For an index of my Nazi/Holocaust posts, please go here.
In my last post, I was looking at Holocaust websites. One of the sites was The Safe Haven Holocaust Refugee Shelter Museum which is located in Oswego New York.
The museum's story deals with the American response to the Holocaust which I find to be very interesting.
For this post, I'm planning to continue my learning by watching a documentary, on PBS, about Safe Haven.
I'll watch and comment. I might also go on tangents and down rabbit holes.
* * *
Wow.
It starts off very graphic and gruesome.
The first shot is open crematorians with what are probably bodies inside.
The second shot is a large pile of dead, very skinny bodies. Almost skeletons.
Next: A few faces of people who might be Jewish? Probably.
And then there's a dead body with flies crawling on it.
There's a shot of children looking out a train window. One of the kids gives a demonic smile. I don't know what to make of it. It MIGHT be a happy Jewish child—happy and relieved he's being rescued. Maybe his smile is not evil but mischievous. Or is it supposed to be an evil little Nazi child?
I really have no idea.
* * *
There's a clip of Eli Wiesel making a wise statement. He says we should be grateful for every human being who's been saved but at the same time think about how many people could have/should have been saved.
I think that's often a good approach to many things in life. Be grateful. Feel blessed. But don't let gratitude blind us from learning from history and trying to make things better.
And.....
If the results are mostly pretty shitty with only a minimum of good; then it's probably best to not gloat with positivity.
* * *
The narrator or host of the show is Robert Clary, an actor from Hogan's Heroes...and he's also a survivor of the Holocaust.
He went through five concentration camps.
So see.
We can be grateful he survived. But we can also see it as devastating that he had to endure all that shit.
* * *
I wonder how many famous people are Holocaust survivors.
And how many famous people didn't endure the camps but had to endure the trauma of escaping their home and country.
I'm not including people who are famous for Holocaust reasons...like Elie Wiesel or Viktor Frankl.
Oh...I think this is going to be a major rabbit hole.
* * *
I'm looking at an article in Grunge.
Well....maybe I'll look elsewhere.
I checked Media Bias/Fact Check. They rate Grunge as mixed when it comes to factual recording, and they say it has low credibility.
Ouch.
Haaretz has left bias and high credibility. They have an article about the subject. But I have to pay to read it. I do feel it's come time for me to buy a subscription to some kind of journalism. I'm not sure which one I want to commit to, though.
ListVerse is right center and rated as mostly factual. I'd rather go with center or left but for now...I'll go with them.
In terms of eventually paying for a subscription, it will probably be for one that I'm often wanting to read. This is the first time for my research on all this that I've wanted to read something from Haaretz and have been blocked.
* * *
I'm feeling guilty.
My conscience is pushing me to pay for at least a month.
But my other conscience is warning me. Will it be a month? What if it's hard to cancel your subscription? What if you forget? What if two years later you realize you've paid $336 dollars and never even ended up reading anything else from Haaretz?
Back to the first conscience: But wouldn't you rather support left-wing Israelis over relying on a right-wing source?
* * *
I just looked more closely and saw that if I sign up or remember my old login in, I can read the Harretz article for free.
I just reset my password, and I'm in.
I'm guessing now I will have a certain amount of articles I can read for free and then I'd have to pay.
I should check with other websites that have an automatic paywall.
I know some will let you pop onto the site and read a certain number of articles; then tell you to subscribe if you want to read more that month.
But maybe others are like Haaretz where you have to sign up to read anything, but it's still free. For awhile.
I really wish there was a bundle we could buy. Is there one?
I'm picturing something where you pay about 10 dollars a month and get access to five different publications. Maybe they'd let you choose out of a few hundred.
They could have different plans. Ten dollars gets you five. Twenty-five dollars gets you 50.
My pricing may be too low.
I have no idea how much these things usually cost.
Haaretz is $14 a month which seems high to me.
* * *
The Dallas Morning News is $4 dollars a week which would be $16 a month.
So, I guess Haaretz is on par for that.
I'll change my bundle idea for $16 dollars a month for access to seven sites.
I think I'd pick Haaretz, The Orlando Sentinel, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Dallas Morning News, and The Los Angeles Times.
I'm not sure what else I'd pick.
Any suggestions?
This is how I am when we buy a lottery ticket. I let my imagination run away and start stressing over how we should handle our money.
I should note that I already have access to The Washington Post. It comes with our Amazon subscription.
* * *
I know what I'd pick for my sixth site.
The Texas Tribune.
I follow them on Instagram. They have very good left-leaning posts about Texas. To be honest, I usually feel satisfied with the bits of information they provide on Instagram. It's fairly detailed. I don't often think...Oh, I wish I could read this more in depth. BUT....I'd want to support them. And maybe if I was paying for it, I'd find myself being more interested.
* * *
This post is already getting long, and I'm on minute 2:23 out of 57:23 of the documentary.
And I haven't even gone down the rabbit hole of famous Holocaust survivors.
I'm like stuck on a ledge at the beginning of a rabbit hole.
* * *
Now I'm going to look at the Haaretz article.
No! I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of figuring out what Haaretz means.
Maybe later.
I've been learning the Hebrew alphabet on Duolingo, by the way, which led me to learning that glitch has Hebrew origins.
Anyway...
Roman Polanski is a Holocaust survivor.
He made a five hour testimony to the USC Shoah Foundation, but it has never been made public.
Are there plans for the testimony to ever be made public? Or is it more like they are going to keep it private but get information about it. I mean parts of it might be shared but not shared as Polanski's personal story.
Branko Lustig a film producer (Gladiator, Schindler's List) was freed from Auschwitz at the age of 12.
Meyer Gottlieb, producer and president of Samuel Goldwyn films, is a survivor. Most of his relatives dug their own graves and were shot.
Leon Prochnik is a Holocaust survivor and the writer of Child's Play. But not THAT Child's Play.
Ruth Westheimer was a survivor of the Holocaust and later, as a teen, was trained in British-Palestine to be a sniper.
Curt Lowens escaped Berlin and was an actor. He became known for playing Nazi characters, including Josef Mengele.
Was he Jewish?
Lord Wiki says yes.
And Lowens was also known for helping to rescue 150 Jewish children during the Holocaust.
Bill Harvey a cosmetologist to actors such as Judy Garland and Zsa Zsa Gabor was found and rescued when he was unconscious and in a pile of bodies meant for the crematorium.
Well...he was unconscious and left for dead in the pile of bodies. I don't know if he was still unconscious when he was rescued. I'm guessing not, because, otherwise, how would anyone have found him?
Ruth Posner, the founding member of the London Contemporary Dance Company escaped by choosing a new identity. They took off their yellow stars, crossed the street, and....
It's probably a bit more complicated than that.
Dario Gabbai, an actor, has horrid memories from being one of the Jews assigned to do morbid, cruel work for the Nazis.
* * *
Midway through the article, I realized that the article was specifically about Hollywood people.
It would be interesting to know about other types of famous people who were Holocaust survivors. I'm not going to do that now, though.
Maybe I'll add this to future post ideas.
* * *
Returning to the documentary....
I saw that the writer, producer, and director is Paul Lewis.
I decided to look him up on IMDb which led me to finding out that Safe Haven is not on IMDb.
That's strange.
I couldn't find a Paul Lewis with the documentary under his belt. And it's not mentioned on Robert Clary's filmography.
Unless I'm missing something....
* * *
The documentary says there were 992 Jews arriving in Oswego rather than 982.
Never mind. Clary says 982. The closed captioning is wrong.
* * *
There's more images of people on a train.
They all look very happy.
Based on the context and the narration, I think they're not Nazis but Jews who had been chosen by FDR to be saved.
Clary gives insight into why the Jewish refugees were so happy.
A) They didn't realize they'd be imprisoned in the camp for the next 18 months.
B) They didn't realize their rescue was such a political controversy
It would be really sad to be so happy and relieved to be rescued; then learn that there were many people not wanting you to be rescued.
* * *
The documentary mentions the St. Louis ship. 930 Jewish refugees were rejected from the United States. It's a pretty important story in terms of the American response to the Holocaust and the history of American responses towards refugees.
David Wyman, a historian, says that the American government did know a genocide was happening. So while some try to use ignorance as an excuse for inaction, it's just that...an excuse.
Wyman says there are meeting minutes between FDR and Jewish leaders from December 8, 1942. And the minutes show he was aware that there was a systematic genocide happening in Europe.
The Jewish Virtual Library has more information about the meeting.
I was about to read it. But maybe I'll finish watching this part first. I don't want to read and then end up learning that what I learned could have been learned by just watching the video.
* * *
Clary says that one of the reasons Roosevelt didn't act was that labor unions were very opposed to immigration.
As far as I know, it's always been the left who are pro-labor unions.
So here...we can point the blame towards the left.
Was it mostly the left that is to blame for the low level of rescuing?
Were the right-wing people equally opposed?
For those supportive of saving more Jews...especially the most vocal ones...were they more likely to be left or right? Were there more than a tiny minority that were not Jewish themselves?
These are mostly rhetorical questions for now. But someday, I hope to look into it.
If I remember.
* * *
Another big factor, according to the documentary, was the State Department was antisemitic.
Who was NOT antisemitic?
* * *
I do wonder if some of the people fighting against rescuing the European Jews were not specifically antisemitic but anti-immigration in general.
I also am thinking that it's not like the United States has done a fantastic job rescuing and welcoming other genocide victims.
I think for each genocide or other extreme tragedy, we have rescued a fraction of people. But I think there are more people NOT rescued than there are ones rescued.
Even going beyond American-ethnocentrism to count all the people saved by other countries...Has their been a time when the world did a superb job at providing shelter and safety?
* * *
I'm going to pause the video now to read the page about the Roosevelt meeting.
The page says: The President sat behind the desk smoking a cigarette in a long cigarette-holder. The desk was full of all sorts of trinkets--ash trays, brass and porcelain figures, etc. There was not an empty spot on his desk. The figures were of all shapes and sizes.
Interesting details there.
Roosevelt is reported as starting the meeting with this:
I am a sadist, a man of extreme sadistic tendencies. When I appointed Governor Lehman as head of the new Office of Relief and Rehabilitation, I had some very sadistic thoughts in my head. I know that Governor Lehman is a great administrator, and I wanted a great administrator for this post. I had another thought in my mind, however. I had hopes that, when God spares my life and the war is over, to be able to go to Germany, stand behind a curtain and have the sadistic satisfaction of seeing some "Junkers" on their knees, asking Lehman for bread. And, by God, I'll urge him to give it to them.
This is SO not the guy who sang the "Tomorrow: Reprise with Annie.
What are junkers?
Lord Wiki says they're German aircraft.
But I'm guessing Roosevelt was referring to the people flying the planes and not the planes themselves.
The rabbis/Jewish leaders responded by suggesting that they pray.
I hate to say this but so far the meeting reminds me of a Trump meeting.
The rabbis started to tell Roosevelt about the Holocaust, asking him to spread news of it to the world and do something to stop it.
Part of Roosevelt's response:
The government of the United States is very well acquainted with most of the facts you are now bringing to our attention. Unfortunately we have received confirmation from many sources. Representatives of the United States government in Switzerland and other neutral countries have given up proof that confirm the horrors discussed by you. We cannot treat these matters in normal ways. We are dealing with an insane man-- Hitler, and the group that surrounds him represent an example of a national psychopathic case. We cannot act toward them by normal means. That is why the problem is very difficult. At the same time it is not in the best interest of the Allied cause to make it appear that the entire German people are murderers or are in agreement with what Hitler is doing.....
Do I wish Roosevelt took more action?
Yes.
Do I feel this was an atypical reaction to international conflict and genocide?
Not really.
The minutes say that Roosevelt then asked for suggestions but then didn't really seem to give much attention to the suggestions. I think it's one of those things where someone listens to us but they don't say anything. So we're left not knowing if they're the type of listeners who listen intently but silently, or if they're bored with what we're saying and totally thinking of something else.
The minutes also say that of the 29 minutes of the meeting, 23 were of Roosevelt talking. I think that's their way of saying that Roosevelt was more of a talker than a listener and learner...at least in this case.
After hearing the suggestions, Roosevelt went on a tangent about North Africa.
He said there was a Jewish problem there and that representatives were asked to try to get laws against the Jews abolished.
Then he said:
There are 17 million Moslems in North Africa, and there is no reason why anyone should enjoy greater rights than they. It is not our purpose to fight for greater rights for anyone at the expense of another group. We are for the freedom for all and equal rights for all.
Is he referring to Palestine?
And what was the Jewish problem?
At that point (1942) what problems were the Jews causing to the Muslims?
I shall have to look deeper into this on another day.
I'm hating Roosevelt at this point.
But I do love this proverb he shared in the meeting.
When a river you reach and the devil you meet, with the devil do not quarrel until the bridge you cross.
Amen to that!
Certain characters on Coronation Street should have followed this advice. They'd still be alive today. Maybe.
In terms of Roosevelt, though. Who does the devil refer to? Hitler? Were they trying to be diplomatic with him? I guess this was before they joined the war.
Pearl Harbor was 1944?
Oh...no.
It was 1941.
Sorry.
I'm bad at history dates.
So...Roosevelt was still trying to play nice with Hitler?
* * *
Getting back to the documentary.
Clary says that the US government refused to raise quotas to save more Jews. But worse than that, 90% of immigration visas were never issued.
Wyman shows the very long and complicated application that Jewish people would have had to fill out to have a chance to come to the United States.
He says the purpose of the complicated forms was to make it hard for Jews to come here.
I believe it.
Getting past bureaucracy is challenging even for those of us who have various privileges (enough free time, enough money, no major reading disabilities, computer access, etc). Sometimes I'm trying to sign up for something government-related. I end up getting so frustrated, and I think about how it must be so much worse for people who lack resources.
It's really hard to believe that this is not done on purpose.
* * *
Clary says that the State Department asked Switzerland to stop sending information about the genocide.
The coverup lasted fourteen months.
I consulted Lord Wiki to learn who was the Head of State back in those days.
He says it was Cordell Hull.
He also says that Hull helped to establish The United Nations.
This might be PART of the reasons that some Jews are skeptical and hateful towards the United Nations.
It was Hull who advised Roosevelt to turn away the St. Louis ship.
Was Hull reincarnated into Stephen Miller?
On a more positive note, Eleanor Roosevelt fought back when Asshole Hull tried to block a later ship with refugees. Hull tried to block them from getting visas. Roosevelt was able to get them rescued.
Yay Eleanor!
Fuck Franklin and Cordell.
I'm pretty sure they were reincarnated as Trump and Miller.
To: The Powers that Be: Just a suggestion. Maybe for their next incarnation. How about, instead of human being or other type of mammal... Maybe public lice would be a good choice?
* * *
A part of me is saying....
Roosevelt is a celebrated president.
Yeah. He was antisemitic.
Just remember he also did really good things. Like...The New Deal.
But....
The same could be said for Trump.
Yeah. He's done a lot of bad.
But because of him, we have Space Force. That might save our planet someday. Or even our galaxy.
I think it's okay to hate a president and think he's a piece of evil, bigoted shit...but also recognize that a few good things came out of their presidency.
* * *
After writing what I wrote above, I listened to BBC while taking a shower.
They talked about the Uyghur Muslims in China.
That's an example of major human rights violations and not much being done about it.
I think that's why I can't easily blame antisemitism for the inaction of the United States during the Holocaust.
I also can't say...well, it's antisemitism and Islamaphobia, then.
International politics is extremely complicated.
It's like playing Jenga.
Let's say the piece we're trying to remove on our turn is genocide. But that action is likely to lead to military casualties, trade problems (which will lead to economic issues), the possibility of starting a major war...maybe a nuclear holocaust.
I think we have this idea that if the President has a big enough heart, he can snap his fingers and make everything okay again.
Yeah. I'm softening a bit towards FDR. That might change as I watch more of the documentary.
I do also think that taking in refugees is a much less volatile move than invading a country or bombing them. So FDR should have done more there.
* * *
I'm consulting Lord Wiki about the Uyghur genocide.
He says it's the largest detention of an ethnic/religious minority since World War II. From the little I'm reading, it's less about directly murdering people and more about about genocide through forced sterilization, abortion, removal of children from families, etc.
Lord Wiki has a description of how various countries have reacted to the genocide.
The European Union has spoken out against the human rights abuses. Along with the UK, U.S and Canada, they have imposed some sanctions.
Australia has raised concerns.
Belarus spoke up in support of what China is doing...or denied any wrongdoing.
Belgium condemned China's behavior.
Cuba supported China.
France condemned....
Maybe I should just make lists.
So....
Countries standing up for the Uyghurs: Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, France, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Israel, United Kingdom, United States, Finland,
Countries standing up to defend China: Balarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Cameroon, Madagascar, Morocco,
Yeah. I was a bit lot surprised to see Muslim countries on the Pro-China side.
I'm sure it's very complicated. And it's also important to remember...have to remind myself repeatedly, that a country is not made up of one opinion.
I'm sure there are many Egyptians, Indonesians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Palestinians, and Saudis who side with the Uyghurs and not China.
It's just like I'm sure there were many Europeans who sided with the Jews and not Hitler.
There are many Texans who side with women and the LGBTQ+ rather than the sadistic, bigoted Texas GOP.
But.
I do wonder why I hear so much worry and compassion for Palestinians—the Muslims in Israel/Palestine along with so much anger against Israelis, Jews, and Zionists.
Is the outrage against China on social media equal to the outrage against Israel?
* * *
I'm going to look more into the United States—our reaction to the Uyghur genocide.
It seems to be a major interest for Marco Rubio. I usually hate that guy. But it's good he's taking a stand against genocide.
John Bolton claims that Trump told Xi Jinping that the decision to detain Uyghurs was a good one. I vaguely remember hearing about that. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.
Officially, though, it seems the Trump administration and Republican party were pretty much in support of supporting the Uyghur.
Biden is also on team Uyghur.
Both American Jewish and American Muslim religious leaders/groups have come out strongly in support of the Uyghur.
* * *
Although compassion and righteousness plays a part in wanting to defend people against human rights abuses and genocide...
The notion of the enemy of our enemy is our friend and the friend of our enemy is our enemy also plays a role.
For some people, the passionate defense of Palestinians might be less about love for Palestinians and more about hatred for Jews.
The passionate defense of the Uyghur might sometimes be less about compassion for minority ethnic groups in China and more about hatred of China or Chinese communism.
It can all get really complicated and confusing when a single entity is the enemy of one of our enemies but also the friend of a different enemy of ours.
* * *
I'm at 7:19 of the Safe Haven Documentary.
This post will have to be broken up into multiple parts.
Though I'm going to watch a bit more before ending this one.
* * *
The documentary talks about how while the State Department was against helping the Jews in Europe, the Treasury Department was in opposition to the State Department.
OR...some lawyers from the Treasury Department?
I need to rewatch the scene....
* * *
Treasury Department lawyers uncovered cables from Switzerland...I guess ones that the State Department were hiding.
I'm not sure what is meant by State Department Lawyers. Are they appointed by the President? Hired by officials appointed by the President?
I'll keep that as rhetorical questioning for now.
The Treasury Department not only found the info from Switzerland but also documents showing the State Department's instructions/plans for the information to be suppressed.
I feel all this (State Department vs Treasury Department) is a rabbit hole that needs a post of it's own.
I have a list I keep adding to, by the way.
* * *
The Lawyers created a memorandum titled "Acquiescence of this Government and the Murder of the Jews".
The skeptical side of me is thinking these lawyers were either Jewish....
OR...the lawyers were not Jewish but they hated THIS government. The State Department? Roosevelt?
Could it be a left vs right thing?
* * *
The Treasury lawyers took their memorandum to the Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau.
Morgenthau took it to Roosevelt.
No. Wait.
I misheard that.
Clary says that the lawyers demanded Morgenthau take it to Roosevelt. I haven't heard yet about whether or not he did what they asked.
* * *
Morgenthau did take it to Roosevelt.
And that led to the plan of rescuing a thousand Jews.
* * *
I'm trying to figure out the timeline.
How much time passed between Roosevelt meeting with the Jewish community and the Treasury Department Lawyers finding the cables from Switzerland.
I need to scroll up and find what I wrote yesterday.
The meeting happened on December 8, 1942. I'm not sure if I wrote that. I did only skimming with my scrolling. But I followed a link I had posted.
The Switzerland Cable discoveries happened in December 1943.
So there was about a year of suppression and inaction.
Well...the documentary actually says it was 14 months.
I guess that's because Roosevelt already knew what was happening to the Jews BEFORE the Jewish leaders came to talk to him.
* * *
The Treasury Department lawyers might have inspired Roosevelt into action more so than the Jewish leaders at the year prior meeting, because they didn't just plead for him to stop the horrors. They talked about how once the suppression by the State Department become known, this would lead to a scandal and tarnish the reputation of the Roosevelt administration.
* * *
Fast forward to April 1944.
A columnist named Samuel Grafton suggested open ports for people.
I'm not sure what that is, but I'm going to keep listening to find out.
Well....
I think he was pretty much advocating for detention centers.
It would be a place where people are safe from they dangers they fled. But they would have no rights until the US government decided what to do with them.
I'm reading his column on Newspapers.com.
Some quotes from it:
1. By an easy legal fiction, entrance into a "free port" would not constitute legal entrance into the country, and stay in the "free port" would not constitute residence in the country.
2. There is a functioning free port in the New York City area, into which foreign merchandise and alien corn can be brought without payment of customs duties, parked for a while, then transshipped elsewhere. The stuff can stay here for a year without ever being considered to be in the country, and if we can use a legal fiction to make a dollar, we ought to be able to use a similar legal fiction to save a life.
3. As one looks it over it seems, also, to be a fairly repulsive solution. But that is all the refugees ask for; a repulsive solution. Can we give them less?
Reading the column makes me feel that we should probably concentrate less on abolishing detention centers and more on improving detention centers.
I think the left needs to reduce their anti-detention center rhetoric and the right needs to stop with their anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric.
We need to provide refuge to those who are fleeing whether they are fleeing genocide, war, poverty, domestic abuse, climate disasters, etc. And by refuge, I mean permanently. I think it's very rare for people to be able to return home.
But I think it's okay for people to be in camp like situations for a period of time...even if it's a prison camp.
I think we should concentrate less on the walls and more on what's inside the walls.
I am FINE with children being kept in cages...as long as those cages also contain their parents and siblings, air-conditioning/heating, toys, clothes, books, nutritious and palatable food, and computers with Internet access.
* * *
I think I'm going to end this here and pick up where I left off in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment