Hang on a second. This is a different topic you bring up. The point was it was a conservative Trump supporter who brought up the point that the Israeli intelligence officials said what they said. So there you go. Now to address your other completely different point happily .
That’s a myth created by anti-Americans attempting to tear us up. There’s also the MS St. Louis myth, the myth that Roosevelt turned back a ship of Jewish refugees back to Germany. Never happened. That ship was sent back safely to allied countries that were only later on taken over by the third Reich.
According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the United States did more for Jewish refugees than any other country of the world. And it’s of course Franklin Roosevelt he’s admired by every World War II veteran so I rest my case
Here are a few books you should read.
Emory University Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt wrote a book called, "Beyond Belief", about the media's self censorship during the Holocaust, describing it as a broadly institutional problem. She wrote that, "the press bears a great measure of responsibility for the public's skepticism and ignorance of the scope of the wartime tragedy of the Holocaust. The publics doubts were strengthened and possibly even created by the manner in which the media told the story. If the press did not help plant the seeds of doubt in readers' minds, it did little to erradicate them. During the war journalists frequently said that the news of deportations and executions did not come from eyewitnesses who could personally verify what had happened and they, as journalists, were obligated to treat it skeptically. This explanation is faulty because much of the information came from German statements, broadcasts, and newspapers. If anything, these sources would have been inclined to den, not verify, the news. Neutral sources also affirmed the reliability of reports. Moreover, even when the press did encounter witnesses, it often dismissed what the had to say because there were not considered 'reliable' or 'impartial'.
Certainly by 1943, wrote Lipstadt, "the Nazi threat to exterminate the Jews should have been understood as a literal one. There was little reason, in light of the abundance of evidence, to deny that multitudes were being murdered as part of a planned program and annihilation. But despite all the details there was a felling among some correspondents, New York Times reporter Bill Lawrence most prominent among them, that the reports that Hitler and his followers had conducted a systematic extermination campaign were untrue."
Lipstadt's research also found that for much of the war, the Roosevelt administration whitewashed or deemphasized the Nazi eradication of the Jews, and the mass media were compliant, regurgitating the government's propaganda or suppressing the evidence. Lipstadt explained that "the Office of War Information, working in tandem with the Roosevelt administration, tried to severely limit any public attention paid to the mass murder of the Jews. Despite the fact that the Final Solution was the prime illustration of the enemy's strategy and principles the Office of War Information wanted it to be avoided by the news agencies and not mentioned in war propaganda."
"Probably the most outrageous example of this explicit policy of ignoring the Jewish aspect of the tragedy occurred in Moscow in the fall of 1943. There, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met and affixed their signature to what is known as the Moscow Declaration, which warned:
"Germans who take part in the wholesale shooting of Italian officers or in the execution of the French, Dutch, Belgian, or Norwegian hostages or of the Cretan peasants, or who have shared in the slaughters inflicted on the people of Poland or in the territories of the Soviet Union..........will be brought back to the scene of their crimes and judged on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged."
'Nowhere in the declaration were the Jews even obliquely mentioned", Lipstadt noted, "a phenomenon the press simply ignored."
Professor Laurel Leff of Northwestern University, who was formerly a journalist, also wrote a book about the same thing in her book "Buried by the Times" as she critiqued both the media and FDR who heavily influenced them. Leff wrote, "The government influenced the coverage by directing the flow of information, issuing statements about certain subjects, keeping quiet about others, playing up parts of the war, and downplaying others. A press corps that tended to define news as government actions would have gone along. The governments message that nothing special should be done to save the Jews also found a receptive journalistic audience. At the Times, the second most influential Timesman on political issues went a step further; Washington Bureau Chief and columnist Arthur Krock allied himself with the forces in the State Department working hardest to stifle any rescue efforts."
The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn’t the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
Every president’s policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt’s case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”
There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins”; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.
This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR’s views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular. In one 1920 interview, he complained about immigrants “crowding” into the cities and said “the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country.” In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to “non-assimilable immigrants” and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that “mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had “blood of the right sort.”
