Sunday, November 18th | 10 Kislev 5779

Subscribe
October 25, 2017 1:59 pm

Let’s Look at FDR’s Record Truthfully

avatar by Rafael Medoff

Email a copy of "Let’s Look at FDR’s Record Truthfully" to a friend

The entrance to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

The upcoming 75th anniversary of Operation Torch — the Allies’ liberation of North Africa — has triggered discussions about the restrictions that the Roosevelt administration imposed on Jews living in that region, with one prominent scholar surprisingly coming to the defense of FDR’s harsh action. Who would have thought that in this day and age, equal rights for Jews would still be considered debatable?

Canadian historian Michael Marrus, writing in the online journal Mosaic on October 23, suggested that President Roosevelt was justified in temporarily denying equal rights to Jews in newly-liberated Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere, because if the US granted the Jews equality, it might cause “an Arab uprising” against the Allies. According to Marrus, the argument that such a danger was exaggerated might be plausible, but only “in hindsight.”

Marrus is mistaken. It wasn’t just in hindsight; American Jewish leaders confronted that “Arab uprising” warning at the time.

Consider, for example, the plea sent to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt by the era’s foremost Jewish leader, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, just a few months before the liberation of North Africa.

Related coverage

November 16, 2018 10:39 am
0

How Hamas Wins

Hamas wins. That’s the worst sentence to write. When this happens, the people of the Gaza Strip lose and the...

Concerning Allied fears that sympathy for the Jews would cause “repercussions among the Arabs,” Wise wrote: “Is it too much to say that the sacrifice of friends in the interests of appeasing the unfriendly has repeatedly proven to be vain? The [pro-Nazi] rebellion in Iraq, the presence of the [Palestinian Arab] Mufti in Berlin and Rome, the failure of Egypt to live up to her treaty of alliance (thousands of Palestine Jews, but no Arab-Egyptian soldiers, have been defending Egyptian soil against invasion) indicate that this policy has failed in the Near East as it has failed everywhere else.”

As a result, US Jewish organizations did something in early 1943 that they had almost never done before: they publicly criticized the Roosevelt administration. Wise’s American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress issued a joint statement charging that “the anti-Jewish legacy of the Nazis remains intact in North Africa.”

A delegation of Jewish leaders then went to the US State Department, to personally make the case for equal rights in North Africa before Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles. Jewish organizations also organized a group of prominent French exiles in the United States to present the State Department with a petition on the subject. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and French Jewish leader Baron Edouard de Rothschild also spoke out.

At first, the Roosevelt administration dug in its heels, trotting out the old bogeyman about a potential Arab uprising. But in response to public protests, the administration eventually instructed the local authorities in North Africa to restore equal rights for Jews and shut down the slave labor camps where thousands of Jews had been incarcerated under the old, pro-Nazi Vichy regime. And lo and behold — the granting of equality to the Jews did not result in any “Arab uprising” at all.

Unfortunately, Michael Marrus’ rationalization of FDR’s North Africa policy is just the latest in a series of instances in which authors have taken extreme positions in defense of Roosevelt’s record on Jewish matters.

Military archivist James Kitchens has defended the US refusal to bomb Auschwitz, on the grounds that such an air strike “might have been illegal under international law” because prisoners could have been harmed. Pro-FDR author Robert Rosen contends that Roosevelt was right to say almost nothing in public about the persecution of European Jewry, because “speaking out … may have increased Hitler’s determination to kill more Jews.”

Historians Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman have written that FDR’s anti-Jewish quotas in North Africa were an effort “to provide opportunities for Jews, without unduly antagonizing Moslems.” Breitman and Lichtman have characterized Roosevelt’s support for quotas on Jews entering Harvard as an attempt to ensure that “each group should have its share of places and no group should gain undue representation.” They even have claimed that FDR’s antisemitic remarks to Josef Stalin and other Soviet officials in private (in 1942 and 1945) were helpful as “ice-breakers.”

The fears that have been cited to justify FDR’s policies were always groundless. Equal rights for Jews were restored in North Africa — and no Arab uprising resulted. The US did bomb German oil factories adjacent to Auschwitz, inadvertently harming some slave laborers, but nobody prosecuted the pilots as war criminals. President Roosevelt’s anti-Jewish “ice-breakers” to Soviet officials did not result in any Soviet concessions. Nor did FDR’s reluctance to speak out about European Jewry calm Hitler down.

The historical record speaks for itself. And it’s much more revealing than the speculation in which some extreme defenders of President Roosevelt prefer to indulge.

Dr. Medoff is founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and author or editor of 17 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com