International response to the Holocaust

In the decades since the Holocaust, some national governments, international bodies and world leaders have been criticized for their failure to take appropriate action to save the millions of European Jews, Roma, homosexuals and other victims of the Holocaust. Critics say that such intervention, particularly by the Allied governments, might have saved substantial numbers of people and could have been accomplished without the diversion of significant resources from the war effort. [Arthur D. Morse, "While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy" (New York: Random House, 1968).] [David S. Wyman, ' (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984).] [Samantha Power, ' (New York: Basic Books, 2002).]

Other researchers have challenged such criticism. Some have argued that the idea that the Allies took no action is a myth — that the Allies accepted as many German Jewish immigrants as the Nazis would allow — and that theoretical military action by the Allies, such as bombing the Auschwitz concentration camp, would have saved the lives of very few people. [William D. Rubinstein, "The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis" (New York: Routledge, 1997).] Others have said that the limited intelligence available to the Allies — who, as late as October 1944, did not know the locations of many of the Nazi death camps or the purposes of the various buildings within those camps they had identified — made precision bombing impossible. [James H. Kitchens III, "The Bombing of Auschwitz Re-examined", "The Journal of Military History", April 1994, pp.233-266.]

In three cases, entire countries resisted the deportation of their Jewish population during the Holocaust. In other countries, notable individuals or communities created resistance during the Holocaust.

Response during the Holocaust

Allied nations

"See also: Auschwitz bombing debate, The Voyage of the Damned"

While the Allies were at war with Nazi Germany and engaged in a massive military campaign of unprecedented scale against it, they did little if anything to either stop the ongoing slaughter of millions of Jews and other minorities, or to save and absorb refugees.

Évian Conference

The Évian Conference was convened at initiative of the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in July 1938 to discuss the problem of Jewish refugees. For ten days, from July 6 to July 15, delegates from thirty-two countries met at Évian-les-Bains, France. However, most western countries were reluctant to accept Jewish refugees, and the question was not resolved.Fact|date=August 2007

Bermuda Conference

The UK and the US met in Bermuda in April 1943 to discuss the issue of Jewish refugees who had been liberated by Allied forces and the Jews who remained in Nazi-occupied Europe. The Bermuda Conference led to no change in policy; the Americans would not change their immigration quotas to accept the refugees, and the British would not alter its immigration policy to permit them to enter Palestine. [Rafael Medoff, " [http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-04-bermuda.php The Allies' Refugee Conference--A 'Cruel Mockery'] ," The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, April 2003.] ["To 5,000,000 Jews in the Nazi Death-Trap, Bermuda was a Cruel Mockery," "The New York Times", May 4, 1943, p. 17.]

The Ickes plan for Alaska

In November 1938, two weeks after "Kristallnacht", United States Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes proposed the use of Alaska as a "haven for Jewish refugees from Germany and other areas in Europe where the Jews are subjected to oppressive restrictions." Resettlement in Alaska would allow the refugees to bypass normal immigration quotas, because Alaska was a territory and not a state. That summer Ickes had toured Alaska and met with local officials to discuss improving the local economy and bolstering security in a territory viewed as vulnerable to Japanese attack. Ickes thought European Jews might be the solution.cite web |url=http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3470/1/A-Thanksgiving-plan-to-save-Europe's-Jews |title=A Thanksgiving plan to save Europe’s Jews |accessdate=2007-11-25 |author=Raphael Medoff |date=November 16, 2007 |work=Jewish Standard ] cite web |url=http://www.adn.com/adn/sanctuary/ |title=Sanctuary: Alaska, the Nazis, and the Jews |accessdate=2007-11-25 |author=Tom Kizzia |date=May 19, 1999 |work=Anchorage Daily News ]

In his proposal, Ickes pointed out that 200 families from the dustbowl had settled in Alaska's Matanuska Valley. The plan was introduced as a bill by Senator William King (Utah) and Democratic Representative Franck Havenner (California), both Democrats. The Alaska proposal won the support of theologian Paul Tillich, the Federal Council of Churches and the American Friends Service Committee.

But the plan but won little support from American Jews, with the exception of the Labor Zionists of America. Most Jews agreed with Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress, that adoption of the Alaska proposal would deliver "a wrong and hurtful impression...that Jews are taking over some part of the country for settlement." The plan was dealt a severe blow when Roosevelt told Ickes that he insisted on limiting the number of refugees to 10,000 a year for five years, and with a further restriction that Jews not make up more than 10% of the refugees. Roosevelt never mentioned the Alaska proposal in public, and without his support the plan died.

International Committee of the Red Cross

The International Committee of the Red Cross did relatively little to save Jews during the Holocaust and discounted reports of the organized Nazi genocide, such as of the murder of Polish Jewish prisoners that took place at Lublin that the Red Cross discounted. At the time, the Red Cross justified its inaction by suggesting that aiding Jewish prisoners would harm its ability to help other Allied POWs. In addition, the Red Cross claimed that if it would take a major stance to improve the situation of those European Jews, the neutrality of Switzerland, where the International Red Cross was based, would be jeopardized. Today, the Red Cross acknowledges its passivity during the Holocaust and has apologized for this. [ [http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1997/vp971008/10080475.htm] cite web|url=http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/6ayg86 |title=Dialogue with the past: the ICRC and the Nazi death camps |accessdate=2007-10-19 |last=Buignion |first=François |date=2002-11-05 ]

Vatican

Although Pope Pius XII did not publicly speak out against the murder of the Jews during the Holocaust, the Vatican did take some action to save many Jews in Italy from deportation, including sheltering several hundred Jews in the catacombs of St. Peter's Basilica. In his Christmas addresses of 1941 and 1942, the pontiff was forceful on the topic but did not mention the Nazis by name. The Pope encouraged the bishops to speak out against the Nazi regime and to open the religious houses in their dioceses to hide Jews. In recent years, the Vatican has expressed its remorse for not speaking out with more authority against the genocide. [cite web
url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/65889.stm
title=Vatican apologises over holocaust
publisher=BBC
date=1998-03-16
accessdate=2007-06-01]

Response after the Holocaust

Genocide

Towards the end of WWII, Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent, aggressively pursued within the halls of the United Nations and the United States government the recognition of genocide as a crime. Largely due to his efforts and the support of his lobby, the United Nations was propelled into action. In response to Lemkin's arguments, the United Nations adopted the term in 1948 when it passed the "Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide". [ [http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2006/Apr/27-557071.html Persecuted by Nazis, U.S. Immigrant Helped Criminalize Genocide] By Bernie Chabel. Washington File Staff Writer.]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

After the atrocities of World War II and the planned extermination of Jews during the Holocaust, it was believed that the UN and its United Nations Charter did not sufficiently clarify the rights it protected. Inspired by these events, John Peters Humphrey of Canada led the effort to link human rights and ethics, and universalize basic rights for the peoples of the world. He was supported by Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, P. C. Chang of China and others. The vote in the General Assembly passed unanimously, but several countries (Germany & Austria, the entire Soviet bloc, South Africa and Saudi Arabia) chose to abstain.

Nuremberg Trials

The international response to the war crimes of World War II and the Holocaust was to establish the Nuremberg international tribunal. Three major wartime powers, the USA, USSR and Great Britain, agreed to punish those responsible. The trials brought human rights into the domain of global politics, redefined morality at the global level, and gave political currency to the concept of crimes against humanity, where individuals rather than governments were held accountable for war crimes. [cite journal|title=Following postnational signs: the trail of human rights.| journal=Futures| year=2005| first=S| last=Makinda|doi=10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.009 ]

ee also

*The Holocaust
*Kindertransport
*Responsibility for the Holocaust
*World War II
*Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide
*Righteous Among the Nations
*Szmul Zygielbojm

References