What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/what-americans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/

Quote:The results of the poll illustrated above by the useful Twitter account @HistOpinion were published in the pages of Fortune magazine in July 1938. Fewer than 5 percent of Americans surveyed at the time believed that the United States should raise its immigration quotas or encourage political refugees fleeing fascist states in Europe — the vast majority of whom were Jewish — to voyage across the Atlantic. Two-thirds of the respondents agreed with the proposition that "we should try to keep them out."



To be sure, the United States was emerging from the Great Depression, hardly a climate in which ordinary folks would welcome immigrants and economic competition. The events of Kristallnacht — a wave of anti-Jewish pogroms in areas controlled by the Nazis — had yet to take place. And the poll's use of the term "political refugees" could have conjured in the minds of the American public images of communists, anarchists and other perceived ideological threats.

But look at the next chart, also tweeted by @HistOpinion. Two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup’s American Institute of Public Opinion in January 1939 — well after the events of Kristallnacht — said they would not take in 10,000 German Jewish refugee children.


[A couple of caveats: Polling in this period, including Gallup surveys, was not as scientifically rigorous as it later became. Also, respondents may not necessarily have had a particular bias against Jewish refugees. Half of those surveyed in the Gallup poll were asked about “refugees — most of them Jewish,” while the other half were asked the same question without any mention of the religious origin of the refugees.]

As WorldViews detailed earlier this year, most Western countries regarded the plight of Jewish refugees with skepticism or unveiled bigotry (and sympathy followed only wider knowledge of the monstrous slaughters of the Holocaust):

No matter the alarming rhetoric of [Adolf] Hitler's fascist state — and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others — popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.

"Of all the groups in the 20th century," write the authors of the 1999 book "Refugees in an Age of Genocide," "refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as 'genuine,' but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy."

It's worth remembering this mood when thinking about the current moment, in which the United States is once more in the throes of a debate over letting in refugees. Ever since Friday's terror attacks in Paris, the Republicans, led by their presidential candidates, have sounded the alarm over the threat of jihadist infiltration from Syria — even though it now appears that every single identified assailant in the Paris siege was a European national.


The Republicans have signaled their intent to stop Syrian refugee arrivals, or at least accept only non-Muslim Syrians.

GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie of New Jersey was one of the many governors who said Monday that they would oppose settling Syrian refugees in their states; Christie insisted that he would not permit even a "3-year-old orphan's" entry.

Today's 3-year-old Syrian orphan, it seems, is 1939's German Jewish child.


Of course, there are huge historical and contextual differences between then and now. But, as Post columnist Dana Milbank notes, it is hard to ignore the echoes of the past when faced with the "xenophobic bidding war" of the present:

"This growing cry to turn away people fleeing for their lives brings to mind the SS St. Louis, the ship of Jewish refugees turned away from Florida in 1939," Milbank writes. "It’s perhaps the ugliest moment in a primary fight that has been sullied by bigotry from the start. It’s no exaggeration to call this un-American."

[StLucieBengal]

the only people in danger are Christians there.... The Muslims that are in trouble.... Are only in trouble because they are not Muslim enough.

They can go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, etc. no reason they should be in Europe or America. They don't speak the language and they don't live a western life. They don't know the cultural norms or accept them.

The Christians are the only ones we know for a fact are not in Isis or Islamic fundamentalists.

[Bengalzona]

(11-17-2015, 11:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: the only people in danger are Christians there....  The Muslims that are in trouble.... Are only in trouble because they are not Muslim enough.  

They can go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, etc.   no reason they should be in Europe or America.   They don't speak the language and they don't live a western life.   They don't know the cultural norms or accept them.  

The Christians are the only ones we know for a fact are not in Isis or Islamic fundamentalists.

The vast majority of people ISIL has killed are Muslim. The difference is so vast that it is not even a comparison. And they have not been killed because they are 'not Muslim enough'. They have mostly been killed for political, tribal and sect differences. The Kurds aer Muslims. ISIL doesn't even bat an eye about killing them.

Not all of ISIL are religious hardliners. A great percentage are former Ba'athists from Iraq (minority Sunni Muslims who were part of Saddam's power base and power structure). The Ba'athists are the brains behind the group.

Neither Al Quida nor ISIL are expressively conducting a "war against Christians". If Christians are there, then they will attack them. But neither group is going out of their way to find Christians. I haven't heard of any attacks on the Vatican. In fact, both groups hate Western Society in general, which they view as Godles and amoral... similar to what some Christians in America call it.

[*bfine32*]

As to the Syrian refugee problem: Why should anybody take in a male that is capable of fighting?

It may sound insensitive but it's their country; if they are able shouldn't they stay and fight on the side they favor. How many fighting age males fled our country during the Civil War?

[StLucieBengal]

(11-18-2015, 12:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The vast majority of people ISIL has killed are Muslim. The difference is so vast that it is not even a comparison. And they have not been killed because they are 'not Muslim enough'. They have mostly been killed for political, tribal and sect differences. The Kurds aer Muslims. ISIL doesn't even bat an eye about killing them.

Not all of ISIL are religious hardliners. A great percentage are former Ba'athists from Iraq (minority Sunni Muslims who were part of Saddam's power base and power structure). The Ba'athists are the brains behind the group.

Neither Al Quida nor ISIL are expressively conducting a "war against Christians". If Christians are there, then they will attack them. But neither group is going out of their way to find Christians. I haven't heard of any attacks on the Vatican.  In fact, both groups hate Western Society in general, which they view as Godles and amoral... similar to what some Christians in America call it.

If we accept that Isis is living in the 1300's .... And based on their actions and lifestyle it's safe to assume.

In the 1300's the christian capitals were Paris, Rome, crimea, and Kiev. Obviously 2 for western Christians and 2 for Eastern Orthodox Christians. Paul preached to the west and Andrew preaches to the east. The 980's is when Eastern Orthodox was made the religion of the land by Vladimir the great, who rejected Islam, Judah, and western Christianity to choose Eastern Orthodox.

And yes I know that not everyone believes Paris was a christian captital. I acknowledge that but the pope was based out of there when the moors were pushed out. Seeing that from islam's eyes it was a "capital"

The attacks on Paris was an attack on Christians. If you accept what they say and their actions and it's all based on the 1300's mindset. That's when the pope drove the moors out of Paris/Spain back to Northern Africa.

They are just continuing the crusades. Making another push for Europe. The caliphate started that.... Actually Russia financially supporting these anti immigrant "fascist" groups is them taking a side in the "new modern day crusade"

Look at Putin's recent history for a non religious guy he has protected Christians quite a bit.

[GMDino]

(11-18-2015, 12:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the Syrian refugee problem: Why should anybody take in a male that is capable of fighting?

It may sound insensitive but it's their country; if they are able shouldn't they stay and fight on the side they favor. How many fighting age males fled our country during the Civil War?

But why would that stop you?

See, and I know this is hard for you to understand, but some people...even men (shocking, I know) aren't fighters.  And they would rather try and flee to stay alive and keep their family alive than risk dying against a religious nut who won't quit.

How many men didn't fight during the civil war?  Good question.  Was the civil war about trying to force a religious ideology on everyone?  Did ALL men fight?  If they didn't...did they flee?  Or did they just stay home where there was no fighting?

(Note: Go compare the size of Syria to the size of the US)

Try and think about that for a while.

(Also, luckily, once the south lost they realized the error of their ways and stopped worrying about slavery and just admitted defeat.   )

[Bengalzona]

(11-18-2015, 12:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the Syrian refugee problem: Why should anybody take in a male that is capable of fighting?

It may sound insensitive but it's their country; if they are able shouldn't they stay and fight on the side they favor. How many fighting age males fled our country during the Civil War?

I'm sure a few went to Canada or Mexico so they wouldn't have to fight in the Civil War. But travel was not such as easy thing back then. Most people never went more than five miles from their homes during their entire life. Our population was primarily rural: small private farms. The population in Syria is a little different. The bulk of their population lives (lived) in dense cities. Those cities are in ruins now.

As far as the men, one side of me agrees with you. But then, you and me are fighters. ANd like GMdino pointed out, not all people are fighters. I watch these movies on TV all the time where the bad guys (or sometimes the anti-hero) capture someone, demand they be given information, get the information and then kill the dude. When I see this, I think to myself, "Self. If I were in that situation, I wouldn't tell them d**k because they are gonna kill me anyway. F*** them." Do you know what I mean? In fact, I picture being so dam belligerent that they would be forced to shoot me anyway. Go down fighting.

I used to be more like that. But now, I have my son. I have a reason to want to try and stay alive in order to try and protect him. Changes your view a little bit.

[Bengalzona]

I probably should make another point here. The people in the Middle East in general don't really cotton to this idea of "nation". The people there identify with their tribes and their sects first. It has been that way for over 1300 years. 'Nation' is a foreign concept forced upon them by the West when the Brits and French decided to draw imaginary borders and create nations after WWI to reward tribal leaders who assisted them in fighting the Ottomans. The people there have went along with the 'nation thing' only as long as there was some type of hardline dictator or potentate in power, like Saddam, to make them go along it. But, with the exceptions of the tribes that acquired power like the Ba'athists, the people never really bought into this whole nation concept. Iraq is the perfect example. But it is like that throughout the Middle East.

[Belsnickel]

(11-18-2015, 12:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the Syrian refugee problem: Why should anybody take in a male that is capable of fighting?

It may sound insensitive but it's their country; if they are able shouldn't they stay and fight on the side they favor. How many fighting age males fled our country during the Civil War?

I don't know how many fled, but I know of many that were scorned because they would not fight, and some that were killed because of it. Some folks in my family tree included. Some people don't believe in violence, those who live by the sword and all that.

[Bengalzona]

(11-18-2015, 05:07 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we accept that Isis is living in the 1300's .... And based on their actions and lifestyle it's safe to assume.  

In the 1300's the christian capitals were Paris, Rome, crimea, and Kiev.  Obviously 2 for western Christians and 2 for Eastern Orthodox Christians.  Paul preached to the west and Andrew preaches to the east.   The 980's is when Eastern Orthodox was made the religion of the land by Vladimir the great, who rejected Islam, Judah, and western Christianity to choose Eastern Orthodox.  

And yes I know that not everyone believes Paris was a christian captital.   I acknowledge that but the pope was based out of there when the moors were pushed out.   Seeing that from islam's eyes it was a "capital"

The attacks on Paris was an attack on Christians.  If you accept what they say and their actions and it's all based on the 1300's mindset.    That's when the pope drove the moors out of Paris/Spain back to Northern Africa.  

They are just continuing the crusades.   Making another push for Europe.   The caliphate started that....    Actually Russia financially supporting these anti immigrant "fascist" groups is them taking a side in the "new modern day crusade"

Look at Putin's recent history for a non religious guy he has protected Christians quite a bit.

ISIL isn't living in the 1300's. They are using some 'time honored' Islamic practices and tactics such as slavery, torture and terror to get what they want. But then again, what people in the Middle East haven't done that? For ISIL, these tactics are just tools to accomplish their true goal: to establish their own country. It is a power grab, pure and simple. They are less concerned with exporting terror at this point than Al Quida. But they are in competition with Al Quida for nutcase Islamic recruits (despite how it seems over there, the true nutcases just don't grow on trees). We know this because ISIL and Al Quida members have little tit-for-tat namecalling fights on twitter and Facebook in order to "impress" potential recruits (BTW- If you haven't seen these, you should check them out. It is like what goes on here in P&R, only with people who act like 10 year olds). This competition for recruits was the reason for the Paris attack. ISIL is trying to draw recruits from the disgruntled Muslim youths in Europe (and there are literally millions there). They want to be seen by those youths as pro-active. The hatred of the Muslim youths in Europe is directed at the societies where they live. ISIL's play is a demonstration to show these youths that they care about their concerns in order to hook them into their own cause of creating a new state and recruit them as frontline fighters in Syria. And, to a degree, it is working. Muslim youths are leaving Europe to go and fight in Syria. Incidently, ISIL is winning the war of recruiting with Al Quida. ISIL offers recruits @$700 per month with a benefits plan (yes, they are actually offering a benefits plan). Al Quida can only offer @$300 per month.

It has nothing to do with Christianity. Neither ISIL nor Al Quida nor the Muslim youths in Europe nor Europeans nor Americans view Western Europe as 'Christian'. Western Europe is increasingly seen as secular at this point.

[BmorePat87]

(11-17-2015, 11:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: the only people in danger are Christians there....  The Muslims that are in trouble.... Are only in trouble because they are not Muslim enough.  

False, they're in trouble because they do not believe that a terrorist organization represents all Muslims globally. They reject their claim to be a caliphate. They also are in trouble because they reject an authoritarian government or because they're part of an ethnic minority. There are a lot of factions there. There are a lot of reasons why citizens are in danger. 

Your ignorance of Islam is on full display when you suggest that members of ISIL are more Muslim Muslims.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-18-2015, 11:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: False, they're in trouble because they do not believe that a terrorist organization represents all Muslims globally. They reject their claim to be a caliphate. They also are in trouble because they reject an authoritarian government or because they're part of an ethnic minority. There are a lot of factions there. There are a lot of reasons why citizens are in danger. 

Your ignorance of Islam is on full display when you suggest that members of ISIL are more Muslim Muslims.

So there isn't hard core Muslims who practice Islam and then Muslims who are a more moderate Islam?

It's like that in all religions. Catholics and Baptists bicker about things as well. They just aren't killing each other for it.

At some point you have to be able to work with others who have similar beliefs.

[Bengalzona]

[StLucieBengal]

(11-18-2015, 10:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: ISIL isn't living in the 1300's. They are using some 'time honored' Islamic practices and tactics such as slavery, torture and terror to get what they want. But then again, what people in the Middle East haven't done that? For ISIL, these tactics are just tools to accomplish their true goal: to establish their own country. It is a power grab, pure and simple. They are less concerned with exporting terror at this point than Al Quida. But they are in competition with Al Quida for nutcase Islamic recruits (despite how it seems over there, the true nutcases just don't grow on trees). We know this because ISIL and Al Quida members have little tit-for-tat namecalling fights on twitter and Facebook in order to "impress" potential recruits (BTW- If you haven't seen these, you should check them out. It is like what goes on here in P&R, only with people who act like 10 year olds). This competition for recruits was the reason for the Paris attack. ISIL is trying to draw recruits from the disgruntled Muslim youths in Europe (and there are literally millions there). They want to be seen by those youths as pro-active. The hatred of the Muslim youths in Europe is directed at the societies where they live. ISIL's play is a demonstration to show these youths that they care about their concerns in order to hook them into their own cause of creating a new state and recruit them as frontline fighters in Syria. And, to a degree, it is working. Muslim youths are leaving Europe to go and fight in Syria. Incidently, ISIL is winning the war of recruiting with Al Quida. ISIL offers recruits @$700 per month with a benefits plan (yes, they are actually offering a benefits plan). Al Quida can only offer @$300 per month.

It has nothing to do with Christianity. Neither ISIL nor Al Quida nor the Muslim youths in Europe nor Europeans nor Americans view Western Europe as 'Christian'. Western Europe is increasingly seen as secular at this point.

I am not saying they see Europe as Christian. I am saying they see the map as it was in the 1300's. They are still trying to spread their religion by forcing it on people by overwhelming them by force. The Byzantine's never used force to spread their religion. They did use a cultural attack instead of by force to spread into the east. By the monks printing their bibles in Cyrillic. Today they are trying to spread Islam in a similar way.... By just overwhelming the population and by erasing them by birth rates. Which are always going to be higher considering western civilizations push abortion.

They seem using both the population overload method and killing method... to be attacking the same path as in the crusades. And it's odd that traditional christian cities are being attacked either by the flood of Islamic followers or by terrorism or both.

This is also why Russia has taken a stronger anti Islamic position. To set up to regain their territory while They are also funding anti immigrant groups all over Europe as the European Union and governments are doing nothing to slow down the migrant invasion.

I can't remember where you said it but you are correct on the borders and how Isis doesn't recognize them, Sykes-picot was put into place to keep them fighting each other and basically why Iraq was even made....

This is why these areas needs a hard core secular dictator . They have not evolved enough to accept a civil society of peace.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-18-2015, 05:07 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we accept that Isis is living in the 1300's .... And based on their actions and lifestyle it's safe to assume.  

In the 1300's the christian capitals were Paris, Rome, crimea, and Kiev.  Obviously 2 for western Christians and 2 for Eastern Orthodox Christians.  Paul preached to the west and Andrew preaches to the east.   The 980's is when Eastern Orthodox was made the religion of the land by Vladimir the great, who rejected Islam, Judah, and western Christianity to choose Eastern Orthodox.  

And yes I know that not everyone believes Paris was a christian captital.   I acknowledge that but the pope was based out of there when the moors were pushed out.   Seeing that from islam's eyes it was a "capital"

The attacks on Paris was an attack on Christians.  If you accept what they say and their actions and it's all based on the 1300's mindset.    That's when the pope drove the moors out of Paris/Spain back to Northern Africa.  

They are just continuing the crusades.   Making another push for Europe.   The caliphate started that....    Actually Russia financially supporting these anti immigrant "fascist" groups is them taking a side in the "new modern day crusade"

Look at Putin's recent history for a non religious guy he has protected Christians quite a bit.

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2015, 10:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know how many fled, but I know of many that were scorned because they would not fight, and some that were killed because of it. Some folks in my family tree included. Some people don't believe in violence, those who live by the sword and all that.

Well then stay in your country, preach peace, and try to protect those that cannot fight or flee.

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2015, 08:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: But why would that stop you?

See, and I know this is hard for you to understand, but some people...even men (shocking, I know) aren't fighters.  And they would rather try and flee to stay alive and keep their family alive than risk dying against a religious nut who won't quit.

How many men didn't fight during the civil war?  Good question.  Was the civil war about trying to force a religious ideology on everyone?  Did ALL men fight?  If they didn't...did they flee?  Or did they just stay home where there was no fighting?

(Note: Go compare the size of Syria to the size of the US)

Try and think about that for a while.

(Also, luckily, once the south lost they realized the error of their ways and stopped worrying about slavery and just admitted defeat.   )

In my mind it doesn't matter if you're a "fighter" or not. There are many things a military aged male can do then engage in direct combat. Get your family to safety and work to help those that cannot flee.

Just makes me wonder what the Titanic evacuation would have been like if a lot of members of this forum were on board. "Stay behind old lady, I got to get on this lifeboat and take care of my family."

[Millhouse]

(11-17-2015, 10:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/what-americans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/

The only historical thing I can use to play devils advocate with is what Carter allowed in 1980: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

The intention was good, but what actually happened was that Castro freed up some of prison & mental ward spaces by putting them on boats in which many were let loose in Miami. Granted we will be much more careful this time around, but still.

[BmorePat87]

(11-18-2015, 03:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So there isn't hard core Muslims who practice Islam and then Muslims who are a more moderate  Islam?

It's like that in all religions.  Catholics and Baptists bicker about things as well.   They just aren't killing each other for it.    

At some point you have to be able to work with others who have similar beliefs.

There are really conservative Muslims who do not support ISIL, yes. In fact, I would bet that the majority of conservative Muslims reject ISIL's claim of being a caliphate for very obvious reasons. 

It's like saying that the most conservative Christians have to be in the KKK or Westboro or have to support any random Christian terrorist organization that claims to be in charge of all Christians across the globe...

[StLucieBengal]

(11-19-2015, 12:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There are really conservative Muslims who do not support ISIL, yes. In fact, I would bet that the majority of conservative Muslims reject ISIL's claim of being a caliphate for very obvious reasons. 

It's like saying that the most conservative Christians have to be in the KKK or Westboro or have to support any random Christian terrorist organization that claims to be in charge of all Christians across the globe...

Westboro baptist church is 25 people. Radical Muslims are hundreds of millions.

Not sure what the KKK has to do with being a christian. I must have missed the lesson that we were supposed to hate someone that was a different color. Being a racist has nothing to do with your religion unless the religion states that you are to judge someone by the color of their skin.

Bfine posted a video somewhere that had a good response on moderates not speaking up and how irrelevant they were. You probably won't like it but there is a good point in there.

I don't have issues with moderate Muslims other than I think they should be pushing for a reformation to a more moderate Islam.