Rafael Medoff & Bat-Ami Zucker

BREAKING THE RULES

Violations of Academic Standards in the Debate over FDR’s Response to the Holocaust !2

About the Authors

Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. His most recent book is FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith.

Dr. Bat-Ami Zucker is Professor of History at Bar-Ilan University. Her books include In Search of Refuge: Jews and U.S. Consuls in Nazi Germany 1933-1941.

Cover illustration by Sal Amendola; layout and typography by Richard Sheinaus.

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

1200 G St. NW - Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-434-8994 www.WymanInstitute.org !3

Breaking the Rules impossible for Allied planes to reach Auschwitz. He was soon joined by Scholarly research, publishing, and William J. vanden Heuvel, an attorney discourse proceed according to who was a founder and longtime generally-accepted rules of president of the Franklin & Eleanor professional behavior. Adherence to Roosevelt Institute; he argued in these standards ensures the integrity various articles and lectures that the of scholarship as well as the credibility only way to help the Jews was to win of scholars in the eyes of the general the war. The first-book length defense public. of America’s response to the What do these standards entail? Holocaust was authored in 1997 by For authors, they mean--at a William Rubinstein, a scholar of minimum--that documents should be British economic elites. His book, The quoted accurately; evidence should Myth of Rescue, asserted that “no Jew not be suppressed, regardless of who perished in the Holocaust could whether it accords with the author’s have been saved by any action which perspective; and statements derived the Allies could have taken...” Robert from the work of others should Rosen, a divorce attorney, authored a include proper attribution. For book with a similar thesis, in 2006, editors, it means publishing only those called Saving the Jews. essays that pass peer review; assigning Several well known historians books for review to qualified scholars; whose area of expertise lies elsewhere, and disqualifying potential reviewers such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (an who are known to be biased. For expert on the New Deal) and Gerhard history museums, it means making Weinberg (a World War II expert), corrections when they are presented also occasionally authored strongly- with evidence of errors in their worded defenses of Roosevelt’s exhibits, and resisting pressure to Holocaust record. make changes for reasons other than Most recently, a mainstream historical accuracy. Holocaust historian, Richard These and related obligations have Breitman, coauthored a book, FDR been codified by the American and the Jews, which argued that Historical Association in two lengthy President Roosevelt tried his best to statements defining the professional help the Jews and succeeded in and ethical responsibilities of rescuing many. Prof. Breitman’s book historians and museums, the garnered significant attention from Statement on Standards of the news media and reviewers in Professional Conduct and the 2013-2014. Statement on Standards for Museum Serious scholars can, and do, Exhibits Dealing with Historical disagree regarding aspects of the Subjects. These are the guidelines to Roosevelt administration’s response which the scholarly community to the Holocaust. That is not the focus expects its members to adhere. of this essay. Our concern is the These standards have been violated integrity of the rules that the academic in a number of books and articles community has established to govern written since the mid-1990s in defense the writing and teaching of history. of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to the Holocaust. The first author in this group was Richard H. Levy, a retired nuclear engineer, who wrote articles claiming it was !4

I. ALTERING QUOTATIONS One source, a book of correspondence between Sara Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, stated that the 1. The Award That Never Was award was called “the Einstein Medal for Humanitarianism,” and was given The opening scene of FDR and the in honor of her “broad sympathy and Jews, by Professors Richard Breitman activities in elevating the conditions of and Allan Lichtman, dramatically all people throughout the world who presented FDR’s elderly mother, Sara suffer from poverty, oppression, and Roosevelt, just “four months before hatred.” Breitman and Lichtman’s her death,” addressing a Jewish other source, a news article in the New women’s group. Breitman and York Times in 1938, reported that the Lichtman informed their readers that award was given to Mrs. Roosevelt “in a Jewish organization once gave Mrs. recognition of ‘a lifetime of devoted Roosevelt an award for “service to the service to every communal cause in Jewish people.” They characterized the country.’” Neither the book nor the this information as evidence that Times mentioned anything about Mrs. “Franklin’s parents instilled in him Roosevelt’s supposed service “to the religious tolerance…” Such an award Jewish people.” demonstrated that FDR’s parents Remarkably, Prof. Breitman imparted to him “the wise counsel himself wrote in his 1987 book: “The needed to escape the anti-Semitism president’s mother was anti- that was so common among upper- Semitic...” What caused him to so class Protestants.” drastically change his position from Breitman and Lichtman called the his 1987 assessment? Why did award that Mrs. Roosevelt received Breitman and Lichtman misrepresent “the Einstein Medal for lifetime the name and nature of the award that humanitarian service to the Jewish Mrs. Roosevelt received? That people.” Evidently their point was that remains a mystery; they have declined an award from Jews for a “lifetime” of to respond to questions about it.1 “service to the Jewish people” is proof One might legitimately argue that of Sara Roosevelt’s philosemitism-- the views of a president’s mother are and, by extension, evidence that the not relevant, and therefore it does not future president was inculcated with matter if Sara Roosevelt was affection for the Jewish people. antisemitic or philosemitic or But the sources cited by Breitman somewhere in between. Professors and Lichtman actually said otherwise. Breitman and Lichtman evidently feel

1 Richard Breitman and Alan M. Kraut, American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933-1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987), p.245; Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman, FDR and the Jews (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), pp.8, 245; Rafael Medoff email to Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman, 11 November 2013; Breitman did not reply. In an email on 18 November 2013, Lichtman stated that he would not respond to questions about their sources. In their source notes, Breitman and Lichtman thanked one Richard J. Garfunkel as the source for their information about Sara Roosevelt. Garfunkel is not a historian; he is the former host of a weekly radio show in New Rochelle, NY, who has described himself as “a collector of FDR memorabilia for over 50 years,” and the owner of “over 5,000 pieces, that include buttons, books, pictures, campaign literature and ephemera of every imaginable type.” Breitman and Lichtman, p.332, n.1; for Garfunkel’s self-description, see http://www.richardjgarfunkel.com/2005/05/15/warm-springs-and-fdr-the-television- production-2005/ !5 otherwise, since they chose to make sound as if it was the president who Mrs. Roosevelt’s alleged came up with the idea for Ickes to give philosemitism the opening scene of such a speech, as a way of speaking their book, and they presented it as out for the Jews. In fact, Ickes wrote in evidence that she influenced FDR to his diary that he was the one who feel positively about Jews. Once they “accepted” an invitation to speak at a chose to make it a central issue, they celebration of the Jewish Courier’s should be prepared to defend their fiftieth anniversary. The diary claim--and to explain Prof. Breitman’s indicates that it was Ickes’ idea, not reversal from his 1987 position. Roosevelt’s, to speak out about the persecution of the Jews. Second, the disputed phrases in the 2. Censoring Harold Ickes draft of the speech were not just about “fascism” generally, as Breitman and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Lichtman asserted. According to the Ickes was one of the few members of diary, President Roosevelt told Ickes Roosevelt’s cabinet who took a serious that Secretary Hull wanted to “cut out interest in the Nazi persecution of the the reference that I [Ickes] had made Jews. According to Breitman and to Naziism [sic] as well as references I Lichtman in FDR and the Jews, in had to current dictators.” FDR then 1938 “FDR authorized Ickes to deliver said to Ickes that he wanted him “to an address on the CBS radio network make Cordell happy.” Later in the blasting countries persecuting Jews. entry, Ickes indicated that the “current Ickes scheduled the speech for April 3, dictators” to whom he had intended to the fiftieth anniversary of the Chicago- refer were “Hitler and Mussolini.” based Daily Jewish Courier.” Thus we see that both Roosevelt and Breitman and Lichtman stated that Hull objected to any mention of Secretary of State Cordell Hull, seeing Hitler, Mussolini, or Nazism. Ickes a draft of the speech, wanted Ickes to was permitted by the president to delete “some specific references to refer to fascism only in a general way. fascism and current dictators.” Ickes Hull even insisted that one reference then “went directly to FDR, who said to the term “fascist” be removed, lest it criticizing fascism was fine.” As a be seen as implicitly referring to result, Ickes needed to make only “a Mussolini and thereby harm U.S.- few minor changes,” and those Italian relations. changes did not significantly affect the By deleting the word “Nazism” from content of the speech. Roosevelt’s remarks to Ickes, In their source notes, Breitman and Breitman and Lichtman in effect Lichtman wrote that their source for altered FDR’s words and intentions. this episode was a pair of entries in In reality, Roosevelt said (according to the unpublished version of Ickes’ Ickes) that Ickes should not mention diary, which is held by the Library of Nazism; but Breitman and Lichtman Congress. But an examination of those removed the word Nazism from the entries reveals that Breitman and discussion. Then they went one step Lichtman misrepresented what the further, making it appear as if diary states, and altered the wording Roosevelt fully backed Ickes’ version in the diary’s key sentence about this of the speech--when in fact, Roosevelt episode. backed Hull in demanding the To begin with, it was misleading for removal of references to Nazism, Breitman and Lichtman to state that Hitler, and Mussolini. FDR “authorized” the speech and Ickes then “scheduled” it. That made it 3. Jews Against Immigration? !6

the present quota for German Jews be In the wake of the November 1938 made.”2 Kristallnacht pogrom, the Roosevelt Note the discrepancies between the administration announced that there two accounts. The alleged opposition was no room to admit more refugees did not emanate from “many under that year’s German quota. The American Jews,” as Breitman and British government then made a Lichtman claimed. Rather, Welles had remarkable offer to the U.S.: it was referred specifically to those in the willing to have the unused places from Jewish leadership whom he the British quota transferred to considered “responsible”--in other German Jews. The British quota was wordsse, those who agreed with him. 65,721--more than twice the size of the Moreover, Welles was merely German quota--and only 3,365 of speculating; the British proposal was those places had been used in 1938. never actually presented to Jewish The Roosevelt administration leaders for their consideration. Welles rejected the offer. Here’s how may have been correct that some Breitman and Lichtman paraphrased Jewish leaders would have felt that the rejection: “[Undersecretary of asking Congress to act on the surplus State Sumner] Welles said [to the British quota places was too risky; or British] that many American Jews it may be that Jewish leaders would opposed a risky attempt to change the have supported such a proposal if it German quota.” had the endorsement of the president. Paraphrased that way, Welles’ But there is no way to know. position seems reasonable. After all, if The problem here is twofold. First, “many” American Jews themselves Breitman and Lichtman changed were against attempting to transfer Welles’ phrase “responsible leaders British quota places to German Jews, among American Jews” to read “many who could blame the Roosevelt American Jews,” thereby making administration for turning down the Jewish opposition appear more offer? And the position that was substantial than Welles himself had (supposedly) taken by those American claimed. Second, Breitman and Jews seems reasonable, too: because if Lichtman added the term “risky” and such an attempt was “risky” (i.e. it falsely attributed it to Welles, thereby might provoke a backlash), who could making the Jewish leaders’ alleged blame Jews for being against it? position seem more reasonable. But Breitman and Lichtman had changed the wording of the document * * * on which their assertion was based. Their source was Arthur Morse’s 1968 Scholars can debate the extent of book, While Six Million Died. Morse, antisemitism within President however, did not merely paraphrase Roosevelt’s family, or the degree to Welles--he quoted Welles’ actual which FDR was concerned about the words. Here is how Welles himself plight of German Jews, or the characterized what he said to the attitudes of American Jews regarding British: “I added that it was my very immigration. That is not our intention strong impression that the responsible here. Our concern is the violation of leaders among American Jews would accepted rules concerning the use of be the first to urge that no change in historical documents. The American

2 Breitman and Lichtman, p.117. Their footnote cited Morse, pp.343-44, but that must have been a typographical error, because the Welles statement appears on p.244 of Morse. !7

Historical Association’s Statement on Prof. Hochberg was then quoted as Standards of Professional Conduct saying that “this picture is very warns historians against “false or different from the claim that erroneous use of evidence.” (Article 3) [President Roosevelt] was indifferent Altering the wording of documents is to the fate of the Jews.” Breitman later not consistent with the AHA’s used almost identical language about guidelines for appropriate conduct by FDR not being “indifferent” in the historians. book Advocate for the Doomed (the first volume of the McDonald diaries that he and Hochberg edited, which was published in 2007). Breitman II. MISREPRESENTING wrote there: “In this diary Roosevelt is DOCUMENTS not the indifferent figure depicted in some of the scholarly literature about America and the Holocaust.” (p.804) 1. The Warning The U.S. Holocaust Museum That Never Was reinforced this narrative in its James G. McDonald Calendar: it used an Many readers of the New York excerpt from that May 1 entry about Times must have been surprised to FDR’s “warning message to Hitler” as learn from a page 3 news article on one of the featured monthly April 22, 2004, that the conventional quotations. view that FDR was not seriously The diary excerpt that appeared in concerned about Hitler’s plan to the New York Times, and in the persecute European Jewry was, in museum’s calendar, gave the fact, all wrong. “Signs that Roosevelt impression that Roosevelt had asked was concerned about Hitler’s plan McDonald about the plight of German early on,” the pull-out quote Jews, and had intended to send a announced. “warning message” about the The article, by Times correspondent persecutions. Neil Lewis, focused on the diaries of But when the diaries were the late diplomat and scholar James subsequently published, it turned out G. McDonald. The article featured that the May 1 entry told a very quotes from two historians at the different story. McDonald actually United States Holocaust Memorial wrote that what “deeply interested” Museum, Severin Hochberg and the President Roosevelt was Reichsbank aforementioned Richard Breitman, president Hjalmar Schacht, not the who at the time were editing the plight of the Jews. FDR wanted to McDonald diaries for publication. In know from McDonald “what sort of a their comments, Hochberg and person [Schacht] was.” In fact, Breitman focused on a diary entry McDonald’s long diary entry from May 1, 1933. According to the describing his conversation with the Times article, that entry described president (occupying almost three full how McDonald, having just returned pages in the published diaries), did from Nazi Germany, told FDR about not mention German Jews even once. the plight of the Jews. The president The “warning message” about “seemed deeply concerned and said he German Jewry which Breitman, wanted to find a way to send a Hochberg, and the museum’s calendar warning message to the German designers claimed FDR was going to people over the head of Hitler,” the send, was never sent. The message to article asserted. which Roosevelt referred in his conversation with McDonald had !8 nothing to do with the Jews. He and Stalin and Winston Churchill at Yalta, McDonald were actually discussing held ten years earlier. Two passages, the military situation in Europe and however, were censored. One of them, two upcoming conferences on according to U.S. News and World disarmament and the world economic Report, involved an exchange in which order. Two weeks after the McDonald- FDR mentioned he would soon be Roosevelt meeting, the president did seeing Saudi Arabia’s king, Ibn Saud. send out a message--but it was not Stalin asked Roosevelt if he intended about the Jews. On May 16, 1933, FDR to make any concessions to the king. sent identical telegrams to the 54 “The President replied,” according to countries represented at the the report, “that there was only one disarmament and economic concession he thought he might offer conferences, outlining America’s and that was to give him the six hopes for peace and progress. million Jews in the United States.” Probably not too many readers of Many years later, the U.S. News that New York Times article in 2004 account was confirmed, in the 1973 later read the published diaries and autobiography of Charles E. Bohlen, discovered the truth about the May 1 the State Department official who was entry. Even the Times correspondent FDR’s translator and stenographer at himself may not have seen the full the Yalta conference. diary entry before writing his article. In FDR and the Jews, Breitman But Professors Breitman and and Lichtman justified Roosevelt’s Hochberg must have known the actual remark to Stalin. They asserted that contents of the May 1 entry, since they Roosevelt “was using anti-Semitism as were preparing it for publication--and an ice-breaker with Stalin.” And after they were the only ones allowed access all, who could object to breaking the to the McDonald diaries. (The ice and thereby perhaps advancing the original, unedited diaries were given cause of world peace? to the museum in 2003, yet to this day The problem with their claim, are closed to the public). It appears however, is that an “ice-breaker” is, by that when Breitman and Hochberg definition, something that is done at discussed the entry with the Times the beginning of a conversation, in reporter, they presented it to him as order to facilitate a more open something different than what it really discussion. Yet Roosevelt did not was; they cited it as evidence of FDR’s make his ‘joke’ about Jews until the “concern” about German Jewry, when next-to-last day of the week-long Yalta it was nothing of the sort. conference. If Breitman and Lichtman (Further evidence that the narrative did not check what day the remark they presented to the Times was was made, prior to declaring their erroneous is the fact that nine years assessment of it, that would represent later, Prof. Breitman himself quietly a surprising degree of carelessness. If reversed his position on the May 1 they were aware which day the remark entry. However, he has never even was made, but withheld that acknowledged his original error. The information in order to be able to reversal is described on p.25 of this characterize FDR’s remark as an “ice- essay.) breaker,” that would appear to

2. Antisemitism & Diplomacy

In 1955, the State Department published the transcripts of President Roosevelt’s conference with Josef !9 constitute a significant violation of that was held when Molotov arrived at professional ethics.3 the White House; then there was Remarkably, they did it twice. another detailed conversation that Describing a meeting between took place before dinner; there was yet Roosevelt and a Soviet official at the another discussion during dinner; and White House in 1942, they claimed then a final conversation after dinner, that there, too, antisemitism was used in President Roosevelt’s study. It was as an “ice-breaker.” That conversation only in that very last segment (and took place on May 29, 1942, between just prior to the conclusion of that FDR, his adviser Harry Hopkins, and segment) that the exchange about Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Jews took place. Thus, far from Molotov. At one point, Hopkins serving as an “ice-breaker,” the remarked that the American public’s antisemitic remarks were uttered perception of Soviet Communists had many hours after the ice was broken.4 been negatively affected by the presence in the American Communist * * * Party of what he called “largely disgruntled, frustrated, ineffectual, Scholars can debate whether and vociferous people--including a President Roosevelt treated James comparatively high proportion of McDonald’s report about German distinctly unsympathetic Jews.” The Jewry with appropriate seriousness, or translator at the meeting, Harvard whether it is justified for a president University professor Samuel H. Cross, to use ethnic slurs in order to achieve stated in the transcript: “On this the a diplomatic goal. That is not our President commented that he was far intention here. Our concern is the from anti-Semitic, as everyone knew, violation of accepted rules of scholarly but there was a good deal in this point conduct concerning the use of of view.” Molotov, Roosevelt, and historical documents. The American Hopkins then apparently agreed that Historical Association’s Statement on “there were Communists and Standards of Professional Conduct Communists”--that is, there were good states: “Historians should not ones and bad ones--and likewise they misrepresent their sources.” (Article agreed on what they called “the 3) It is a misrepresentation of sources distinction between ‘Jews’ and to claim that FDR intended to speak ‘Kikes’,” which they said was out about German Jewry when his “something that created inevitable clear intention was to speak out about difficulties.” a different issue; or to claim that Could these remarks, too, really Roosevelt’s antisemitic remarks to have been used merely as an “ice- Molotov and Stalin were “ice- breaker,” as Breitman and Lichtman breakers” when the timetables make asserted? The sequence of that day’s clear that they could not have been. events indicates otherwise: first, there was a discussion about various topics

3 Breitman and Lichtman, p.301; Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History, 1929-1969 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1973), p.203; Joshua Botts, “ ‘Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire’: The Politics of the Yalta FRUS,” https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus-history/ research/politics-of-the-yalta-frus )

4 Breitman and Lichtman, p.301; “Memorandum - Subject: Molotov Conversations,” 29 May 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY, pp.7-8. !10

III. INVENTING HISTORY them were not Jewish.) Prof. Yehuda Bauer has calculated that 85,000 Jews from Germany and elsewhere came to 1. Immigration Statistics the United States during those years. The INS and Bauer figures are not On December 8, 1993, Prof. even close to Weinberg’s 200,000. Gerhard L. Weinberg of the University Asked about this discrepancy, of North Carolina, speaking at the U.S. Weinberg declined to elaborate or to Holocaust Memorial Museum, made a provide a source for his statistics.7 remarkable claim. Referring to the In the published version of 1930s, Weinberg said: “The United Weinberg’s remarks, the footnote for States accepted about twice as many the 200,000 claim stated: “A fine Jewish refugees as the rest of the review is Richard Breitman and Alan world put together: about 200,000 M. Kraut, American Refugee Policy out of 300,000.” and European Jewry, 1933-1945.” If true, that would certainly suggest That was the only source he listed. the Roosevelt administration was However, nothing in that book generous in welcoming Jewish supports Weinberg’s numbers. In fact, refugees. For that reason, Weinberg’s the figures supplied by Breitman and statement subsequently was cited by Kraut lead to a calculation of 74,698 other defenders of FDR’s response to German and Austrian immigrants for the Holocaust, including Robert that period.8 Rosen, in his book Saving the Jews; With regard to Prof. Weinberg’s and William vanden Heuvel, of the statement that 300,000 Jewish Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt immigrants were accepted by the “rest Institute, in articles and lectures.5 of the world,” Bauer and other But the correct numbers for Jewish mainstream historians have calculated immigration in the 1930s are very a total of 265,000 for the period of different. According to Immigration 1933-1939. In other words, the United and Naturalization Service statistics States actually accepted less than half for 1933-1939, a total of just 77,557 as many--not “twice as many”--as all German citizens immigrated to the other countries combined.9 United States during that period.6 If a scholar presents numbers that (Moreover, approximately 10% of differ significantly from what experts in the field have found, he has an

5 Rosen, p.442; vanden Heuvel at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (24 October 1996), in The Forward (27 January 1995), and American Heritage (July-August 1999), p.41.

6 This includes a small number of Austrian nationals in 1938-1939.

7 Medoff to Weinberg, 25 September 2009; Weinberg to Medoff, 26 September 2009; Medoff to Weinberg, 26 September 2009; Weinberg to Medoff, 13 October 2009.

8 Breitman and Kraut calculated “just over 120,000” for 1933-1944. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported 45,302 for 1940-1944. Subtracting the INS figures, the Breitman-Kraut total for 1933-1939 is 74,698, which is very close to the above-cited figures from the INS and Bauer for 1933-1939. (Breitman and Kraut, p.9.)

9 Alex Grobman, “Fudging the Numbers: Another Look at the Use of Statistics by Some Critics of The Abandonment of the Jews,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 40 (Fall 2003), pp.381-385. !11 obligation to explain his sources. For had no choice but to obey the State Prof. Weinberg to drastically inflate Department. Others, including Elie the number of Jewish immigrants in Wiesel, have questioned the wisdom the 1930s, and to refuse to reveal his of Wise’s decision as well as the fact basis for doing so, contravenes the that during those three months, he American Historical Association’s also suppressed other reports from Statement on Standards of Europe about the mass killings.10 Professional Conduct, which states In Commentary in 1984, Professors that “Historians should document Breitman and Kraut engaged in an their findings and be prepared to exchange with scholars and others make available their sources, concerning the Riegner telegram. One, evidence, and data...” (Article 3) Prof. David Kranzler, referred unsympathetically to the fact that Wise withheld the telegram from the 2. A Jewish Leader’s Role public until November 24. Breitman and Kraut countered by The role of the American Jewish presenting what appeared to be a leadership constitutes an important significant revelation: “Our sources part of the broader issue of the provide a much different picture of Roosevelt administration’s response Rabbi Stephen S. Wise from Mr. to the Holocaust. The actions of Rabbi Kranzler’s account here,” they Stephen S. Wise, the foremost announced. “To give only one American Jewish leader of that era, example, we have evidence that Wise have attracted particular attention made the [Riegner telegram] public on because his ardent support of September 28, 1942, almost two President Roosevelt affected efforts by months before the date [November American Jews to bring about a 24] Mr. Kranzler gives.” change in U.S. refugee policy. Breitman and Kraut’s One episode that has attracted announcement attempted to turn the particular attention concerns Wise’s existing historiography on its head. suppression of some early news about Every previous book about America’s the mass murder. In August 1942, response to the Holocaust had Wise received a cable from the World reported Wise’s three month-long Jewish Congress representative in suppression, from late August through Switzerland, Gerhard Riegner, late November. Now, Breitman and revealing Hitler’s intention to Kraut were declaring that they had annihilate all of European Jewry. At uncovered new “evidence” from the request of the State Department, unnamed “sources” which showed that Wise refrained from publicizing the Wise suppressed the telegram only for telegram, pending further verification. a few weeks, not for three months as It took the administration three everyone else believed. months until finally, on November 24, In addition to constituting a radical 1942, it authorized Rabbi Wise to break from the findings of other release the cable. historians, the Breitman-Kraut Wise’s three-month suppression of revelation would have struck a the telegram has long stirred debate significant blow at the arguments of among scholars and within the Jewish those who have questioned Wise’s community. Some have argued that he actions during the Holocaust.

10 Elie Wiesel, “Allies Fiddled As Jews Burned” (review of While Six Million Died and The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry), Hadassah 49 (March 1968), p.16. !12

But then something odd happened. Professional Conduct, historians Writing in the Journal of should “make available their sources, Contemporary History the following evidence, and data...” (Article 3)11 year (1985), Prof. Breitman described Wise as having revealed the Riegner information in late November, not in IV. SUPPRESSING September as he and Kraut had EVIDENCE announced in Commentary. The following year, in a book that Breitman coauthored about Schulte 1. “Jewish Blood” and the Riegner telegram, he again gave November as the date Wise On August 4, 1939, President released the telegram. He and Kraut Roosevelt met with an ally, Senator did so yet again in their 1987 book Burton Wheeler (D-Montana), American Refugee Policy and concerning possible Democratic European Jewry, and Breitman and candidates for president and vice Lichtman said the same thing in FDR president in 1940. (Roosevelt himself and the Jews in 2013. had not yet declared his intention to In a 1998 book concerning the seek re-election.) Near the end of the Allies and the Holocaust, Breitman meeting, the president expressed went even further. He cited Kranzler’s doubt about the viability of a ticket criticism of Wise for suppressing the composed of Secretary of State Cordell telegram until November--and then he Hull for president and Democratic rebutted Kranzler, not by claiming (as National Committee chairman Jim he had in Commentary) that Wise Farley for vice president. Wheeler revealed it in September, but rather by responded (according to a asserting that in view of the memorandum that Wheeler composed circumstances, it was “logical” for following the meeting): Wise to suppress it until November. What, then, happened to the I said to the President someone “evidence” that Breitman and Kraut told me that Mrs. Hull was a had so dramatically cited in Jewess, and I said that the Commentary, which supposedly Jewish-Catholic issue would be would revise the public’s view of Rabbi raised [if Hull was nominated Wise? That remains a mystery. When for president, and Farley, a asked to share their evidence, Prof. Catholic, was his running Kraut replied that he did not possess mate]. He [FDR] said, “Mrs. that information, and he referred the Hull is about one quarter query to Prof. Breitman, who refused Jewish.” He said, “You and I, to respond at all. According to the Burt, are old English and American Historical Association’s Dutch stock. We know who our Statement on Standards of

11 Richard Breitman, “The Allied War Effort and the Jews, 1942-1943,” Journal of Contemporary History 20 (1985), p.143; Walter Laqueur and Richard Breitman, Breaking the Silence (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p.160; Breitman and Kraut, p.157; Breitman and Lichtman, p.205; Richard Breitman, Official Secrets: What the Nazis Planned, What the British and Americans Knew (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), pp.143, 287; Medoff to Kraut, 19 October, 12 November, and 12 December 2014; Kraut to Medoff, 13 December 2014. Schulte was first identified by Monty N. Penkower in the New York Jewish Week (19 August 1983) and then in his The Jews Were Expendable: Free World Diplomacy and the Holocaust (Urbana and Chicago: U. of Illinois Press, 1983), pp.62-80. !13

ancestors are. We know there Schlesinger insisted he had done is no Jewish blood in our veins, nothing wrong in withholding the but a lot of these people do not “Jewish blood” document from public know whether there is Jewish view, since, in his view, Roosevelt’s blood in their veins or not.” statement was not antisemitic. “FDR’s allusion to ‘Jewish blood’ does not FDR’s disturbing remark about seem to me incompatible with Trude “Jewish blood” did not come to light Lash’s statement,” Schlesinger wrote. until some 60 years later. It would “It appears to me a neutral comment have come to light much sooner, about people of mixed ancestry.” however, had it not been suppressed But if that were the case--if by a prominent historian. The file in Roosevelt’s remark about Jewish the Montana State University archives blood was indeed “neutral” and not an which contains the Wheeler expression of bigotry--then why did memorandum also contains two Schlesinger decide to suppress it? letters to Wheeler, dated November Why didn’t Schlesinger mention it in 30 and December 22, 1959, written by one of his published writings about Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. At the time, FDR? After all, it certainly sheds Schlesinger was working on The interesting light on Roosevelt’s Politics of Upheaval, the final thought process in considering installment of his three-volume whether to run for a third term in history of the New Deal. According to 1940. Why didn’t Schlesinger at least the letters, Sen. Wheeler sent acknowledge FDR’s remark when he Schlesinger a copy of his 1939 himself raised the antisemitism issue memorandum on the “Jewish blood” in his Newsweek essay, and let conversation with FDR. Schlesinger, readers judge for themselves?12 after reviewing the memo, wrote to Wheeler that the document “offer[s] valuable sidelights on history.” 2. Blaming the Jews Nevertheless, Schlesinger never for Antisemitism quoted FDR’s remarks about “Jewish blood” in any of the many books and On January 22, 1938, Rabbi articles he subsequently wrote about Stephen S. Wise met with President Roosevelt and his era. Ironically, in Roosevelt. In his memo of the one of those articles (published in conversation, Rabbi Wise described a Newsweek in 1994), Schlesinger “very painful” moment when specifically defended FDR against any Roosevelt spoke about alleged Jewish suspicion that he was unsympathetic domination of the Polish economy; to Jews; and he approvingly quoted FDR also suggested Jewish behavior Trude Lash (the widow of historian was the cause of Polish antisemitism: Joseph Lash) as saying, “FDR did not have an anti-Semitic bone in his Then F.D.R. said something body.” that was very painful to SSW In an exchange of correspondence [i.e. Stephen S. Wise; he with Rafael Medoff in 2005, composed his account in the

12 “Confidential - Memo on conference at the White House with the President---August 4, 1939,” Burton K. Wheeler Papers, Box 11: File 18, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT; Schlesinger to Wheeler, 30 November 1959 and 22 December 1959, Wheeler Papers, Box 11: File 18; Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “Did FDR Betray the Jews?,” Newsweek, 18 April 1994, p.14; Schlesinger to Medoff, 4 September 2005. !14

third person], showing how wrote, “like a blow in the face to have much he is, alas, under the F.D.R. swallow and regurgitate this impact of the Ambassadors stuff of Potocki, himself of the landed who have access to him.... gentry.” F.D.R. gave a long explanation Professors Breitman and Lichtman straight out of the mouth of had Wise’s memo in their possession [the Polish ambassador in when they were composing FDR and Washington, Count Jerzy] the Jews. We know this because on Potocki, namely that, while p.100, they quoted from the memo. forty and fifty years ago, But they quoted a different part of the [Potocki’s] father and memo (concerning remarks that grandfather got all their Roosevelt made about Palestine) and products from the Jewish suppressed the part containing FDR’s grain dealer and the Jewish remarks concerning Polish Jewry. shoe dealer and the Jewish shopkeeper and the little Jewish villagers surrounding their castle, in recent years the 3. FDR and the Debate Poles have been turning to him Over Immigration and to the people in the castle and saying—“Why don’t you During the 1920s, there was a buy things from us and not vigorous debate in the United States from the Jews”; and Potocki concerning immigration. Political added—“We gave them a figures, journalists, and others took chance but we found they sides in the discussion, and legislation could not deliver the same was enacted to severely restrict goods at the same price, so immigration. Franklin Roosevelt took they lost out in the competition part in the debate, making remarks with the Jewish shopkeepers. about immigration as a candidate for Then the next step was that the office and writing essays on the topic Christian shopkeepers for several publications. For example, complained—why must the as the Democratic nominee for vice Jews do all the business with president in 1920, FDR gave an the estate; and after that—the interview to the Brooklyn Eagle in Jew should go.” which said he accepted the principle of some immigration, provided that the Wise was horrified by FDR’s newcomers were dispersed and suggestion that it was the alleged quickly assimilated: Jewish domination of the local economy which was to blame for Our main trouble in the past Christians demanding that “the Jew has been that we have should go.” Wise protested to permitted the foreign Roosevelt: “But, Chief, this is pure elements to segregate in Fascist talk. They must find colonies. They have crowded scapegoats to whom to point in order into one district and they to satisfy the landless and unfed have brought congestion and peasantry, and the Jew is the racial prejudices to our large convenient and traditional and cities. The result is that they historical scapegoat.” Wise’s plea was do not easily conform to the to no avail; Roosevelt “assented to manners and the customs every word” Potocki had spoken to and the requirements of him, according to Wise. “It was,” Wise their new home. Now, the !15

remedy for this should be the limiting subsequent immigration to distribution of aliens in those who could be most quickly and various parts of the country. easily assimilated, including through If we had the greater part of dispersal around the country. He the foreign population of the argued: “If, twenty-five years ago, the City of New York distributed United States had adopted a policy of to different localities upstate this kind we would not have the huge we should have a far better foreign sections which exist in so condition.13 many of our cities.” In his April 30, 1925 column for the FDR also authored a number of Macon newspaper, Roosevelt wrote: articles that addressed the question of “Californians have properly objected Asian immigration to the United [to Japanese immigration to their States. In a 1923 essay for the state] on the sound basic ground that magazine Asia, he expressed Japanese immigrants are not capable sympathy for what he said was the of assimilation into the American widespread view “that the mingling of population....Anyone who has traveled white with oriental blood on an in the Far East knows that the extensive scale is harmful to our mingling of Asiatic blood with future citizenship.” He added: “As a European or American blood corollary of this conviction, Americans produces, in nine cases out of ten, the object to the holding of large amounts most unfortunate results.”14 of real property, of land, by aliens or These statements are relevant to those descended from mixed studies of Roosevelt’s response to the marriages. Frankly, they do not want Holocaust for two reasons. First, when non-assimilable immigrants as FDR referred to the “foreign elements” citizens, nor do they desire any in New York City (in the 1920 extensive proprietorship of land interview), that term undoubtedly was without citizenship.” meant to include the large Jewish That Roosevelt was not merely immigration population there; reporting on trends in public opinion, therefore that sentiment has to be but himself agreed with the taken into consideration when viewing perspective he was summarizing, is his immigration policies later, as evident from a series of articles he president. Second, because the 1920 wrote at the time for the Macon Daily remarks, and the statements FDR Telegraph, in which he expressed the made about Asian “blood” and the same point of view. In an April 23, danger of Asian and other “non- 1925 column, for example, FDR assimilable” immigrants owning too explained that he favored the much land, are strikingly similar to admission of some Europeans, so long remarks he later made about Jewish as they had “blood of the right sort.” “blood,” the danger of Jewish He endorsed the need to restrict immigrants not assimilating, and the immigration for “a good many years to need to “spread the Jews thin” so come” so the United States would have there would not be too many of them time to “digest” those who had already in certain professions and been admitted. He also proposed

13 Greg Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), p.35.

14 The 1923 essay is in Robinson, p.40; the 1925 columns are in Robinson, pp.38 and 35. !16 institutions.15 However one to appear in recent years--and, in fact, understands Roosevelt’s remarks was published by Harvard University about immigration, there can be no Press, the same publisher as FDR and doubt that they should be addressed. the Jews--it certainly would be In FDR and the Jews, Breitman surprising if Breitman and Lichtman and Lichtman described the 1920s were not familiar with it. debate in America concerning In addition, Roosevelt’s writings on immigration. Then they stated immigration, and his 1920 interview, categorically: “FDR took no part in are easily accessed in the collections of debates over immigration restriction.” FDR’s published statements at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Suppressing FDR’s Views Library in Hyde Park, NY, where Breitman did much of his research for It is obvious from the Roosevelt FDR and the Jews. statements cited above that FDR did It seems implausible that Breitman take part in the immigration debate. Is and Lichtman did not read the books it possible Breitman and Lichtman that they cite in their own source were simply unaware of Roosevelt’s notes; are unfamiliar with important numerous statements concerning recent works of Roosevelt scholarship; immigration in the 1920s? Ample and did not examine the collections of evidence indicates they must have FDR’s published statements at Hyde known. To begin with, some of FDR’s Park. That being the case, why did statements about immigration appear they falsely claim that “FDR took no in at least three books that are cited in part” in the debates? Why did they Breitman and Lichtman’s source suppress information about FDR’s notes--in other words, in books which views on race and immigration? they must have read.16 Moreover, lengthy excerpts from 4. Portraying Dissidents FDR’s immigration statements and as Draft-Dodgers writings also appeared in the 2001 book By Order of the President: FDR During the Holocaust period, and the Internment of Japanese Jewish activists known as the Bergson Americans, by Prof. Greg Robinson. Group challenged the Roosevelt The book argued that Roosevelt’s administration’s refugee policy by internment of Japanese Americans in sponsoring rallies and newspaper ads 1942 was rooted in the attitudes he urging U.S. action to rescue European expressed in his 1920s statements Jews. The group’s core leaders were about Asians. Since By Order of the Jews who had come to the United President is one of the most States temporarily from Palestine. significant works of FDR scholarship

15 For details concerning Roosevelt’s private remarks about Jews, see Rafael Medoff, FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith (Washington, D.C.: Wyman Institute, 2013), pp.1-32.

16 Breitman and Lichtman, p.27; Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Ordeal, by Frank Freidel (Boston: Little, Brown, 1954), is cited on p.335, note 6 of FDR and the Jews; it mentions Roosevelt’s immigration writings on pp.208-209. FDR: A Biography, by Ted Morgan (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), is cited on p.343, note 52 of FDR and the Jews; it mentions Roosevelt’s immigration writings on p. 628; A First Class Temperament The Emergence of Franklin Roosevelt, by Geoffrey C. Ward (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), is cited on p.332, note 4 of FDR and the Jews; it mentions Roosevelt’s immigration writings on pp.725-726. !17

Books about the Bergson Group thereby hampering the public’s have noted that several of the group’s understanding of the historical record, leaders were exempt from military contravenes accepted scholarly service during World War II for standards. The American Historical medical reasons, while several others Association’s Statement on Standards served with distinction. Robert Rosen, of Professional Conduct warns that however, in Saving the Jews (p.303), historians “should report their portrayed the entire Bergson Group findings as accurately as possible and leadership as contemptible draft- not omit evidence that runs counter to dodgers. He wrote: “A group of young their own interpretation.” (Article 3) Palestinian Jews stranded in the United States sat out the war in America, preferring to agitate for the overthrow of the British in Palestine V. A MUSEUM’S rather than enlist and fight Nazis CURIOUS REVERSAL themselves.” Yet Rosen evidently was in In late 1994, an unusual manuscript possession of information to the landed on the desk of Dr. Michael contrary. One Bergson Group leader, Berenbaum, research director at the Yitshaq Ben-Ami, wrote about his U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. military service (including fighting in Titled “The Bombing of Auschwitz: A the Battle of the Bulge) in his Critical Analysis,” it was authored by autobiography, Years of Wrath, Days one Richard H. Levy, of Seattle. The of Glory (p.338)--a book which is essay argued that it was “beyond the listed in Rosen’s own bibliography. power” of the Allies to interrupt the Another Bergson Group leader, Alex Holocaust by bombing Auschwitz or Rafaeli, fought at Normandy and the railway lines leading to it; that elsewhere. His service is described on many prominent Jewish leaders pp.20-21 of A Race Against Death, by opposed such bombing (for fear of David S. Wyman and Rafael Medoff--a harming the prisoners); and that the book which is cited by Rosen in museum should change its exhibit on Saving the Jews. the bombing issue to reflect these After he was challenged by an assertions. attorney representing the families of Levy’s arguments were surprising the Bergson Group leaders, Rosen because they contradicted the findings admitted, in December 2006, that of numerous veteran scholars in the what he wrote about the activists’ field. Those scholars, most alleged draft-dodging was false. He prominently Prof. David S. Wyman, did not explain why he made the had found that bombing Auschwitz original claim despite apparently was militarily feasible; that the Allies possessing evidence to the contrary. in fact bombed targets less than five miles from the gas chambers; and that * * * only one Jewish leader opposed bombing Auschwitz from the air, while Scholars can debate the significance many others did urge the Allies to of FDR’s remark about Jewish blood, bomb it. As it happens, Levy was or his assertions about the causes of neither a historian of the Holocaust Polish antisemitism, or his racially- nor a scholar of military affairs but, charged statements about Jewish and rather, a retired nuclear engineer. Asian immigrants, or the merits of the Moreover, his arguments were based Bergson Group’s tactics. But to omit entirely on secondary sources, not evidence that is in one’s possession, original archival research. Needless to !18 say, someone who has no expertise Auschwitz gas chambers; others and has done no original research was opposed it….No one was certain of the not likely to upend all the existing results…” scholarship in a given field. The museum did not publicize the change, but a reporter for the Speculation, Not Scholarship Washington Jewish Week who caught wind of it sought a comment from Nonetheless, Berenbaum afforded Prof. Richard Breitman, as editor of Levy the courtesy of a peer review. the museum’s scholarly journal. Turning to the leading expert on the Breitman defended the change on the bombing issue, Berenbaum asked grounds that “There were a number of Prof. Wyman for his analysis of the people and organizations [in the manuscript. In his cover note, Jewish community in 1944] which Berenbaum noted that Levy “calls opposed [bombing Auschwitz].” upon the Museum to make some Breitman did not identify the changes in its permanent exhibition, individuals or organizations to whom changes I am not inclined to make.” he was referring. In fact, at the time Wyman prepared a point-by-point Breitman made his statement, 23 critique, which he submitted to officials of Jewish organizations had Berenbaum six weeks later. His review been identified by name, in reputable concluded: “Levy’s article is not history books, as having urged the scholarship. It is a verbose attempt to Allies to bomb Auschwitz or the prove a preconceived set of railways leading to it. Only one Jewish conclusions….Levy simply omits official (and not a single organization) important facts and developments had been identified as having opposed which are inconvenient for his bombing.17 conclusions….Over and over, Levy In short, an accurate text in the turns to speculation to fill in when his U.S. Holocaust Museum had been limited sources leave the picture changed to an inaccurate one. The unclear.” According to generally new wording also carried an accepted academic standards, such a important broader implication: if only devastating peer review should have “a few” Jewish leaders favored ended any chance of the paper being bombing, while “others” (which taken seriously. sounds like a comparable number) Prof. Wyman heard nothing further opposed it; and if nobody could be from the U.S. Holocaust Museum on “certain” of the results; then nobody this subject until eighteen months can reasonably criticize the Roosevelt later. In July 1996, its Permanent administration for not bombing Exhibit Coordinator, Dr. Steven Auschwitz. Luckert, wrote to inform Prof. Wyman Why would the U.S. Holocaust that the museum had recently Museum make such a change? The changed the text of its exhibit on the answer would take more than a decade bombing issue. Luckert reported that to emerge. the original text, which stated that “American Jewish organizations A Journal Violates repeatedly asked the U.S. War its Own Policy Department to bomb Auschwitz,” had been changed to: “A few Jewish Levy’s essay, meanwhile, was taking leaders called for the bombing of the on a life of its own. In January 1996, it

17 For a list of those who were identified, and by which historian, see Appendix I. !19 was published in a book, FDR and the Institute president William vanden Holocaust, edited by Verne W. Heuvel offered his version of the Levy- Newton, director of the Roosevelt Museum affair. “I first encountered Presidential Library. The book Mr. Levy in June 1994 when he sent consisted mostly of remarks made at a the Roosevelt Institute a draft of an conference held at the library several analysis he had made of the years earlier, which Levy had not [bombing] question,” vanden Heuvel attended. wrote. According to his account, Levy Later that year, Levy’s essay was then “met with representatives of the published again--this time in U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum” Holocaust and Genocide Studies and persuaded them to change the (HGS), the journal which Prof. exhibit. Vanden Heuvel did not Breitman edits for the U.S. Holocaust indicate that he had played any role in Museum. The essay was printed the process.18 despite the journal’s own stated policy Vanden Heuvel’s account raised that it will consider only a submission more questions than it answered. that “has not been published and will How, without any outside influence, not be simultaneously submitted or could a severely flawed essay about published elsewhere.” Auschwitz by a retired nuclear Prof. Wyman, as a member of the engineer--an essay which had been journal’s Editorial Advisory Board, thoroughly discredited by the top filed a formal protest with the editors. expert in the field--convince a major He wrote that aside from some copy museum to change an exhibit? How editing, “most of the newer version [of could the essay have been accepted for Levy’s essay in HGS] is repeated publication in the top scholarly verbatim from the earlier version.” journal in the field--in violation of the Wyman argued: “Articles in scholarly journal’s own internal rules? journals are published to move the The answer came from an boundaries of knowledge forward, not unexpected source. In 2007, Penguin to provide authors the opportunity to Press posthumously published the make minor changes in already- diaries of the aforementioned New published articles. The editors of Deal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Holocaust and Genocide Studies owe who happened to have been a close their readers an explanation for their friend of vanden Heuvel. Buried deep violation of the journal’s own rules.” within Schlesinger’s 900-page book, But no explanation was forthcoming. Journals 1952-2000, was an Despite the essay’s paucity of unintentionally revealing entry dated scholarship, and despite the journal’s August 21, 1996 (p.789). There own policy, Prof. Breitman published Schlesinger celebrated the conclusion it. Why did he do so? The answer to of what he described as “Bill [vanden this mystery, too, was years away. Ten Heuvel]’s successful campaign to years, to be exact. persuade the Holocaust Museum to revise a most tendentious account of A Diary’s Revelation the failure to bomb Auschwitz.” In other words, there had been a Richard Levy, it turned out, had “campaign” (behind the scenes) by the some friends in high places. president of the Roosevelt Institute to In articles that he wrote for several change the bombing exhibit. The Jewish newspapers in 1997, Roosevelt change was not, as vanden Heuvel had

18 “FDR Did Not Abandon European Jewry,” Washington Jewish Week, 27 February 1997. !20 claimed, the result of Levy’s attention whatsoever to that persuasive powers; nor was it the pressure.” result of the museum’s historians Berenbaum’s acknowledgement discovering errors in the exhibit. The that “there was pressure” was original exhibit, in fact, was accurate; significant. It contradicted the it was changed--according to narrative that vanden Heuvel had Schlesinger--because of the Roosevelt presented in his lectures and articles, Institute’s “campaign.” Precisely what according to which Levy had, on his type of pressure vanden Heuvel’s own, persuaded the Museum to make campaign employed was not specified the change. in Schlesinger’s diary. But the As for Berenbaum’s statement that outcome demonstrated that the he and his colleagues paid no pressure had worked. attention to the pressure--one can As a matter of course, history only note that they made the very museums periodically update their change the Roosevelt Institute pressed exhibits. If a reputable historian them to make, even after being points out an inaccuracy, and the advised by the top expert in the field museum’s referees concur, a that the proposed change had no basis correction is made. Or if the museum in the historical record. staff itself uncovers new information, an exhibit will be revised. But it is New Research another matter entirely to change an on the Bombing Issue accurate text to an inaccurate one, in response to pressure from the Ironically, the Museum’s leaders president of an institute that has an subsequently proved entirely capable agenda--in this case, the agenda of of refusing to budge on the bombing protecting the image of its namesake, exhibit--this time, when historians Franklin D. Roosevelt. provided fresh research proving that the original, pre-Levy caption had “There Was Pressure” been correct. In September 2009, the David S. Schlesinger’s posthumous Wyman Institute for Holocaust revelation went unnoticed by the news Studies provided the U.S. Holocaust media and the academic community Museum with new research for more than two years. Finally, in identifying 29 Jewish leaders who 2009, New York Times reporter advocated bombing Auschwitz, and Patricia Cohen raised it. In the course one who was opposed. The research of preparing an article about the included new evidence that David bombing issue, Cohen interviewed the Ben-Gurion reversed his initial aforementioned Dr. Michael position and supported bombing. This Berenbaum, since he had been was significant because Roosevelt research director of the Holocaust defenders, especially William vanden Museum at the time the exhibit was Heuvel, had frequently cited Ben- changed. Cohen asked Berenbaum Gurion as an opponent of bombing. whether vanden Heuvel indeed had Along with providing the new pressured the Museum to make the documents to the museum, the change, as Schlesinger’s diary Wyman Institute formally asked that indicated. Berenbaum replied (as the original caption in the bombing quoted on Cohen’s blog on October 5, exhibit be restored. 2009): “There was pressure from the Roosevelt Foundation and we paid no !21

An Error Remains Uncorrected Auschwitz or the railways leading to it. He then named three Jewish officials It took more than two years, but who requested it. He also named the finally, in early 2012, the Holocaust one Jewish official who opposed it-- Museum leadership responded to the thus leaving readers to think that only Wyman Institute’s report. In a ten- a few Jewish leaders favored bombing, page memorandum, they stated that and a comparable number were they agreed with the Wyman Institute against it. Readers would have no way regarding Ben-Gurion; they disagreed of knowing that the actual count was regarding only three of the 29 29 to 1 (according to the Wyman proponents of bombing; and they Institute) or, at least, 26 to 7 cited six additional individuals (according to the Holocaust Museum’s (although not leaders) whom they memo). believe opposed bombing. There was another remarkable Hence the Holocaust Museum's aspect to Prof. Breitman’s portrayal of final count was 26 in favor, 7 opposed. the bombing controversy. He wrote (p. That tally directly contradicts the 287): “Key Jewish figures such as revised exhibit caption in the Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Joseph museum. The caption states that only Proskauer, and Rabbi Abba Hillel “a few” Jewish leaders called for Silver did not lobby the administration bombing; 26 is not “a few.” The to bomb Auschwitz, either publicly or caption also states that “others” behind the scenes.” That sentence opposed bombing, a phrase implying a created the impression that the most number similar to the number of prominent Jewish leaders were advocates--even though, according to against bombing. Yet Breitman knew the Museum’s own leaders, only seven that Allied officials were repeatedly (at most) were opposed. Nonetheless, approached on the bombing issue by the ten-page memo made no reference Nahum Goldmann--who was Rabbi to any plans to correct the exhibit. The Wise’s co-chair of the World Jewish Wyman Institute’s subsequent Congress as well as a senior inquires about changing the exhibit representative of the American Zionist went unanswered. Today, nearly three movement, which Wise and Silver years later, the inaccurate caption is cochaired. In other words, Goldmann still on display at the museum.19 was the Jewish leadership’s The most recent public statement representative in Washington for this on the subject by a Museum issue. Wise and Silver did not need to representative--Richard Breitman-- personally raise the issue when their reflects the position articulated in the representative was already doing so.20 inaccurate caption. On p.281 of FDR and the Jews, Breitman wrote that there were “several” requests by * * * Jewish leaders for the Allies to bomb

19 Wyman and Medoff to Luckert, 21 September 2009; Luckert to Wyman and Medoff, 10 January 2012.

20 Breitman’s mention of Proskauer was disingenuous. Proskauer was president of the American Jewish Committee, which as a matter of principle never asked the government to take specific steps just for Jews. The fact that the Committee refrained from lobbying for bombing was consistent with its overall attitude, and reveals nothing about its leaders’ view of the bombing idea in particular. !22

Scholars can debate the pros and the merits of the author’s findings as cons of bombing the railways versus compared to other works in the same striking the gas chambers, or other field. If the author has changed his theoretical aspects of the bombing positions from those taken in his issue. But there is no doubt as to the previous works, the reviewer will need documented positions taken by the to account for that, too. To be able to overwhelming majority of Jewish do all of this competently, the leaders at the time. It is troubling that reviewer should be someone who the U.S. Holocaust Museum altered its himself has researched and written in bombing exhibit in response to the same field, so that he is fully political pressure--and despite the conversant with the topic and able to negative peer review it received--and recognize a book’s shortcomings. Put continues to misrepresent the another way, the reviewer has to be positions of the Jewish leaders, by capable of reading and understanding failing to correct its erroneous exhibit the footnotes. panel. The museum’s actions in this Reviewers who have researched episode do not accord with the and published in the field of the Allies’ American Historical Association’s responses to the Holocaust had no Statement on Standards for Museum trouble seeing through William Exhibits Dealing with Historical Rubinstein’s The Myth of Rescue. Subjects, which states: “Exhibits Prof. Walter Laqueur (writing in should be founded on scholarship, Commentary) characterized it as marked by intellectual integrity, and based on “willful ignorance” and subjected to rigorous peer “arguments that are flatly and often review.” (Article 1) outrageously wrong.” Prof. Robert Herzstein (in Holocaust and Genocide Studies) found the book to be an VI. UNQUALIFIED “apologia” for the Allies’ abandonment REVIEWERS of the Jews, filled with “blustery claims and extremist positions.” Book review editors for major Prof. Liza Schuster (in Patterns of publications generally act in Prejudice) wrote: “In this book, little accordance with widely accepted new evidence is used, much is ignored principles when choosing a reviewer and...existing evidence...is skewed by the author to support his for a particular book: the reviewer 21 should have no personal connection to arguments.” the book or the author; the reviewer The New York Times, however, should not have any known bias that assigned The Myth of Rescue to Prof. would influence the review; and the Michael Sherry, who is the author of reviewer should have expertise in the books on such subjects as American same field as the book. military preparedness and gay culture. Expertise is crucial because the His lengthy resumé does not contain a reviewer will not merely be offering an single publication related to the opinion on a topic of interest. He will Holocaust, much less the Allies’ be passing judgment on the quality of response to it. Sherry found the author’s research and assessing Rubinstein’s arguments to be “mostly

21 Walter Laqueur, “No Exit?,” Commentary, October 1997, pp.59-62; Robert Edwin Herzstein, “Is It Time to Stop Asking Why the West Failed to Save More Jews?,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 12:2 (Fall 1998), pp.326-338; Lisa Schuster, “Democracies in the Dock,” Patterns of Prejudice 33:1 (1999), pp.84-85. !23 persuasive.” Evidently he lacked the In the Sunday Times, FDR and the background to recognize the book’s Jews was reviewed by Dominic numerous inaccuracies. Sandbrook, author of a two-volume Robert Rosen’s book Saving the history of England since the 1950s and Jews was so tendentious and extreme a book about Eugene McCarthy.23 that almost no publications of The Journal of American History significance reviewed it. One assigned it to David B. Woolner, who exception was the scholarly journal happens to be the Resident Historian American Jewish Archives. It at the Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt assigned the book to Prof. Alonzo Institute. As such, his job is--as the Hamby, who has authored books Institute’s mission statement puts about American politics but not the it--“to carry forward the legacy and Holocaust or America’s response to it. values of Franklin and Eleanor “Most of Rosen’s points stand up Roosevelt.” Moreover, Woolner has pretty well,” Hamby concluded, never published any research although clearly he was unfamiliar concerning President Roosevelt’s with the details of the issues involved. response to the Holocaust. It is not In an odd twist, Hamby used the clear on what basis the editors of JAH review as a platform from which to believed Prof. Woolner’s review of chastise American Jewry for being FDR and the Jews could be either “obsessed with the Holocaust.” He objective or well-informed. even went so far as to patronizingly Sure enough, Woolner’s review bemoan the fact “that so accomplished contained significant errors that a people seem to have made it the someone familiar with the sources touchstone of their contemporary would not have made. For example, as identity.”22 evidence of FDR’s intention to rescue Jews, Woolner cited the creation of A Certain Type of Reviewer the War Refugee Board. But how could he explain the Roosevelt Breitman and Lichtman’s FDR and administration’s opposition to the the Jews enjoyed unusual treatment congressional resolution that sought by book review editors. Major the creation of such an agency? publications that reviewed the book Woolner claimed that Congressman invariably assigned it to someone who Sol Bloom was responsible for trying has never done original research in the to block that resolution--as if the field of America’s response to the administration had not opposed it. He Holocaust. For example, the reviewer further claimed that Rabbi Stephen S. selected by the New York Times was Wise played a role in bringing about David Oshinsky, a scholar who the creation of the Board--even specializes in McCarthyism. In the though Wise testified against the Washington Post, it was reviewed by resolution. But when privately James McAuley, a graduate student questioned about these statements, and self-described “aspiring Woolner backtracked, saying he did journalist.” The Los Angeles Review of not mean to credit either Roosevelt or Books assigned it to Jon Wiener, the Wise for the creation of the Board. author of books about the Cold War, While Prof. Woolner acknowledged the Chicago Eight, and John Lennon. these significant errors in private

22 Alonzo Hamby book review, American Jewish Archives LIX 1 & 2 (2007), pp.131-135.

23 McAuley’s self-description appeared in Harvard Magazine, 29 November 2011. !24 correspondence, he did not publish a The online version of Feldman’s correction in the Journal of American review in the New York Review of History.24 Books contained a footnote, in tiny The New York Review of Books print, stating that “two sentences” of assigned FDR and the Jews to Noah his “appear” on the dustjacket of FDR Feldman, a Harvard law professor and the Jews. That vague wording fell who has written books about short of explicitly acknowledging that America’s relations with the Muslim Feldman had written a blurb; from the world, church-state issues in the phrasing, a reader might think that United States, and President someone else on the dustjacket had Roosevelt’s Supreme Court simply quoted two of Feldman’s appointments--but nothing related to sentences. Even worse, the print America’s response to the Holocaust. version of Feldman’s review in the What made the New York Review’s New York Review made no reference selection of Feldman all the more at all to Feldman’s prior endorsement surprising is that an effusive blurb on of FDR and the Jews. the dustjacket of FDR and the Jews, hailing the book as “the definitive Inexplicable Reversals word on the subject,” was written by-- Noah Feldman. One of the major handicaps facing reviewers in this situation is that since Endorsing a Book, they are not sufficiently versed in the and Then Reviewing It source material in this field, they did not notice the numerous significant Without mentioning Breitman, discrepancies between the arguments Lichtman, or FDR and the Jews, we made by Prof. Breitman in FDR and contacted the current or former book the Jews and those he made in his review editors of four major scholarly 1987 book American Refugee Policy journals of history and asked if they and European Jewry or in his 2004 considered it appropriate to assign a book, Advocate for the Doomed. book to a reviewer who had written a The reviewers of FDR and the Jews blurb endorsing the book. All four were evidently unaware, for example, replied that they would not use that of the aforementioned shift from reviewer for the book since, as one of Breitman 1987 stating that President the editors put it, if someone has Roosevelt’s mother “was anti-Semitic” written a blurb, “they are already pre- to Breitman 2013 portraying her as a committed to be positive about [the philosemite. Some examples of other book].” unexplained reversals of which That editor also mentioned a reviewers were unaware: common courtesy in the profession: “On a couple of occasions…authors I FDR’s “Concern”: contacted about writing a review As noted earlier, Breitman 2004 declined because they’d already claimed that a May 1, 1933 diary entry published a blurb.” Prof. Feldman, by James G. McDonald showed that however, did not decline the invitation Roosevelt intended to speak out for to review the book he had blurbed. German Jewry. But Breitman 2013 stated the opposite. He wrote that the

24 Woolner’s review of FDR and the Jews appeared in Journal of American History, June 2014, pp.300-301; Medoff to Woolner, 29 September 2014 and 3 October 2014; Woolner to Medoff, 12 November 2014. !25

May 1 diary entry showed that decision: “Our research makes clear McDonald “inferred correctly that, that such figures [in the Roosevelt despite Roosevelt’s concern, the administration] as Assistant Secretary Administration would not publicly of State Wilbur Carr, George reprimand Germany and jeopardize Messersmith, Breckinridge Long, international economic negotiations Commissioner of Immigration Daniel and disarmament efforts.” (p.58) MacCormack, and many other officials at lower levels of authority devised Quotas & Evian: and carried out adjustments to Breitman 2013 gave FDR credit for immigration regulations that had a combining the German and Austrian major effect upon the level of quotas and for initiating the Evian immigration to the United States.”26 refugee conference (p.102). But Breitman 1987 credited those The 1937 Increase: moves to State Department official Breitman 2013 claimed that the Herbert Feis and journalist Dorothy modest increase in German Jewish Thompson, respectively. (p.57) When immigration to the U.S. in early 1937 Noah Feldman reviewed FDR and the happened because “With his election Jews in the New York Review of triumph behind him and the economy Books, he likewise credited FDR for continuing to improve, FDR finally “unilaterally combining the German broke the bureaucratic logjam on and Austrian quotas.” Evidently he Jewish refugees.” (p.94) And: “[After never checked either Breitman’s the 1936 election,] FDR finally source notes or Breitman’s earlier smashed the bureaucratic barriers to writings; he simply parroted what he the expanded admission of Jewish read in FDR and the Jews.25 refugees to the United States.” (p.316) But Breitman 1987 wrote: “There is Suppressing Immigration: no evidence that Roosevelt issued any In a 2014 letter defending FDR and instructions to the State Department the Jews, Breitman (and Lichtman) [in 1936-37] about German Jewish claimed: “[T]he failure to fill the immigration...” (p.48) In fact, German quota during FDR’s first term Breitman 1987 specifically suggested did not result from ‘extra the change might have been due to the requirements and regulations’ that actions of Immigration Commissioner [the Roosevelt administration] ‘piled Daniel MacCormack (p.27) or on.’ Rather it resulted from an Assistant Secretary of State George executive decision by former president Messersmith (p.48). Moreover, in a Herbert Hoover in 1930…” footnote, Breitman 1987 actually But Breitman 1987 stated (p.9) that chided historian Henry Feingold for the failure to fill the German quota having once implied that FDR was during FDR’s first term was due to the responsible for the 1937 change.27 actions of officials of the Roosevelt administration, not the Hoover

25 Noah Feldman, “Could FDR Have Done More to Save the Jews?,” New York Review of Books, 8 May 2014, p.42.

26 “Communications,” American Historical Review, October 2014, p.1427. Breitman and Lichtman were commenting on a letter by Rafael Medoff.

27 For the critique of Feingold, see p.261, n.101 of Breitman’s American Refugee Policy. !26

The Missing $150-Million: Zionist activists; 27,000 found haven Breitman 2013 reported that President in Switzerland, although thousands Roosevelt intended to ask Congress more were turned away; more than for $150-million to help resettle 7,000 Danish Jews escaped to refugees. (p.117) Likewise, Breitman Sweden; thousands of French Jews 2009 (Rescue and Refugees) fled to Spain; and thousands more trumpeted this claim as “new reached Allied-liberated Italy.) 29 evidence” that FDR was deeply concerned about the Jews. (pp.152, * * * 335) Neither book mentioned that Roosevelt never actually requested the Scholars can, and sometimes do, funds. Yet in a 1993 lecture, Breitman change their positions on historical himself had criticized Roosevelt for issues--that is, if they discover, or are not requesting the funds.28 presented with, new evidence. That is the accepted practice in the Was Rescue Possible? profession. For a historian to publicly In a 2014 letter about FDR and the change his positions, without Jews, Breitman claimed that bringing presenting any explanation as to what any significant number of Jews to the evidence caused the changes, raises U.S. after the outbreak of the war questions as to what motivated him to would have been impossible, since “in take the new positions. October 1941 the German government If Prof. Breitman’s changes of banned the emigration of any Jews position involved some minor or from Germany or its occupied inconsequential historical issues, they countries.” would be of less concern. But in FDR Yet when this issue arose in a public and the Jews (and in letters defending debate back in 1987, Prof. Breitman it), he has reversed himself on some of took the opposite position. After a the most important issues in the Providence Journal editorial claimed debate over President Roosevelt’s the outbreak of the war made it response to the Holocaust. impossible to rescue Jews, Breitman Unfortunately, Prof. Breitman has responded with a letter arguing that declined to respond to queries about more Jews indeed could have been his reversals, even though the saved--if FDR had only established the American Historical Association’s War Refugee Board earlier: “Some of Statement on Standards of its policies and actions could have Professional Conduct requires been tried earlier and would have historians to “make available their been more effective then. The fate of sources, evidence, and data.” Europe’s Jews was not simply sealed Thus to a significant extent, the with the outbreak of the war.” (Many success of FDR and the Jews among Jews did escape Europe long after the reviewers rested upon editors German ban. For example, some assigning the book to reviewers who 26,000 were smuggled to Palestine by were unfamiliar with the field and

28 Breitman in Verne W. Newton, FDR and the Holocaust (New York: St. Martin’s, 1996), p. 134. Multiple emails from Rafael Medoff to Richard Breitman, inquiring about these and other contradictions and errors in his work, have gone unanswered. For some reason, he has chosen not to defend what he wrote.

29 Richard Breitman, “Britain and the U.S. Did Not Try to Halt the Slaughter” (letter), Providence Journal, 27 March 1987. !27 thus unable to spot the errors and explosive reactions in Egypt or Syria major reversals of position contained or Saudi Arabia.” (p.397) (For a in the book. Not one of the positive complete list of instances in which reviews of FDR and the Jews made Rosen used others’ words without reference to the contradictory attribution, see Appendix II.)31 positions that Breitman took in his At least three published articles earlier writings.30 about FDR and the Holocaust by Roosevelt Institute founder William vanden Heuvel have contained VII. PLAGIARISM language taken from other authors without attribution. For example, in The American Historical vanden Heuvel’s 1999 article in Association’s Statement on Standards American Heritage, he wrote: of Professional Conduct defines “All such strategic raids on military- plagiarism as “the use of another’s industrial bases proceeded only after language without quotation marks and months of preparatory intelligence citation.” It also notes: “Plagiarism work, entailing the creation of a target can also include the limited folder with specific information about borrowing, without sufficient the size, hardness, structure attribution, of another person’s placement, and defenses of the target distinctive and significant research and detailed aerial photography.” He findings or interpretations.” (Article 3) did not use quotation marks or Robert Rosen’s FDR and the Jews indicate the source of that statement, contained at least 19 separate but evidently it came from instances of unattributed use of William Rubinstein, who two years others’ language. For example, Rosen earlier wrote in The Myth of Rescue: wrote, without quotation marks: “Any “All such strategic raids on military- time the president touched the issue– industrial bases proceeded only after even by merely receiving Zionists–he months of preparatory intelligence triggered explosive reactions in Egypt, work, entailing the creation of a target Syria, and Saudi Arabia.” (p.296) folder with specific information about More than three decades earlier, the size, hardness, structure James MacGregor Burns, in his placement, defences and so on, of the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography target and detailed aerial Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom, photography.” (p.164) The only wrote: “Any time the President notable difference between the two touched the issue–even by merely statements was that vanden Heuvel, receiving Zionists–he triggered an American, wrote “defenses,” while

30 A similar phenomenon helped FDR and the Jews win a National Jewish Book Award. Although the sponsor of the award, the Jewish Book Council, does not identify the individual judges for each category, it did release a list of the names of all 55 judges (for all categories). Only one of the 55 has ever published original research concerning American responses to the Holocaust, and he was not among the group that chose to award FDR and the Jews. Thus the book was judged by a panel that did not include a single historian who has done original research on the same subject as the book they chose for the award.

31 James MacGregor Burns, Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970). !28

Rubinstein, who resides in England, firepower” than the Germans. The spelled it “defences.”32 (For a complete result was that the mass “slaughter of list of instances in which vanden Jews in Palestine and North Africa Heuvel used others’ language without was averted.” This stopped the Nazis’ attribution, see Appendix II.) plan for an “extension of the Holocaust” from Europe to the Middle Same Words, No Attribution East.33 Similarly, Breitman and Lichtman In the case of FDR and the Jews, wrote that the Nazis had an Breitman and Lichtman borrowed “annihilation plan” for the region’s both a disingenuous theory as well as Jews.” But then FDR sent tanks with the language used (by others) to “superior range” and “superior articulate it. Writing in The Forward firepower” to the Germans’ tanks. The in 2011, attorney Robert Morgenthau result was that “the mass slaughter of and law professor Frank Tuerkheimer Jews” in Palestine and North Africa proposed that President Roosevelt was averted. This stopped the Nazis should be credited with “saving” the “from extending the Holocaust” from 500,000 Jews of Palestine because Europe to the Middle East. Breitman Roosevelt’s supply of tanks helped the and Lichtman did not mention British stop the Germans at El Morgenthau and Tuerkheimer in Alamein, in Egypt--and had they not either their source notes or their been stopped, they likely would have acknowledgments. On this matter, too, conquered Palestine and killed the Breitman and Lichtman have refused Jews there. The purpose of that tank to answer inquiries. shipment, however, had nothing to do with Palestine or the Jews, so the Morgenthau-Tuerkheimer argument was comparable to crediting Josef CONCLUSION Stalin with “saving” the Jews of Moscow, since the defeat of the Altering quotations, Germans at Stalingrad prevented the misrepresenting the contents of Germans from ultimately reaching historical documents, inventing Moscow. statistics, refusing to identify sources, Nonetheless, Breitman and suppressing evidence, and using other Lichtman not only made the same authors’ words without attribution argument in FDR and the Jews, but contravene the American Historical used some of the same language, Association’s Statement on Standards without quotation marks or of Professional Conduct. Such actions attribution. Morgenthau and also undermine the credibility of those Tuerkheimer had written that the authors. The AHA Statement notes: Nazis “planned to annihilate the “Those who invent, alter, remove, or region’s Jews.” But then FDR sent destroy evidence make it difficult for tanks with “greater range and

32 William vanden Heuvel, "America and the Holocaust," American Heritage, July-August 1999, p.51.

33 Morgenthau and Tuerkheimer, “How FDR Helped Save the Jews of the Holy Land,” The Forward, 21 October 2011; Breitman and Lichtman, pp.260-261. Morgenthau and Tuerkheimer also claimed that because of the tanks, “the State of Israel would not exist” if not for Roosevelt. Similarly, Breitman and Lichtman concluded that without President Roosevelt, there would have been “no Jewish State, no Israel.” (p. 318) !29 any serious historian ever wholly to trust their work again.” (Article 2) Assigning a book for review to individuals who have previously endorsed it likewise violates generally accepted practices in the academic world. A museum that inserts erroneous information into an exhibit in response to a political pressure campaign, or a journal editor who publishes an essay in violation of the journal’s own stated policy, undermines principles that are supposed to ensure the integrity of the scholarly profession. Such behavior should be opposed by the academic community. !30

Appendix I: Director, Moshe Shertok; the Jewish Agency’s representatives in Geneva (Richard Lichtheim), Budapest (Moshe Jewish Leaders and the Krausz) and London (Joseph Linton), and Bombing of Auschwitz A.G. Brotman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. (pp.309, 315, 318) Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of the Martin Gilbert, in Auschwitz and the European Jews (1961), was the first Allies (1981), added one more: Chaim historian to note that Chaim Weizmann, Pozner, of the Jewish Agency’s Geneva president of the World Zionist office. (p.245) Organization and Jewish Agency, urged the Monty N. Penkower identified Ignacy British to bomb Auschwitz. (p.771) Schwartzbart, of the World Jewish Nora Levin, in The Holocaust (1968), Congress and Polish National Council, and mentioned the bombing appeals that were Reuben Hecht, the Bergson Group’s made by Slovak Jewish rescue activist representative in Switzerland (in The Jews Rabbi Michoel Dov Weissmandel. (p. 541) Were Expendable [1983], p.197 and Henry Feingold, in The Politics of Rescue Archives of the Holocaust [1990], p.426). (1970), reported that Nahum Goldmann, Dina Porat, in The Blue and the Yellow co-chairman of the World Jewish Congress Stars of David (1990), reported that when and Washington representative of the David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency Jewish Agency, asked the Roosevelt Executive in Jerusalem learned the true administration to bomb Auschwitz. (p.270) nature of Auschwitz, “the JAE reversed” its David S. Wyman, writing in original decision to refrain from requesting Commentary in May 1978, identified a bombing, and Agency officials around the number of the Jewish leaders and world began lobbying for bombing. Among organizations who called on the Allies to them, she noted, was Eliahu Epstein, who bomb Auschwitz or the railway lines met with a Soviet diplomat in Cairo to urge leading to it: Isaac Sternbuch, a bombing. (pp.218-219) Switzerland-based representative of the Rafael Medoff, in 2009, documented the U.S. Orthodox rescue group, the Va’ad ha- attempt by Berl Locker, of the Jewish Hatzala; Rabbi Abraham Kalmanowitz, of Agency’s London office, to persuade the the Va’ad ha-Hatzala in New York; Slovak Soviets to bomb Auschwitz. Jewish activist Gisi Fleischmann; Gerhard In 2012, Medoff and Bat-Ami Zucker Riegner, representative of the World identified additional advocates of bombing: Jewish Congress in Geneva; Benjamin Maurice Perlzweig of the World Jewish Akzin, Revisionist Zionist activist and War Congress in New York; Anselm Reiss of the Refugee Board staff member; Agudath WJC in London; Golda Meir (then known Israel leader Jacob Rosenheim, in New as Goldie Myerson) and Heschel Frumkin, York City; Ernest Frischer of the Czech senior officials of the Histadrut in government in exile; Yitzhak Gruenbaum, Palestine; Israel Mereminski, the chairman of the Jewish Agency’s Rescue Histadrut’s U.S. representative; and the Committee; and Johan Smertenko, vice editors of the U.S. Labor Zionist magazine, president of the Emergency Committee to Jewish Frontier. In 2013, Medoff (in FDR Save the Jewish People of Europe (the and the Holocaust, pp.170-171) described Bergson Group). Wyman also noted that the attempts by Agudath Israel emissary A. Leon Kubowitzki of the World Jewish Meir Schenkelowski to persuade Secretary Congress opposed bombing from the air. of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of War Bernard Wasserstein, in Britain and the Henry Stimson to bomb the railways Jews of Europe 1939-1945 (1979), leading to Auschwitz.34 identified additional proponents of bombing: the Jewish Agency’s Political

34 Rafael Medoff, “The Roosevelt Administration, David Ben-Gurion, and the Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: A Mystery Solved,” The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies (Washington, D.C.: 2009), p.19; Rafael Medoff and Bat-Ami Zucker, “America’s Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: A New Consensus Among Historians,” The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies (Washington, D.C.: 2012), pp.11, 13, 15. !31

Appendix II: revealed the details of the Auschwitz- Birkenau concentration camp.

Plagiarism From William Rubinstein’s The Myth of Rescue, p.165: The American Historical Association’s official Statement on Plagiarism defines It was these enlarged, cropped and newly plagiarism as “the use of another’s captioned photographs which were language without quotation marks and published and republished in the press. citation.” It also notes that historians “should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars.” 3. From vanden Heuvel’s article, “America and the Holocaust,” American Heritage, July-August 1999, p.51: William J. vanden Heuvel: It is often noted that American bombers 1. From vanden Heuvel’s address at the were carrying out raids in the summer of U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on 1944 on industrial targets only a few miles October 24, 1996: away from Auschwitz, suggesting how easy it would have been to bomb the gas Jews were now prisoners of a psychopath chambers. who was also the absolute dictator of Europe….His central obsession, the life’s From William Rubinstein’s The Myth of mission of this deranged monomaniacal Rescue, p.164: psychopath, was to kill as many Jews as he could.35 If is often noted that American heavy bombers were carrying out raids at this From William Rubinstein’s The Myth of time on industrial targets only a few miles Rescue, p.79: away from the Auschwitz gas chambers...

[I]n 1939-40 the Jews of Nazi-occupied Europe ceased to be refugees but instead 4. From vanden Heuvel’s article, “America became the exact opposite: prisoners-- and the Holocaust,” American Heritage, prisoners of a psychopath whose life’s July-August 1999, p.51: mission consisted in killing every last one of them and who happened to be the All such strategic raids on military- absolute dictator of most of Europe.36 industrial bases proceeded only after months of preparatory intelligence work, entailing the creation of a target folder 2. From vanden Heuvel’s article, “What with specific information about the size, the Allies Knew and When They Knew It,” hardness, structure placement, and The Forward, February 16, 2001, p. 15: defenses of the target and detailed aerial photography. [T]he CIA, applying advanced technology not available during World War II, From William Rubinstein’s The Myth of enlarged, cropped and captioned Rescue, p.164: reproductions that for the first time

35 The address was also published in the National Jewish Post and Opinion, 27 November 1996, p.9.

36 The Myth of Rescue was officially published in May 1997. However, vanden Heuvel indicated in several articles in 1996 and early 1997 that he had received an advance copy of the manuscript. (William J. vanden Heuvel, “The Holocaust Was No Secret,” New York Times Magazine, 22 December 1996, p.31; idem., “FDR Did Not Abandon European Jewry,” Washington Jewish Week, 27 February 1997, p.21.) !32

All such strategic raids on military- industrial bases proceeded only after 3. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.15: months of preparatory intelligence work, entailing the creation of a target folder The new president had no mandate to do with specific information about the size, anything about foreign affairs, and he hardness, structure placement, defences was not about to wreck his critical and so on, of the target and detailed aerial domestic agenda on the shoals of foreign photography. policy.

5. From vanden Heuvel’s article, “America From James MacGregor Burns’ Roosevelt: and the Holocaust,” American Heritage, The Soldier of Freedom, p.247: July-August 1999, p.51: But even after Roosevelt was safely in The Allied air forces simply lacked the office he cautiously skirted foreign policy intelligence base necessary to plan and shoals on which he feared his political execute a bombing raid against the popularity and domestic program might Auschwitz extermination camp. be wrecked.

From William Rubinstein’s The Myth of Rescue, p.164: 4. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.18:

However, the United States Air Force He despised Nazi brutality against Jews totally lacked the intelligence base and political opponents and their hatred necessary to plan and execute a bombing for democracy. Indeed, he despised raid against the Auschwitz extermination everything about them. camp. From Irwin Gellman’s Secret Affairs, pp.16-17: Robert Rosen: The American chief executive ultimately 1. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p. 1: came to despise everything the Nazis represented, especially their renewed Hitler hated and feared his father, and his efforts at rearmament and the brutality mother moved from place to place. that they unleashed upon their opponents. From James MacGregor Burns’ Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom, p.67: 5. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.23:

Hitler as a boy had hated and feared his Jewish New Yorkers, the Yiddish-speaking father and loved his mother, had moved leadership, Jewish War Veterans, Zionist repeatedly from place to place and from and labor groups, and other Jewish school to school... organizations supported the boycott. So did the Yiddish Press and Justice Brandeis. 2. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.16: From Howard Sachar’s A History of the Jews could leave Germany with 35 Jews in America, p. 469: percent of their capital in 1936, 10 percent in 1938, and by June 1938, nothing. Zionist and labor groups also favored the notion. So did the Morgen Djurnal and From Howard Sachar’s A History of the Tog. So did Brandeis. Jews in America, p.474: 6. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.7: By 1936, emigrating Jews were left with 35 percent of their capital; by 1938, with Between July 1, 1933, and June 30, 1942, 10 percent; and by June 1938, with 161,051 Jews immigrated to the United nothing. States--35.5 percent of all immigrants to America. Jews comprised more than half !33

of all immigrants to the United States between 1938 and 1940...until 10. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.149: Kristallnacht, fewer German Jews wished to enter the United States than one would One report had reached him that in New assume. York only the Jews were solidly for him.

From William Rubinstein’s The Myth of From James MacGregor Burns’ Roosevelt: Rescue, pp.34-36: The Soldier of Freedom, p.453:

Between 1 July 1933 and 30 June 1942 a One report had reached Roosevelt that in total of 161,051 Jews migrated to the New York City only the Jews were solid United States, comprising 35.5 percent of for him. all migrants...settling in America....In both 1938-9 and 1939-40 Jews comprised more than one-half of all immigrants 11. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p. 185: admitted to the United States...until Kristallnacht, many fewer German Jews There were hundreds of thousands of non- actually wished to enter the United States Jewish refugees in flight from Poland, than one would assume. Finland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

7. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, From Richard Breitman (in Newton, ed., pp.27-28: FDR and the Holocaust, pp.135-6):

The epitome of a bureaucrat, he used his First, there were now hundreds of position... thousands of non-Jewish refugees (as well as additional Jewish refugees) in flight From Richard Breitman and Alan M. from Poland, Finland, Belgium, the Kraut’s American Refugee Policy, p.28: Netherlands...

Called by one historian “the epitome of the bureaucrat,” Wilbur Carr was... 12. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.224:

After Germany invaded Poland in 1939 ... 8. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.40: So many events crowded out news of the persecution of the Jews. In 1924 and 1925 barely 10,000 Jewish immigrants entered the United States. From Deborah Lipstadt’s Beyond Belief, p.140: From Howard Sachar’s A History of the Jews in America, p.324: As soon as Germany crossed the Polish border, news of the persecution of In the fiscal year 1924-25 barely ten European Jewry began to be crowded out thousand Jews entered the United States of the press by news of the war. from all countries.

13. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.296: 9. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p. 11: Any time the president touched the issue– The internal political situation in even by merely receiving Zionists–he Germany was unstable. triggered explosive reactions in Egypt, From Henry Feingold’s The Politics of Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Rescue, p.67: From James MacGregor Burns’ Roosevelt: The internal political situation in the Reich The Soldier of Freedom, p.397: was simply too unstable to offer any assurances. Any time the President touched the issue – even by merely receiving Zionists – he !34

triggered explosive reactions in Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia. A Gordon Gallup public poll on April 1, 1941, showed 79 percent of citizens opposed sending American troops 14. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, overseas, for any reason. pp.367-368: From T.R.Fehrenbach’s FDR’s Undeclared The Joint Chiefs of Staff asked him to War 1939-1941, p.213: retreat from his stand on unconditional surrender....To some degree, Roosevelt’s On April 1, 1941, the Gallup poll showed harsh attitude may have been affected by fully 79 percent of the people opposed to the agony of Jews. sending of American troops overseas, for any reason. From James MacGregor Burns’ Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom, pp.40-41: 18. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p. 116: [T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the President to retreat from his FDR was incensed....But Roosevelt could uncompromising stand [on German only do so much. He could not undermine surrender]...The President’s harsh attitude Britain’s strategic position in the Arab toward Germany was not unaffected by a world on the eve of war. growing burden on the world’s conscience. This was the agony of the Jews. From Peter Grose’s Israel in the Mind of America, p.138:

15. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews p. 62: Roosevelt was incensed....For all his dismay, Roosevelt’s hands were tied. He FDR’s use of the full German-Austrian wanted to avoid any action that would quota was well in advance of American weaken Britain’s strategic position in the public opinion. Arab world on the eve of war.

From Richard Breitman and Alan Kraut’s American Refugee Policy, p.58: 19. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p. 121:

By encouraging the full use of the At ten minutes to three on the morning of German-Austrian quota, the September 1, William Bullitt called the administration could actually increase president from Paris with the news of the immigration to the United States--a move German invasion. that was well in advance of American public opinion. From Frank Freidel’s Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny, p.321: 16. From Rosen’s Saving the Jews, p.52: At ten minutes to three on the morning of Roosevelt won a resounding victory in the September 1, William Bullitt called the immigrant wards of the big cities, where president from Paris with the news of the turnout increased a third over 1932, and German invasion. the vote for FDR was overwhelming.

From David M. Kennedy’s Freedom from Fear, pp.284-5: In the immigrant wards of the great industrial cities...turnout rose nearly a third over 1932, and voters went overwhelmingly for Roosevelt and the Democrats.

17. From Rosen’s Saving Jews, p.160: