http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2...damned.php
project by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to trace the fate of each of the more than 900 passengers.
And it continues to fascinate historians--including an Israeli scholar who has uncovered a new document that sheds light on President Franklin Roosevelt's attitude toward the St. Louis.
THE SADDEST SHIP AFLOAT
Hans Fisher, today a professor at Rutgers University, grew up in the German city of Breslau. He still vividly remembers the torments he and other Jewish children endured there in the early years of the Hitler regime. "When my friends and I would come out of our school building, members of the Hitler Youth would be waiting nearby," he recalls. "They would chase us, and if they caught us, they would beat us."
His father, George Fisher, was one of the tens of thousands of Jewish men arrested during the November 1938 Kristallnacht program and sent to concentration camps. After nearly two months in Buchenwald, George was released on condition that he leave the country within two weeks. He secured a visa to Cuba and immediately upon his arrival there began making arrangements for Hans, his sister Ruth, and their mother to join him. They purchased tickets to sail on the SS St. Louis in May 1939.
Hans's grandparents, Wolf and Emma Gottheimer, chose to stay behind. "My grandfather was convinced that since four of his sons had given their lives for Germany in World War One, the Nazis would never persecute him," Hans explains sadly. "In fact, my grandparents had gone to Palestine in 1935, but then returned to Germany, to the shock and amazement of their friends." Hans's grandparents would eventually perish in the Theresienstadt concentration camp.
The two week voyage from Hamburg to Havana proceeded without incident. "I was young, I was happy that we were getting away from Nazi Germany, I certainly couldn't appreciate how tenuous our position was," Hans says. "When we reached Havana, all of our suitcases were brought up to the deck as we got ready to disembark. It was a terrible shock to be standing there by the rail, our suitcases in hand, and told we could not get off the ship."
maybe this will turn you against the donkey party
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Supporters of the bill included prominent church figures, leaders of the AFL and CIO labor unions, university presidents, New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia, the 1936 Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and former First Lady Grace Coolidge, who announced that she and her friends in Northampton, Massachusetts would personally care for twenty-five of the children.
Nativist and isolationist groups vociferously opposed the Wagner-Rogers bill. Typical of their perspective was a remark by FDR’s cousin, Laura Delano Houghteling, who was the wife of the U.S. commissioner of immigration: she warned that “20,000 charming children would all too soon grow into 20,000 ugly adults.”
FDR responded negatively to a private appeal to him by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt for his support of the bill. He did tell Eleanor that he would not object if she endorsed it, but she refrained from doing so. When a congresswoman inquired as to the president’s position, on the bill, FDR returned the note to his secretary marked “File No action FDR.”
Mindful of polls showing most Americans opposed to more immigration, Roosevelt preferred to follow public opinion rather than lead it. Without his support, the Wagner-Rogers bill was buried in committee.
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2...damned.php
a lot of americans were pricks too
i wonder what my grandparents thought-probably liberalistic i think-
theres no anti semites in my family with various jewish inlaws relatives
but my father was democrat but fair-all democrats werent bad
•
HollandofFrance Wrote:maybe this will turn you against the donkey party
Why should it? That was many decades ago back when Democrats were more like Republicans (and vice versa), and it was based on isolationism and fear of immigrants which are more associated with Republicans instead of Democrats today.
I can come up with reasons to not like the Democrat Party, but they're real reasons, not the stuff you like to point out. And why don't you point out that Republicans are--at best--equally bad. For example, many of them didn't have a problem with Clinton invading Bosnia, they were more concerned with his private life (even as theirs was much worse, such as Gingrich serving another wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer).
And here, once again, you use Nazi Germany to paint liberals with bad strokes, but do you really think Santorum and the like would be against Nazi Germany back in the day or that Obama would turn such refugees away today? After all, the Nazis were big on God, had prayer in school, worshipped the military, abortion was a capital offense, gays (who had made some of the most progress in Berlin before the Nazis came to power) were put back in the closet and treated the way I've heard some conservatives today say gays should be treated (locked away, killed as God commands, etc), opposed Communism, and had a great deal in common with modern conservatives. But I suppose it only matters to you that the Nazis were also against public smoking and that America (and other countries) turned away a bunch of rag tag refugees over 70 years ago and thus somehow associates their evil with liberals and Obama or Clinton while the Republicans have no Nazi mud splattered on them, eh?
Surely you have the mental prowess to see how silly this is.
•
Hitler was a Great Leader. In short order he turned around the economy hit hard by the depression and harder by the Treaty of Versailles. He rearmed Germany and got Brittan, the horrible Super Power that breathed down everyone's neck in those days to back down and stop pillaging Germany on a daily basis via the Treaty of Versailles.
Hitler was Man of the Year on the Time cover more than once. Not just out of 'fear' for him, but also with a bit of envy and with a bit of respect for what he was doing - that was known, in pre-World War II Germany. While the rest of the world was suffering and drowning in the depression, Germany was flourishing - it was a place to be envied, not feared and definitely not considered 'evil'.
In the 1920's the US federal government all but closed the boarders, making very tight and very restricted immigration laws in order to curtail some terrible side effects that a too open and too free immigration policy presented.
It was an era when everyone - everywhere - knew and understood that the Jews Killed Jesus. The Jews were a threat to Christendom, were a threat to decent folk. Everyone in that era knew this as fact. Granted a fact of propaganda from a Church that had an axe to grind for centuries, but it was a well known 'fact' that people accepted at face value and understood as truth.
1930's Earth and Western Politics were based on an innocence that the world after 1945 did not have. The end of World War II in Europe brought with it the collective guilt of the western nations and their collective mistreatment of the Jews. Thus the incredible push to give the Jews their own nation (Israel) and the push to eradicate the old ways of thinking about 'The Jewish Problem'.
FDR and the rest of the democrats were dealing with a far, far different set of political realities than politicians face today. We can not blame this generation for the faults and problems of earlier generations, no more than we can punish you for the sins of your own father.
FDR and his era were working under a much different world view than we hold today. He most likely didn't have any clue what was really happening in Germany. There wasn't open media, live via satellite broadcasts, even to travel to Europe took 2-4 days, as there were no jet planes to fly in 16 hours or less.
We cannot hold modern democrats nor modern republicans nor any modern party in any political system accountable for those things that are 70+ years old. The whole world changed during and after WWII - a lot.
•
Pix Wrote:Why should it? That was many decades ago back when Democrats were more like Republicans (and vice versa), and it was based on isolationism and fear of immigrants which are more associated with Republicans instead of Democrats today.
I can come up with reasons to not like the Democrat Party, but they're real reasons, not the stuff you like to point out. And why don't you point out that Republicans are--at best--equally bad. For example, many of them didn't have a problem with Clinton invading Bosnia, they were more concerned with his private life (even as theirs was much worse, such as Gingrich serving another wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer).
And here, once again, you use Nazi Germany to paint liberals with bad strokes, but do you really think Santorum and the like would be against Nazi Germany back in the day or that Obama would turn such refugees away today? After all, the Nazis were big on God, had prayer in school, worshipped the military, abortion was a capital offense, gays (who had made some of the most progress in Berlin before the Nazis came to power) were put back in the closet and treated the way I've heard some conservatives today say gays should be treated (locked away, killed as God commands, etc), opposed Communism, and had a great deal in common with modern conservatives. But I suppose it only matters to you that the Nazis were also against public smoking and that America (and other countries) turned away a bunch of rag tag refugees over 70 years ago and thus somehow associates their evil with liberals and Obama or Clinton while the Republicans have no Nazi mud splattered on them, eh?
Surely you have the mental prowess to see how silly this is.
some republicans have said pro Serbian invasion crap-i dont know if they advocated bombing the same as clinton did though
around 1964 more democrats voted against civil rights
ok now in 2012 ill admit they seemingly seem more liberal on issues but they also seem lax on national security and forcing a corrupt public schools on kids and a attitude of they know whats best like telling us factories cant make old style light bulbs even though 30 to 90 % of the people want the old bulbs
now id say we have too many immigrants- i guess thats a big issue now, isnt it
•
"The whole world changed during and after WWII - a lot. "
i doubt that-people are worse
Chinese and Russia killed more than Hitler
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
•
•
HollandofFrance Wrote:ok now in 2012 ill admit they seemingly seem more liberal on issues but they also seem lax on national security and forcing a corrupt public schools on kids and a attitude of they know whats best like telling us factories cant make old style light bulbs even though 30 to 90 % of the people want the old bulbs
More liberal on issues, yes (though still moderate right wing compared to the rest of the world), and ditto on the light bulbs. But both parties are forcing schools on people, they just have different visions for them (though Democrats and unions--including teacher's unions--tend to get along better which means some level of antipathy between teachers and Republicans, but not because Republicans are interested in doing the right thing).
And security issues? President Clinton followed Reagan and Bush in promoting more police state tactics, which Bush then followed up on, and now Obama has taken it even further so that now we have the 2012 NDAA, uses terminator-like drones with little concern of collateral damage, has fought privacy and promoted warantless wiretaps, and even now says the US Government can kill US citizens without judicial oversight (ie, due process) if they believe a person is a threat to national security. Agree with the Obama administration or not, I don't see how you can justify saying Democrats are lax on national security.
•
Pix Wrote:More liberal on issues, yes (though still moderate right wing compared to the rest of the world), and ditto on the light bulbs. But both parties are forcing schools on people, they just have different visions for them (though Democrats and unions--including teacher's unions--tend to get along better which means some level of antipathy between teachers and Republicans, but not because Republicans are interested in doing the right thing).
And security issues? President Clinton followed Reagan and Bush in promoting more police state tactics, which Bush then followed up on, and now Obama has taken it even further so that now we have the 2012 NDAA, uses terminator-like drones with little concern of collateral damage, has fought privacy and promoted warantless wiretaps, and even now says the US Government can kill US citizens without judicial oversight (ie, due process) if they believe a person is a threat to national security. Agree with the Obama administration or not, I don't see how you can justify saying Democrats are lax on national security.
thats so bizarre you know what hes done and still would like him and THEM!
•
maybe some republicans also voted for this crap too ,though
when i say national security i dont mean police state brown shirts -just an Eisenhower type era security
•
|
