Censorship and Book Burning in History

Let History Remain Transparent and Fairly Reported

Michael Streich

January 5, 2010

The phrase, “Give me 26 lead soldiers and I will conquer the world,” has been attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Karl Marx. It is an affirmation that the pen is mightier than the sword. Throughout history, however, the written thoughts of mankind have been subject to divergent philosophic and religious beliefs that saw existing writings as a threat. Today it is called “book burning” or censorship. At other times in human history it was heresy. Regardless of the reasons given, great works of ancient and modern thought have been lost because new movements strove to eradicate writings deemed dangerous.

 

Destroying Records of the Past

 

Historians of the Ancient Near East point to Nineveh as a repository of one of the first libraries. Nineveh was the capital city of the hated Assyrians. Incessant warfare ultimately led to the destruction of Nineveh at the time the Medes and the Persians ended Assyrian domination of the greater Middle East region. The library was destroyed with the city, perhaps viewed as an extension of Assyrian religion. Scholars believe the library contained over 12,000 texts, many of which have been recovered through archaeological endeavors.

 

Although the Nineveh library was most likely burned because it was a part of the palace grounds, this was not true of the most famous of all ancient libraries located at Alexandria, Egypt. Estimates of the library’s holdings range from 400,000 works to 900,000. The library endured through the early Roman Imperial period but after Christianity became the state religion in the 4^th Century CE, it deteriorated. Part of the reason rests with Egyptian Christians that had a long history of zealotry.

 

When Christians destroyed the temple of Serapis, their anger resulted in the destruction of the Museion or House of Muses. In the process, many library texts were burned. Muslims conquered Alexandria in the 7^th Century, but according to Philosophy of Religion Professor Camden Cobern (deceased), there is no evidence to support the commonly held view that Caliph Omar burned the library in 641 CE.

 

Books Threaten Shared Values and Control

 

Historian Carlo Ginzburg recounts the saga of a 16^th Century miller whose desire to read books caused his eventual execution after a trial by the Inquisition (The Cheese and the Worms, Penguin Books, 1985). Once the Christian Church dominated religious thought and practice in Western Europe, available texts were strictly controlled. St. Jerome’s Vulgate defined the canon of scripture and any conflicting writings were banned. This continued throughout the Middle Ages. At the 16^th Century Council of Trent, Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was burned and the Catholic Church began a more rigid evaluation of books.

 

But book burning was not unique to the Catholic hierarchy. Reformer Martin Luther sanctioned the burning of Jewish sacred writings when Jews refused to convert. In the 20^th Century, the Nazis celebrated their victory of achieving dominance in the German government by burning the writings of Jewish scholars in a Berlin bonfire. This infamous “book burning” has been captured on film and recreated in several movies.

 

The Threat to Religious and Social Values

 

Even in the United States, certain books have been deemed inappropriate, removed from libraries, and banned from public school reading lists. In Meredith Wilson’s “The Music Man,” Marian the librarian is accused of advocating “dirty books” like Rabelais and Balzac. In reality, however, books like Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye have been censored by local school boards in more recent decades.

 

Historically, evidence suggests that book burning and censorship derives from acute religious convictions of particular societies and communities seeking to preserve a belief system and viewing non-acceptable writings as threats. It is an extension of the debate between Darwin’s Origin of the Species and creationism in Genesis. Like Ray Bradbury’s “fireman” in Fahrenheit 451, book burning is the ultimate way to ensure control and the obliteration of opposing views.

 

Sources:

 

Camden M. Cobern, “Alexandria,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume I, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939).

Tony Perrottet, Route 66 A.D.: On the Trail of Ancient Roman Tourists (New York: Random House, 2002)

*This article was first published in Suite101. The copyright is owned by Michael Streich.

Republishing in any form required written approval from the author, Michael Streich.

 Amusement Parks and Recreation in the 1950s

Palisades Park in NJ Offered a Day of Fun for American Families

© Michael Streich

 Sep 26, 2009

Post War recreation in the 1950s and 1960s included the growth and expansion of amusement parks like Palisades Park and Coney Island at an affordable price.

Americans growing up in the 1950s or 1960s may still recall the radio and television jungle for Palisades Amusement Park that urged people to “come on over.” The post-war years saw average Americans driving more than they ever had and amusement parks like Palisades Park on the cliffs above the Hudson River facing New York City was a favorite destination. For those without cars, fleets of local bus lines brought people from all over New Jersey as well as through New York’s Port Authority bus hub to the magical 38 acres near Fort Lee and Cliffside Park.

The Rise of Amusement Parks in Post War America

Palisades Park was one of many venues that offered a day of fun and escape. Like Coney Island in New York, it had been established for many years, beginning as a “trolley park” in 1898. Years of evolution, new owners, and fresh capital investment turned many such parks into meccas for the everyday working person looking for family entertainment. Vince Gargiulo, executive director of the Palisades Amusement Park Historical Society, writes that the park “was a peaceful place where everyone felt comfortable, safe, and happy.”

The popularity of such parks was evident nationally. Disneyland opened in California in 1955. In 1964, the New York World’s Fair attracted record crowds. Imitators like New York’s short-lived “Freedomland” opened in 1960 but closed four years later, failing to achieve an acceptable profit margin. Parks became “themed,” while snack bars offered hot dogs, hamburgers, and fries, amusement park staples that seemed to taste better consumed in a throng of people. The vinegar used to prepare Palisades' fries made them irresistible. The sweetly enticing smell of cotton candy was everywhere. In Freedomland, a popular ride in the San Francisco section simulated the 1906 earthquake. Urban amusements parks were an extension of rural state and county fairs, but stayed open most of the year.

In addition to the proliferation of amusement parks and theme parks, Americans visited local attractions that offered a day of fun and entertainment. This included zoos and game farms like the Catskill Game Farm in upper New York. Other day trips might be to single themed attractions like Fairy Tale Forest or the Gingerbread Castle in northern New Jersey.

PalisadesPark as an Affordable Day Trip Offering Variety

Palisades Park brought together hundreds of thousands of people, many of them new Americans, immigrants fleeing post-war Europe. Advertisements boasted that ten cents would buy a day of fun at a time postage stamps were selling for four cents (1960). Not only did the park include rides such as the Cyclone Roller Coaster, prominently located in the center of the park, but a swimming pool with wave-making machines that featured a waterfall, beach sand, and salted water. For those unable to travel to Asbury Park, Atlantic City, or Seaside Heights at the “Jersey Shore,” this was the next best thing.

The park that popularized the “tunnel of love,” according to legend, also featured a fun house, a world-class carousel, and a “Kiddieland” with rides for young children. Palisades Park closed in September 1971 after the land was sold to developers for $12.5 million who turned the acreage into high-end condominiums. No longer would the lights of one of the most popular attractions be seen from the shores of New York City.

The Lure and Mystique of Amusement Parks

Throughout the nation in the last two decades, other amusement parks have had to close due to declining attendance, high maintenance and insurance costs, and the willingness of deep pocket developers to turn these sites into high profit producing properties. In the summer of 2009, Six Flags filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

1950s and 1960s Amusement Parks like Palisades Park, as well as many other attractions geared toward weekend family outings, offered an escape as well as a day of fun. They brought people today from all backgrounds and immigrant ethnicities and played a significant role in Americanizing children growing up in immigrant households.

Sources:

• Vince Gargiulo, Palisades Amusement Park (Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2005)
• Palisades Amusement Park Historical Society website
• Family memoirs, pictures, and artifacts

The copyright of the article Amusement Parks and Recreation in the 1950s in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Amusement Parks and Recreation in the 1950s in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Kiddieland at Palisades Park

 The Marshall Plan of 1947

One of the Most Successful Cold War Initiatives of the Truman Years

© Michael Streich

 Jul 30, 2009

The Marshall Plan infused struggling European economies with billions of dollars to rebuild infrastructure and thwart the efforts of Soviet Russia in Western Europe.

The 1947 Marshall Plan was one of the most successful United States foreign policy initiatives during the Cold War period. Former Secretary of State and Harvard historian Henry Kissinger used it as an example to demonstrate positive outcomes when nations work together out of common necessity and in view of a common foe. Senator J. William Fulbright wrote that the Marshall Plan stopped the Soviet Union from possibly taking over Western Europe “through the manipulation of Communist parties, military intimidation, economic strangulation, and even more direct military action.”

Proposing the Marshall Plan

Speaking at Harvard University June 5, 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall presented the Marshall Plan and the rationale for its immediate implementation. Marshall had been to Europe and witnessed the deprivations still evident from years of war. These were serious problems that could derail European recovery efforts while playing into the hands of Stalin and the emergent Communist parties.

Marshall’s report of the Fourth Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, April 28, 1947, detailed the cataclysmic nature of the European economies. Marshall used coal production to highlight the problems: “less coal means less employment for labor and a consequent delay in the production of goods for export to bring money for the purchase of food and necessities.”

Coal was also linked to steel production. In short, the industrial infrastructure had to be rebuilt quickly. Production also meant a balance of trade between the United States and Europe, notably Germany. By early 1947, Germany was using precious credits to purchase food imports but not able to produce export goods. The Marshall Plan would change that.

European Participation and the Costs

Representatives of sixteen European nations met to create the proposal that would amount to $28 billion in assistance over a ten year period. The proposals were accepted by Marshall and President Truman, but created a furor in the Congress. The mid-term elections in 1946 had given Republicans control of the Congress and they were financially conservative. A key Republican leader, Senator Taft of Ohio, denounced the Marshall Plan as a “European TVA.”

Despite dire warning from the administration as well as forward thinking Republicans like Michigan’s Senator Arthur Vandenberg, the initially requested amount was significantly lowered. The chief event that caused passage of the Marshall Plan, however, was the early 1948 coup in Czechoslovakia in which pro-democratic, moderate leaders were either removed or murdered and replace by pro-Moscow Communists.

The Marshall Plan and Eastern Europe

The Truman administration did not want to exacerbate the Iron Curtain division between East and West, possibly for a long period into the future, and thus invited all nations – including Russia, to participate. There were enough strings attached, however, to keep Stalin from participating. Historian Stephen Ambrose writes that this was the very intention of the men like George Kennan, who crafted the policy and then invited Soviet participation.

The Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians wanted to participate, but were held back by Moscow. In his report on the Fifth Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, December 19, 1947, Secretary of State Marshall, pointing to Germany, noted that the Soviet Union had employed “a type of monopolistic stranglehold over the economic and political life of eastern Germany which makes that region little more than a dependent province of the Soviet Union.”

Employing similar economic tactics in other Eastern European economies, Stalin not only made German reunification far more difficult in terms of integrated European economies, but forged a long term policy designed to distance European Communist nations from ever effectively competing with the West or the possibility of future integration.

The Marshall Plan worked. Along with NATO, it transformed Europe into a new society and promoted collective economic and political leadership in the face of a common adversary.

Sources:

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)

Documents on Germany, 1944-1961, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (New York: Greenwood Press, 1968)

J. William Fulbright, The Crippled Giant: American Foreign Policy and its Domestic Consequences (New York: Random House, 1972)

See also: George C. Marshall Foundation for additional information

The copyright of the article The Marshall Plan of 1947 in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Marshall Plan of 1947 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

George C Marshall

 Japanese-American Internment in 1942:

Presidential Executive Order 9066 Uproots Americans of Asian Descent

Michael Streich

August 5, 2009

In February 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, giving the U.S. army the authority to impose curfews on persons deemed a potential internal security threat. On the west coast, the curfew orders were followed by the mandatory evacuation of all Japanese-Americans to relocation centers. Ultimately, sixteen camps operated by the War Relocation Authority housed over 100,000 Japanese-Americans, most of whom were United States citizens.

 

Nativism, Racism, and the Fear of Japan

 

Throughout the 19^th century, Americans viewed immigrants with deep misgivings. Immigrant groups, notably the Italians, tended to avoid assimilation by creating their own ethnic neighborhoods in the emerging urban centers. On the west coast, it was the Chinese and later the Japanese immigrants that gave rise to racist stereotypes, prompting persecution and legislative acts to curb their liberties. In the year FDR was born – 1882 – the U.S. Congress passed one of the first Chinese Exclusion Acts.

 

By the end of World War One, Japan emerged as the one Pacific power able to compete and possibly threaten the interests of the United States. Several successful regional wars, including the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, had established Japan as a rising imperialist power. Within Japan, liberal political trends gave way to more conservative views supported by on-going militarism.

 

The early 20^th century witnessed a plethora of books and articles warning of the Japanese “menace” and even predicting war between Japan and the United States. Americans, on top of their post-war nativist leanings, seemed predisposed to view Japanese expansionism with mistrust. This became even more acute after Japan’s occupation of Manchuria and her refusal to abide by and renegotiate naval treaties designed to limit the production of capital warships.

 

American Isolationism and Inability to Defend Asian Interests

 

After the First World War, Americans refused to become actively involved in the gathering storms of war in both Asia and Europe. Isolationism was the favored policy, particularly after the onset of the Great Depression; domestic considerations superseded foreign entanglements.

 

Congressional and military leaders knew that an adequate defense of American colonial properties, like the Philippines and Samoa, was not possible. Thus, relations with an ever more belligerent Japan were based on diplomatic efforts and concerted responses designed not to antagonize a potential enemy.

 

In the months before Pearl Harbor, however, President Roosevelt had taken a harder line, freezing Japanese assets, embargoing oil and scrap metal. By December 7, 1941, Japan and the United States were at war. Within three months, Japanese-Americans were confined to what Roosevelt himself called “concentration camps” during a November 22, 1944 White House press conference.

 

Court Challenges

 

Hirabayashi v U.S. (1943) challenged the curfew order but attempted to obtain a ruling on the internments. The Supreme Court, however, confined its ruling to the constitutionality of the curfew order. The court ruled that race was an irrelevant issue and FDR’s Executive Order was covered under Presidential war powers.

 

In Korematsu v U.S. (1944) the court held that the exclusion program was a “military necessity.” Justice Roberts used the term “concentration camp” in his opinion while Justice Frank Murphy stated that the action was the “brink” of constitutional power.

 

Japanese Loyalty

 

There was no evidence of disloyalty to the U.S. by the Japanese-Americans. Seditious Japanese – as well as Germans and Italians, were already known to the FBI. Questionable Germans were permitted to defend themselves and prove their loyalties, although several thousand were also incarcerated like the Japanese-Americans. The 112,000 Japanese-Americans, however, never had an opportunity to defend themselves; their property was confiscated and apologies and restitution only came in the 1980s under the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

 

Sources:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development 5^th Ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Greg Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)

Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing either on-line or in print requires written permission by Michael Streich. All rights reserved.

 American Slavery and Southern Religion

Using the Bible to Justify the Enslavement of Africans in the South

© Michael Streich

 Aug 8, 2009

Antebellum religious views within slave holding communities defended the institution as a divinely decreed fulfillment of God's ordering of human societies.

When the Declaration of Independence was promulgated in 1776, a London newspaper described a South Carolina clergyman reading the document aloud while being fanned by a slave. In the Antebellum South, both Protestant and Catholic clergy owned slaves and had developed elaborate biblical defenses to justify the institution. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives in February 1836, James Henry Hammond of South Carolina declared, “The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and feature of his African Descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny.”

Genesis 9 and the Justification for Slavery

The “status” of a slave converted to Christianity had been settled in the early years of Colonial America. Christian baptism did not negate the servile role of peoples whose status was based on racial considerations. By the 19th century, as Northern groups like the Quakers began to loudly question the morality of slavery, religion in the South attempted to appeal to primarily Old Testament passages regarding the institution.

The first and perhaps most important passage is in Genesis 9.20-27. It is the story of Noah’s nakedness after having drunk wine. Ham, his youngest son, did not cover his father’s nakedness, as did the older brothers Shem and Japheth. Since these were the first men of an entirely new human race following the biblical flood, Noah’s “curse” of Ham appeared significant.

“Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers.” Stephen R. Haynes of Rhodes College, in his book Noah’s Curse, states that this passage has been interpreted throughout the centuries to refer to those of African descent as well as, perhaps, the beginning of slavery. He even cites early Christian church fathers that held this view. Haynes does not agree with this view, he merely demonstrates how it affected societies that interpreted the Genesis passage to justify African slavery.

Religious Teaching in the South

John W. Blassingame, formerly of Yale University, writes that, “No white minister could give a full exposition of the gospel to the slaves without incurring the wrath of planters.” Slaves were encouraged to be devout Christians, but the Christian message they received from planters and ministers was to be docile and submissive. It was God’s will that they spent their lives as slaves and sermons capitalized on such themes as “obeying the master.”

Slavery was more than an economic necessity. It was greater than the earlier arguments painting it as a necessary evil. It had become, by the 1850s, a biblically based institution immune to abolitionist arguments appealing to Christian morality. This same message was repeated at every Southern Sabbath school and enunciated in every sermon. This was the divine order decreed by God from Genesis onward.

Response of the Slaves

Scholars point out that despite these attempts, slaves developed their own interpretations that rejected a master-slave relationship built on scriptural principles. Although kept from all forms of education including reading, slaves often memorized Bible passages from sermons while some slaves even managed to learn to read surreptitiously and possessed Bibles.

Exceptional slaves like Josiah Henson became ordained and preached a more encompassing and welcoming gospel. Henson eventually fled with his family to Canada and began a ministry for other fugitive slaves. Further, through song and music – the “spiritual,” slaves conveyed their own Bible interpretations of deliverance.

Little wonder that after emancipation, freedmen began their own churches, refusing to bond with the white congregations that had for so long used religion as a tool of oppression. The use and misuse of the Bible has been linked to centuries of persecution. The plight of Africans in the South is one example of this.

Sources

:

• John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972)
• Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002)
• Peter Kolchin, American Slavery 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993)

The copyright of the article American Slavery and Southern Religion in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish American Slavery and Southern Religion in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Franklin Roosevelt and the Yalta Conference

Charting a Post War Europe Based on Free and Open Elections

|

Aug 11, 2009 Michael Streich

Although the Yalta Conference addressed a variety of issues including Soviet participation against Japan, the post-war status of Poland was at the top of the agenda.

The Yalta Conference of February 4, 1945 was the last meeting of the “Big Three,” Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Josef Stalin. Roosevelt died shortly after the conference, leaving a legacy of doubt and suspicion regarding agreements made at the conference. Historian Robert Sherwood aptly wrote that, “Yalta has been blamed for many of the ills with which the world was afflicted in the years following the total defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan.” Although many Americans believed that FDR had “sold out” Eastern Europe to Stalin, there is no evidence that this was the president’s intention.

Yalta and the Polish Question

World War II began with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, followed by Soviet invasion and occupation September 17, 1939. Both nations incorporated Poland as per the secret protocols of the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty. The legitimate Polish government fled to London. It was this exiled government that was recognized by the United States and Great Britain.

As the war drew to a close, however, German armies were retreating west. By the summer of 1944, the Red Army was ready to cross the Vistula River to liberate Warsaw. Polish resistance fighters – the Home Army, began a prolonged uprising against the German occupiers in the Warsaw Rising that would cost a quarter million lives. Although prodded into rising by the Soviets, the Red Army refused to cross the river, despite appeals from Roosevelt and Churchill.

Satisfied that the German defenders had eliminated any Poles that might offer similar resistance to the Soviets, the Red Army marched into a destroyed city five months later and installed the pro-communist Lublin government. At Yalta, Roosevelt was determined that the exiled Polish government should be included and that free elections must be held.

Franklin Roosevelt’s Declaration

Roosevelt’s “Declaration on Liberated Europe” proposed free elections in all Eastern European countries, particularly Poland, which was to include all factions: a "Provisional Government of National Unity.” Surprisingly, Stalin agreed to these proposals. At the same time, however, Soviet agents were busy setting up pro-communist governments in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.

Roosevelt was exuberant and felt that the conference had been a success. Commenting on the final agreements regarding Poland, his Chief of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated, “This is so elastic that the Russians can stretch it from Yalta to Washington without ever technically breaking it.” Roosevelt, however, believed it was the best the West could get out of Stalin.

Other Yalta Agreements

Stalin promised Roosevelt to enter the war against Japan 2-3 weeks after the final defeat of Nazi Germany. It was agreed that Russia would receive land concessions in Asia such as the Kurile Islands and southern Sakhalin. Also discussed were the protocols involving the new organization of nations – the United Nations, of which veto power was the most contentious question. Additionally, Russia demanded separate seats for Ukraine and Belarus.

On the issue of Iran, Russia refused to be drawn into a discussion. The Middle East, including the status of the Dardanelles, was important to the British. In an effort to maintain the strong Anglo-American alliance, Roosevelt supported Churchill on most issues but rejected his suspicions that Stalin could not be trusted and that the Russians would not abide by the agreements coming out of Yalta, notably the promise of free elections.

Big Three Motivations

Everyone at Yalta knew that the European war was rapidly drawing to a close. Stalin was already looking toward the post-war world. His agenda included war reparations and expansion. Churchill’s post-war goal was to maintain the Empire, particularly India. Roosevelt, however, still had to defeat Japan. This would require one million fresh soldiers in the Pacific, according to General Marshall. Each leader approached Yalta with a definite agenda and left with different short term aims.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)
• Irwin F. Gellman, Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and Sumner Wells (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995)
• Robert E. Sherwood, The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins, Volume II, January 1942-July 1945 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949)
• 
  

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form requires the written approval by Michael Streich

 The St. Louis and U.S. Policy Failures

German Jews Denied Entrance to America in 1939

© Michael Streich

 Aug 21, 2009

Allowing 937 Jews to leave Germany in May 1939 served Nazi propaganda goals, particularly when the the United States rejected asylum after Cuba refused their entry visas.

In May 1939, the S.S. St. Louis sailed out of Hamburg, Germany bound for Havana with 937 Jewish men, women, and children. It was only seven months since Kristallnacht had wrecked a bloody havoc on the Jews in the German Reich and only five months from the outbreak of World War II. The plight of these Jews would become intimately entangled with insensitive American immigration quotas, President Franklin Roosevelt’s political expediency, and deeply rooted Anti-Semitism in the United States.

Nazi Propaganda and the St. Louis

The passengers on the St. Louis were a varied group. They represented young and old, professional and worker. Some had been in concentration camps. Both Dachau and Buchenwald camps were in full operation, a fact known to most foreign governments including the United States. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, used the sailing of the St. Louis to strengthen the ideological posture of Germany toward the Jews to appeal to world public opinion.

On the one hand, Germany was demonstrating compassion by allowing these Jews to leave, albeit at a steep price. Those with property forfeited everything to the Reich. This aspect of the Nazi procedures was not for public opinion. Although issued exit visa, the passenger’s entry documents into Cuba would not be honored. The passengers did not know this.

Dr. Goebbels, Reichsmarschal Goering, and Hitler knew that, inevitably, the St. Louis would be turned away, proving to the world that nobody wanted the Jews. Most European nations had already stopped the flow of refugees crossing their borders. Britain not only curtailed Jews from entering Britain, but severely limited the number of Jews migrating to Palestine, a viable and logical destination coming out of late 19th-Century Zionist efforts.

The St Louis and United States’ Reaction

When the ship entered Havana it was not permitted to dock. As the hours went by, panic began to fill the passengers. Once the official decision was announced that the St. Louis would have to return to Germany, pandemonium ensued. Some passengers jumped overboard; some committed suicide. Captain Gustav Schroeder, not a member of the Nazi Party, deeply empathized with his passengers.

Schroeder sailed for Miami as Jewish organizations in America and Europe drafted frantic appeals to various governments. According to survivor accounts, passengers could see the lights of Miami. But the St. Louis was met by the U.S. Coast Guard, warning it away from the American coast. Reluctantly, Schroeder returned to Europe.

Researcher Lyric W. Wink, in a December 7, 2003 Parade cover story, details the arduous search for the 937 passengers. The research demonstrates that a number of the passengers eventually made it to the United States during and after the war years.

President Roosevelt was keenly mindful that the majority of Americans opposed any changes in the immigration quota system, particularly since unemployment was still high. This applied even more to European Jews. Anti-Semitism, fed by such luminaries as the radio-priest, Father Charles Coughlin, was rampant. Even German-American enclaves, like New York’s “Yorkville” along East 86th Street, identified with Nazism and had no sympathy for Jews.

Return to Europe of the St. Louis

Captain Schroeder threatened to scuttle his ship off the coast of England, forcing, under international law, Britain to take in the refugees. Negotiations hastily led to Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium agreeing to take a portion of the refugees. This represented a short reprieve to many of the Jews that would be caught up in the Nazi web after the 1940 Blitzkrieg occupation of much of Western Europe.

The United Stares must take significant blame for the tragedy of the St. Louis. Artifacts from the ship’s voyage can be seen at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, along with other exhibits such as the Evian Conference of 1938. The St. Louis affair should provide a template for the future.

Sources:

• Robert H. Abzug, America Views the Holocaust 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999)
• Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, Voyage of the Damned (Stein and Day, 1974)
• Lyric Wallwork Winik, “The Hunt For Survivors of a Doomed Ship,” Parade, December 7, 2003

The copyright of the article The St. Louis and U.S. Policy Failures in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The St. Louis and U.S. Policy Failures in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

St. Louis in Havana