Latest news with #WarRefugeeBoard
Associated Press
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
A Calculated Restraint: Examines Leaders' Controversial Response To The Holocaust
'Churchill and Roosevelt believed that if they criticized Nazi persecution of the Jews, many Europeans and some Americans would have taken their words as evidence supporting Nazi accusations that Jews had great influence over their governments,' says Breitman. 'Both men had to gauge the impact of their words at a time when antisemitism was prevalent throughout much of the world and the fate of civilization rested on military victory'. A Calculated Restraint: What Allied Leaders Said About the Holocaust in a new book by leading Holocaust historian Richard Breitman examines why Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, and Franklin Roosevelt, faced with mounting evidence of Nazi mass killings of Jews, were reluctant to speak out about what later became known as the Holocaust. When Churchill and Stalin alluded to Nazi mass killings of civilians in speeches during the second half of 1941, they said much less than they knew. Not until December 1942 did Allied governments issue a joint statement about Nazi Germany's policy of exterminating the Jews of Europe. Roosevelt deferred his own public statement specifically about Nazi killings of Jews until March 1944, when his War Refugee Board thought he could deter Hungary from collaborating in the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. FDR's warning initially failed but had a delayed effect, serving to complement the War Refugee Board's rescue efforts in Hungary. Through close readings of public and private statements, Richard Breitman pieces together the competing motivations that drove each leader's response to the atrocities. All three knew that their reactions would be politically sensitive, as Nazi propagandists frequently alleged that the Allies were fighting on behalf of theJews, and that Jews were the puppet-masters behind their governments. At a time of globally prevalent antisemitism, these lies held power. After the German invasion of the USSR, moreover, Stalin clearly wanted to focus on the threat to the Soviet state and its people. Nazi antisemitism did not fit into Communist ideology, and once the war in the East began, Stalin feared Nazi slaughter of the entire Soviet population. Churchill and Roosevelt also realized that their complete silence about Nazi killings of Jews would prompt accusations of willful usually finessed this dilemma by denouncing Nazi atrocities in general, prioritizing wartime constraints over moral considerations. Moral critics have complained that the three Allied leaders could have done more to save Jews even while fighting the Axis and criticized Allied military decisions not to pursue the bombing of rail lines and the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. For most of the Holocaust, none of the three was a rescuer. If they had spoken out more clearly against Nazi genocide it might have added credibility to warnings that Jews in Axis-controlled territories were already receiving. Breitman concludes, however, that ending the war was their main strategy to stop the Holocaust — for if the war in Europe had lasted longer, the Nazis would have killed hundreds of thousands more Jews. Bombing of rail lines was seen as ineffective during the war, and bombing of the gas chambers was a long-range, longshot mission that, even if accomplished, would not have halted Nazi killing of Jews through other means. The humanitarian efforts of the War Refugee Board in Hungary, resulting in the survival of about 119,000 Jews in Budapest, belie the claim that the Western allies were simply indifferent to the Holocaust in Hungary. Timely and incisive, A Calculated Restraint sheds new light on the relationship between World War II and the Holocaust. Ultimately, the Allied leaders' responses cannot be reduced to a matter of character. What they said — and chose not to say — about the Holocaust must be understood in light of the political and military demands that drove their decision-making. A Calculated Restraint also shows how the Holocaust still influences today's extremist antisemitic movements and reactions to them. A Calculated Restraint (Harvard University Press; 352 pages; ISBN 9780674293649) is available at Amazon, Harvard University Press, Barnes and Noble and Richard Breitman is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at American University. His many books include FDR and the Jews, co-authored with Allan J. Lichtman; Media Contact: Liz Ammirato, 914-299-3882, [email protected], Cathy Callegari, Public Relations Media Contact Company Name: CATHY CALLEGARI PUBLIC RELATIONS INC Contact Person: Liz Ammirato Email: Send Email Phone: 914-299-3882 Address:159 Madison Avenue, Apt. 5J City: New York State: NY Country: United States Website: Press Release Distributed by To view the original version on ABNewswire visit: A Calculated Restraint: Examines Leaders' Controversial Response To The Holocaust
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Red Cross must not become a tool of Hamas propaganda
Does the Red Cross abide by the Geneva Convention? I only ask because article three mandates that prisoners of war must 'in all circumstances be treated humanely', banning 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment'. Of course, Sasha Troufanov, 29, Sagui Dekel-Chen, 36, and 46-year-old Iair Horn – who were subjected to the grimly familiar ritual degradation by Hamas upon their release on Saturday – were not even prisoners of war. They were ordinary people, seized from their families as macabre bargaining chips. Nonetheless, you'd have thought that the Red Cross might have objected to Hamas propaganda by refusing to take part in yet another grotesque signing ceremony. But no. This time, there was even a fresh innovation: Horn, whose younger brother Eitan remains in captivity, was forced to hold a kind of trophy consisting of a block of wood topped with an hourglass and plastered with pictures of one of the remaining hostages and his mother, bearing the inscription 'time is running out'. There was no sign of objection from the Red Cross official, who had so compliantly sat on the stage and signed the jihadi book. The other two hostages may have been spared the mortification of the hourglass, but their stories were no less tumultuous. Troufanov had yet to be told that his father had been murdered on October 7, while Dekel-Chen, a keen tennis player, would later learn that he had become a father again himself. While in captivity, he had missed both the birth of his youngest daughter and her first birthday. The apparent complicity of the Red Cross, which historically jettisoned every humanitarian principle when it came to the Jews, was no surprise to those familiar with both its recent and distant history. This was the organisation that in 1944 wrote to the War Refugee Board in Switzerland claiming there was no 'trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners' at Auschwitz. That same year, it produced a glowing report about the Theresienstadt concentration camp after the Germans had planted gardens, renovated barracks and staged social and cultural events during their visit. Deportations resumed thereafter. Eventually, the organisation admitted it had been aware of the Nazi atrocities all along and apologised. But this behaviour was hardly an outlier. During the War, the Red Cross was riddled with Nazi sympathy; the head of its German wing, Ernst-Robert Grawitz, a physician and SS officer, helped implement euthanasia and medical experimentation programmes, while after 1945, Red Cross officials joined the Vatican in helping thousands of Nazis to escape. These are thought to include Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. Those years still cast a long shadow. For more than 70 years, the Red Cross refused to admit Israel's Red Star of David, or Magen David Adom, as a member, making it the only nation state to have its ambulance service excluded. The Palestinian Red Crescent, by contrast, to this day remains the only ambulance service that is not aligned to a nation state but has been admitted as a fully-fledged member nonetheless. Then came October 7. The Red Cross responded true to form. It showed little interest in securing access to the Israeli hostages – one despairing daughter of an 84-year-old woman held by Hamas resorted to dropping her medication off at the Red Cross offices in Jerusalem and fruitlessly begging them to deliver it – but frequently criticised Israel's treatment of Palestinian prisoners, as well as posting constantly on social media about the suffering of Gaza. You know the darkest aspect of all this? The Red Cross is not unusual for international institutions. In fact, it is typical. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
15-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Red Cross must not become a tool of Hamas propaganda
Does the Red Cross abide by the Geneva Convention? I only ask because article three mandates that prisoners of war must 'in all circumstances be treated humanely', banning 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment'. Of course, Sasha Troufanov, 29, Sagui Dekel-Chen, 36, and 46-year-old Iair Horn – who were subjected to the grimly familiar ritual degradation by Hamas upon their release on Saturday – were not even prisoners of war. They were ordinary people, seized from their families as macabre bargaining chips. Nonetheless, you'd have thought that the Red Cross might have objected to Hamas propaganda by refusing to take part in yet another grotesque signing ceremony. But no. This time, there was even a fresh innovation: Horn, whose younger brother Eitan remains in captivity, was forced to hold a kind of trophy consisting of a block of wood topped with an hourglass and plastered with pictures of one of the remaining hostages and his mother, bearing the inscription 'time is running out'. There was no sign of objection from the Red Cross official, who had so compliantly sat on the stage and signed the jihadi book. The other two hostages may have been spared the mortification of the hourglass, but their stories were no less tumultuous. Troufanov had yet to be told that his father had been murdered on October 7, while Dekel-Chen, a keen tennis player, would later learn that he had become a father again himself. While in captivity, he had missed both the birth of his youngest daughter and her first birthday. The apparent complicity of the Red Cross, which historically jettisoned every humanitarian principle when it came to the Jews, was no surprise to those familiar with both its recent and distant history. This was the organisation that in 1944 wrote to the War Refugee Board in Switzerland claiming there was no 'trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners' at Auschwitz. That same year, it produced a glowing report about the Theresienstadt concentration camp after the Germans had planted gardens, renovated barracks and staged social and cultural events during their visit. Deportations resumed thereafter. Eventually, the organisation admitted it had been aware of the Nazi atrocities all along and apologised. But this behaviour was hardly an outlier. During the War, the Red Cross was riddled with Nazi sympathy; the head of its German wing, Ernst-Robert Grawitz, a physician and SS officer, helped implement euthanasia and medical experimentation programmes, while after 1945, Red Cross officials joined the Vatican in helping thousands of Nazis to escape. These are thought to include Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. Those years still cast a long shadow. For more than 70 years, the Red Cross refused to admit Israel's Red Star of David, or Magen David Adom, as a member, making it the only nation state to have its ambulance service excluded. The Palestinian Red Crescent, by contrast, to this day remains the only ambulance service that is not aligned to a nation state but has been admitted as a fully-fledged member nonetheless. Then came October 7. The Red Cross responded true to form. It showed little interest in securing access to the Israeli hostages – one despairing daughter of an 84-year-old woman held by Hamas resorted to dropping her medication off at the Red Cross offices in Jerusalem and fruitlessly begging them to deliver it – but frequently criticised Israel's treatment of Palestinian prisoners, as well as posting constantly on social media about the suffering of Gaza.
