties' idea to grant asylum to mobilization dodgers 'madness'
2022-09-22

TALLINN – Riho Terras, member of the European Parliament from Estonia, has described as "complete madness" the proposal of the Greens and liberal FDP groups in the German parliament to offer asylum to Russians fleeing their country to escape the mobilization ordered by President Vladimir Putin, warning that following through with the idea would threaten the security of Europe.

"European countries must not create a situation where tens of thousands of Russian men arrive in the European Union as an uncontrolled mass. This would be many times worse than the refugee crisis of 2015, when Germany's then chancellor Angela Merkel invited all refugees to Germany," Terras, former chief of defense of Estonia, said.

"Any mass border crossings from Russia into the border countries of the European Union would create opportunities for provocations and potential grounds for 'little green men' action. We must take into account that the war is not only being fought between Ukraine and Russia, but it is a war initiated by Russia against the European Union, NATO and the West. In such a situation, there is no place for naivety," said Terras, stressing that EU borders must be kept closed to Russian citizens.

"These same mobilized people must fight at home for Russia to become a normal, democratic state that respects international law," the MEP said.

Politicians from the German Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) have proposed granting asylum in Germany to Russian citizens who want to escape the mobilization declared in Russia, Germany's Der Spiegel news magazine reported. Both parties are members of the coalition governing Germany.

[johnw]

The GOP through Trump eviscerated the asylum courts process. It slowed down legal immigration to a virtual halt. https://immigrantjustice.org/timelin...rts-end-asylum

Trump had no effect on illegal immigration, in contrast to the declines in illegal immigration under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. His policies only affected legal immigration. So anyone who agreed with Trump's immigration policies, logically, must have been opposed to legal immigration, which Trump managed to cut considerably.

Just to nudge us back to the topic, it's hard to think of a country that covered itself with glory in regards to the Holocaust. Denmark reacted nobly, but most countries, not so much.

[CWSmith]

Trump had no effect on illegal immigration, in contrast to the declines in illegal immigration under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.

The numbers I have seen say that Trump deported only about 2/3 the number of illegals as his predecessors.

[Peerie Maa]

Just to nudge us back to the topic, it's hard to think of a country that covered itself with glory in regards to the Holocaust. Denmark reacted nobly, but most countries, not so much.

This made me look into our record.

After Adolf Hitler came into power in 1933 and enacted policies that would culminate in the Holocaust, Jews began to escape German-occupied Europe and the United Kingdom was one of the destinations. Some came on transit visas, which meant that they stayed in Britain temporarily, while waiting to be accepted by another country. Others entered the country by having obtained employment or a guarantor, or via Kindertransport. There were about 70,000 Jewish refugees who were accepted into Britain by the start of World War II on 1 September 1939, and an additional 10,000 people who made it to Britain during the war.
<snip>
Following Kristallnacht in November 1938, Jewish and Quaker community leaders met with the British government to explore ways in which children could be saved from the actions of the Nazi regime.^[14] The British government allowed for the immigration without visas of Jewish children, but without their parents, through the Children's Transport program called Kindertransport.^[5][9] Between December 1938 and the start of World War II on Sept 1, 1939 when the program was forced to end, nearly 10,000 Kindertransport children had been rescued. and had arrived in England.
<snip>
Organised by the precursor of World Jewish Relief, around 4,000 mainly Austrian and German adult Jewish men received an arranged passage and were accepted for accommodation in the Kitchener Camp in Kent during 1939, on condition they would not be granted UK citizenship or work, and must emigrate to the US, Australia and elsewhere. At the start of the war, 887 volunteered for the Pioneer Corps. After the Dunkirk evacuation in May 1940, public opinion turned against German-speaking refugees, who some suspected of being spies or saboteurs. Those not serving in the war effort were interned or deported to Australia and Canada and the camp was closed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish...United_Kingdom
There were problems. Unions were concerned about the influx of workers effect on the already high unemployment, and there was concern about spies and espionage, resulting in internment/deportation to Australia of those with German or Italian as their first language.
The Kinder Transport was really successful for those that they could bring out, and as bad as internment could be, it did result inn the Amadeus Quartet.

[Breakaway]

How could I move the goalposts? Wasn't the thread labeled "The US and the Holocaust?



As for going to the archives. Seriously? First of all I would need a subscription and if I did you are thinking I would review every day's coverage for seven years of WW2 and the decade before to see if something was missed or minimized? Best of all, I don't need to as it has already been done if you would look for it.

Just curious. You don't think that news reporting of Nazi Germany was "weak" if stories about the Holocaust were omitted or buried inside the paper? Seems to me this one one of Hitler's major causes. Actually a 1922 NYT report on Hitler accurately reported Hitler's strong antisemitism, but speculated this was just an election issue and that he wasn't serious.






https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/h...-correspondent

You moved the goalposts when you made a statement first about pre war coverage and then, when presented with a link to dozens of NYT stories about Nazi Germany published prior to 1937, retorted with a complaint about events not known til late in the war.

You made a statement about A and then changed the subject to B.

No subscription is required to view the archives at the link I provided. Put in the subject and date range you would like to search.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[John Smith]

I recorded episode 1, 2, and3, but 2 and 3 turned out to be the same thing.

Were there three episodes?

[John Smith]

FDR's reluctance to propose greater immigration allowances was (according to the series) based on his concern that opening up a congressional consideration of them could lead to a result of ALL immigration being closed off by isolationists... which then happened for Jews anyway.

I think the same thing is at work today. MAGA, etc., would prefer all immigration be eliminated.

The notion that Jews were/are considered a 'race' is so indescribably pernicious!

There are some parts of history that we can judge by today's standards and knowledge. There are other parts that doing so is unfair.

Often our president has few options, and sometimes NONE are good.

I can understand how many could not believe what they were told was going on under Hitler.

[John Smith]

Trump had no effect on illegal immigration, in contrast to the declines in illegal immigration under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. His policies only affected legal immigration. So anyone who agreed with Trump's immigration policies, logically, must have been opposed to legal immigration, which Trump managed to cut considerably.

Just to nudge us back to the topic, it's hard to think of a country that covered itself with glory in regards to the Holocaust. Denmark reacted nobly, but most countries, not so much.

Those who were flown to Martha's Vineyard were legal. Anyone else wonder why he couldn't have found a group in HIS state to fly there?

[John Smith]

The numbers I have seen say that Trump deported only about 2/3 the number of illegals as his predecessors.

He built that wall that Mexico paid for so there weren't as many to deport. Least I expect that's how Trump explains it.

[skuthorp]

There are some parts of history that we can judge by today's standards and knowledge. There are other parts that doing so is unfair.

Often our president has few options, and sometimes NONE are good.

I can understand how many could not believe what they were told was going on under Hitler.

Did the believe it was 'going on' under Pol Pot?
Do they believe it is 'going on' under Xi, Putin, and in Myanmar?

If so what then?

[CWSmith]

John, I think these are two or three different issues.

There are some parts of history that we can judge by today's standards and knowledge. There are other parts that doing so is unfair.

Carter has written about growing up in a racist south. The voices all around him were loud and certain, but at some level he could not deny the humanity of African Americans. I have to think the same is true about the Jews and the Holocaust. The people who supported Hitler do not have an excuse.

Often our president has few options, and sometimes NONE are good.

This is politics and there were statements in the show about working toward the greater good. I won't fault Roosevelt for his choices, but I will fault America for ours.

I can understand how many could not believe what they were told was going on under Hitler.

I get this. I wish that such behavior were beyond our imagination now, but it is not. We now know of depravity that humans are capable of reaching.

[John Smith]

Did the believe it was 'going on' under Pol Pot?
Do they believe it is 'going on' under Xi, Putin, and in Myanmar?

If so what then?

I imagine it's easier to believe now than it was then.

[John Smith]

John, I think these are two or three different issues.



Carter has written about growing up in a racist south. The voices all around him were loud and certain, but at some level he could not deny the humanity of African Americans. I have to think the same is true about the Jews and the Holocaust. The people who supported Hitler do not have an excuse.



This is politics and there were statements in the show about working toward the greater good. I won't fault Roosevelt for his choices, but I will fault America for ours.



I get this. I wish that such behavior were beyond our imagination now, but it is not. We now know of depravity that humans are capable of reaching.

It was hard to believe that so many Germans actually did this stuff for Hitler. But then, I have a hard time understanding hating so much.


My other question: were/are there three parts in this series?