U.S. racial attitudes and World War II

There is little doubt amongst most historians that during World War II the United States was a 'racist' nation. The presence of various 'Jim Crow' type laws and the general acceptance of racist views are evidence that supports this position. The suppresion of African-Americans, as well as various restrictions on Asian-Americans (even if you don't include the internment program) were so numerous as to be almost unlistable. Naturally, these views carried over into our treatment of other nations and even our conduct of World War II. I would like to point out one shining example of just how much racist views were an integral part of the mindset of the senior U.S. leadership. On March 5, 1942, the Chief of Naval Operations Ernest J King delivered to President Roosevelt a memorandum that outlined Kings strategy for winning the war in the Pacific. This brief memo summarized for Roosevelt what would become the US strategy in the pacific

That the US had undesirable racial policies is true. However, in comparison to other countries of that era, the US wasn't much different.

It also must be noted that US racial policies were by no means univerally held. A great many people in the US at the time worked hard to overcome prejudice. President Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor Roosevelt were sensitive to political concerns of the nation's blacks. Roosevelt wanted to have James Byrnes as his 1944 running mate but objections by blacks at the time forced him to take Truman instead. Blacks had political power and influence (albeit limited) even back then.

This is a more speculative statement.

Roosevelt put a lot of pressure on Winston Churchill for England to diverst itself of its colonies. The US gave independence to the Phillipines.

Today's response is irrelevent. The statement was written in a very different political era.

Whether or not such a defeat would in fact 'incite non-whites' is again irrelevant. It was a fear at the time given the world situation and the responsibility of an official to report it. [Indeed, today, some such fears may not get reported out of fear of not being 'politically correct', and I don't know that's such a good idea.]

I don't know about that. The British were very worried about a revolution for independence and wanted to discourage that; just as they were with the American colonies in 1776.

Forgive me, but that idea is ridiculous.

As it happened, the Japanese were of the oriental race and everyone knew it. However, the bottom line is the Pacific war wouldn't have been prosecuted any differently that if the Japanese were white, black, or green. The Allies bombed the hell out of Germany and its Allies. And may I remind you that Japan did start the war. What would call the war between Japan and China? That was viscious, but both were of the same race.

First, I think there isn't much work because there isn't anything to analyze. Internal US racial history has been very well documented already.

If for example the Allies ignored Germany's land grabs in Europe but went to war against Japanese conquests you might have an argument. But short of that, there simply isn't evidence.

I agree with your points, but I could expand upon them. Not only was the US a racist nation to the Asians and Blacks but also to the Jews. The Final Solution idea took some time to solidify in Germany. Before, the Final Solution, other solutions to the Jewish problem were looked at. For example, deportation. However, none of any of the countries asked wanted any Jewish refugees (including: USA, GB, France.). The only friends Jews had during this time was Haiti who accepted 300 refugees.

I agree with your beliefs about the racial attitudes of the US, but also take a look at the attitudes towards Jews at this time in history. If you have any more data on the subject, I'd like to look at it.

An Undergrad of History, Glenn McCaskey.

This seems to overstate the case. Cf. Roosevelt's role in the wartime Evian conference on Jewish refugees, as narrated in Michael Marrus's history of Jewish persecution in Vichy France. Several countries including UK and USA were still in 1942 issuing hundreds of visas every year for Jewish refugees. The practical problems were two: the real need was for multiple thousands, not hundreds; and pro-Nazi bureaucrats (as in Vichy France) held the flow down to a trickle. Six months after the Nazis resolved to clear all Jews from all Europe (Wannsee 1942) the flow east to the gas chambers was 100-fold larger.

The point about American policy was that it was not monolithic like Nazi policy. We can say the USA was 'a racist nation to the Asians and Blacks but also to the Jews' because the US Army was segregated, there were Jewish quotas at colleges in some states, and so on. At the same time Jews and blacks were elected to Congress and held other public offices, and while Japanese-Americans were registered or interned Chinese- Americans were not.

Victory helped clarify how far the USA and Nazi Germany were 'racist nations.' After victory in Europe Nazi Germany decided to kill off the whole Jewish population. After victory in WW2 the US abolished segregation, first in the government-run and highly conservative US armed forces.

I recommend you check Gilbert's works. I think you can find immigration totals in _Atlas of the Holocaust_. The three countries you point out did indeed take Jewish immigrants - and in fair numbers. Another haven you might find surprising was Argentina. Of course, prior to WW II, Jews were not fleeing all of Europe. Rather, the main source was Germany.

I just finished Freidlander's (sp) book, Nazi Germany and the Jews: 1933 - 1939, and he makes the point that no country would take Jews in this time period in any significant numbers. Part of the problem was the Jews were not allowed to make many of their possessions or wealth, so the countries used this as an excuse - that the Jews would be destitute and depend on the welfare of the reveiving country. Hitler used this fact in speeches where he pointed out that teh United States and Britain complained about Germany's treatment of the Jews but these same countries had vert strict immigration quotas. The more famous Jews were treated exceptionally or were vouched for by coleagues in the receiving countries; scientists, artists, etc.

HTH

Is there any evidence that this discrimination was actually aimed at Jews specifically (meaning the difficulty Jews had immigrating to the US)? I do not doubt that there was widespread discrimination in America against Jews at that time, but my understanding was that after the depression, there were tight limits on almost all immigration to the US at the time.

I think it is too simplistic to label US policy as racist, and to try to lay some amount of blame for the events in Eastern Europe circa 1941-1945 in respect to the Jews at the feet of America or any other country that refused some amount of Jewish immigration. While in hindsight it is clear that it would have been better to allow more Jews to immigrate, at the time I do not see how authorities could have made a different decision. They certainly had no idea that the Holocaust was coming, and the idea that they should have allowed Hitler to strip people of their posessions and ship them to the US is a little far-fetched then, just as it is today.

What would people say if (for example) India decided that there were some millions that they didn't want anymore, stripped them of every posession, and then tried to dump them on some other country? Of course they would refuse.

Does every country in the world have a responsiblity to serve as the welfare state for any other country that decides to act in a hostile manner to some subset of their ctizens? Would that not be playing directly into a man like Hitler's goals?

Jeff Heidman

At the end of 1938, Foreign Minister Rippentrop discussed Jewish emigration with French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet. They could only agree that no country wished to receive the Jews. The US State Department, Division of European Affairs ( DEA ) Borden Reams, in the spring of 1943, said, 'there was always the danger that the German Government might agree to turn over to the United States and Great Britain a large number of Jewish refugees.' Later in the spring of 1943, British Foreign Minister Anthoney Eden said after meeting with FDR and US secretary of State Cordell Hull , 'all the Jews out of a country like Bulgaria, the Jews of the world will be wanting us to make similar offers in poland and Germany. Hitler might well take us up on any such offer.'

Shalom Lindenbaum witnessed an Allied air raid, 'How beautiful it was to see squadron after squadron burst forth from the sky, drop bombs, destroy buildings and kill members of the Herrenvolk.'

I've read that Hitler faced a paradox with wanting to rid the Reich of Jews. On the one hand he wanted Jews out of Germany. And on the other hand, he did not want a conglomeration of Jews in any one place in the world (Palestine) or in every country of the world since they would probably be a source of anti-Nazi and anti-German aggetation. I suppose this problem was solved with the Final Solution.

This part is not true. It is the British who objected to Palestine. The British offered to accept more Jews into Palestine at about $200,000 each

IMO it was a two-pronged problem for the Jews and not so much for Hitler or the potentially receiving countries. Hitler wanted Jews out of Germany as long as he was reasonably confidant that no other country would take them. This solved his problem of not wanting the Jews to all settle in one, potentially adversarial, country. And it gave him a respose to Governments who said that Germany was treating the Jews badly. The Reich made it hard enough for Jews to leave with the exit tax, but if, for example, the United States or Britain would have taken any Jew who wished to leave, Hitler would have shut down immigration altogether.

Thanks