History Podcasts

Cordell Hull on Need for Strong National Defense

Cordell Hull on Need for Strong National Defense

In an address delivered on October 26, 1940, U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull emphasizes the need to prepare for the threat of Nazi and Japanese aggression.

Franklin Roosevelt Administration: Radio Address by Secretary of State Cordell Hull on Danger to Free Nations

Tonight we inaugurate another annual National Foreign-Trade Week. Again, as a year ago it comes in the midst of war. You know as well as I that now there is little use in our talking about and planning for foreign trade unless the outcome of this war is favorable to the free peoples of the world. For free trade means free bargaining to mutual advantage. To us it does not mean exploitation by military cliques backed by cannon. And so, for the present, our foreign trade consists more and more, and will consist more and more, of making and placing in the hands of nations which are resisting unlawful attack the tools of self-defence. This trade, like all trade, is futile if the goods produced do not reach those for whom they are intended.

We are a practical people. When we set ourselves to a task we finish it. We have set ourselves to the task of arming and supplying those whose successful defense is vital to our security. I have said before, and I repeat: we will not permit this purpose to be frustrated. We will find a way to insure that the weapons pouring in ever greater volume from our factories will reach the hands which eagerly await them. Only as we stand strong and united in this purpose, can we look forward to a brighter day.

We have seen during the past year the continued spread of ruthless aggression by nations bent upon world-domination. We have seen the enslavement of every nation which was so unfortunate as to stand in the way and was not strong enough to repel aggression. Nations which were unable to protect themselves have been crushed by military frightfulness that has known no bounds. In each territory taken over, organized brutality has been carried to the utmost lengths in order to coerce conquered peoples into unwilling support of new conquests and an ever-widening circle of enslavement.

The safety of our Nation, as of every free nation, is in mortal danger so far as our people permit themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by those who mistakenly assume that two oceans plus a natural desire to be at peace with all the world will protect us. The paramount purpose of the leaders of the movement of conquest is to secure control of the high seas, which control is essential to the execution of their program of world-domination. Every consideration of our own defense and safety requires that we see to it that Great Britain receives adequate supplies for her successful resistance.

At this critical moment we must not be weakened by internal division we must devote our whole energy to essential tasks. The production and transfer of essential supplies to those countries which are actively resisting aggression demand sacrifice of time and substance and making of maximum effort, on the part of each and every American citizen. Delays in meeting full schedules of production of essential military supplies, whether caused by business complacency or by strikes, can and should be avoided for they gravely endanger the safety of the Nation. Our greatest possible national effort must be made, not for the sale of other countries, but primarily for the sake of and to insure our own security. Either the spread of lawlessness in the world must be brought to a halt or we shall soon find ourselves surrounded by aggressors and compelled to fight, virtually alone and against great odds, for our own national existence.

These are obvious dangers that lie immediately ahead. But they are not the only dangers. To get a more complete picture of what they involve, it is necessary to envisage the kind of an economic world that would exist if the would-be conquerors were to win. Their current pronouncements and practices provide an ample warning on that score.

The key to their economic program is contained in one simple word — conquest. Every territory that they conquer is reduced forthwith to an economic master-and-slave relationship. The economic structure of the enslaved country is forcibly re-shaped and systematically subordinated to the economy of the ruling country. Within the entire tributary area, autarchy or economic self-sufficiency is set up as the central feature of economic policy. At the center of this widely dispersed web of captive nations, the master country wields its vastly enlarged powers in an unceasing effort to ensnare, overwhelm, and enslave every remaining free nation in the world.

The tragic experience of the conquered countries of Europe provides unassailable evidence of how this system is applied in the field of trade. Under it, trade is reduced essentially to enforced barter. The would-be conqueror forces delivery to him, at his own price, of the goods he wants and enforces this arrangement by every device of discrimination and arbitrary control. There is not the slightest pretense of promoting mutually profitable trade with other countries upon the basis of equality and fair-dealing. It is a system based upon the principle, not of economic cooperation, but of economic spoilation.

In the face of these facts, no one need be in doubt as to the situation that would confront this Nation, in the realm of trade as elsewhere, in the event of an Axis victory. For the past seven years our Government has taken the leadership in an effort to re-open the channels of international trade and thus to assist in world economic restoration, with resulting political stability, from which all countries, great and small, would benefit. It has proceeded throughout upon broad principles of cooperation and fair-dealing, and has recognized that only mutually profitable trade can be truly beneficial and enduring. These principles are broad enough to include every country willing to cooperate in a program of economic peace. By the same token they stand at the opposite pole from the predatory policies and methods of the totalitarians. Between the two systems there can be no workable adjustment.

After the first World War an attempt was made to reorganize the world on a sound basis. New institutions were created, and new methods of cooperation were established. All peoples shared the hope that a new era in international relations had begun.

Unhappily, shortly after the close of the World War, power fell into the hands of groups which advocated political and economic nationalism in their most extreme forms. The inevitable effects, politically, economically, and socially, during the years that followed were utterly disastrous. The outcome was division and weakening, and final break-down, of the necessary international foundation on which peace is based.

Knowing these facts as we do, it is none too early to lay down at least some of the principles by which policies must be guided at the conclusion of the war, to press for a broad program of world economic reconstruction and to consider tentative plans for the application of those policies.

The main principles, as proven by experience, are few and simple:

1. Extreme nationalism must not again be permitted to express itself in excessive trade restrictions.

2. Non-discrimination in international commercial relations must be the rule, so that international trade may grow and prosper.

3. Raw-material supplies must be available to all nations without discrimination.

4. International agreements regulating the supply of commodities must be so handled as to protect fully the interests of the consuming countries and their people.

5. The institutions and arrangements of international finance must be so set up that they lend aid to the essential enterprises and the continuous development of all countries, and permit the payment through processes of trade consonant with the welfare of all countries.

Measures taken to give effect to these principles must be freely open to every nation which desires a peaceful life in a world at peace and is willing to cooperate in maintaining that peace.

Such a program has strength and endurance. It will stand long after the war-built arrangements forced on disheartened or imprisoned peoples by military conquest have fallen to pieces and have vanished utterly.

There still are people who do not see that if, when the present conflict ends, we do not have a system of open trade, they will not be able either to buy or to sell except on terms really laid down by the military forces and political authorities of the countries with which they have to deal.

Unless a system of open trade becomes firmly established, there will be chronic political instability and recurrent economic collapse. There will never be peace in any real sense of the term.

In the final reckoning, the problem becomes one of establishing the foundations of an international order in which independent nations cooperate freely with each other for their mutual gain-of a world order, not new but renewed, which liberates rather than enslaves.

We shall not be able to do this until we have a world free from imminent military danger and clear of malign political intrigue. At present the world is scourged by both. We can expect no healthy development until the menace of conquest has been brought to an end. Only then will the time have arrived when steel is valued, not in terms of the bombs that can be made of it, but in terms of the instruments of peaceful life into which it can be forged and when foreign trade has reverted again from cargoes of weapons and explosives to commodities that nourish and heal and enrich their customers.

This nation is resolved to evade no issues and to face harsh facts. We believe that there can be created a safer and more prosperous world. We have the tools-the resources, the brains, the hands-with which to make it such. But first the tide of force must be turned back. Once that is done, we and other nations can reestablish an open, cooperative, economic life in which trade may increase, economic welfare may grow, civilization may advance, and the peaceful and benevolent instincts of masses of now prostrate people may once more flourish in the really worthwhile ways of life.

[Department of State Bulletin, May 17, 1941.]

Download our mobile app for on-the-go access to the Jewish Virtual Library


(Asking for a Declaration of a State of War between the United States and Japan, December 8, 1941)


Radio address to the American People over all stations from Washington, D. C., December 9, 1941

By ALBERT W. HAWKES, President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States and President of Congoleum-Nairn, Inc., Kearny, N. J.

Over the Mutual Broadcasting System from Washington, D. C., December 10, 1941

(Requesting recognition of a State of War existing between the United States and Germany and the United States and Italy, December 11, 1941) HITLER ANNOUNCED TO THE REICHSTAG THE DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

By O. J. ARNOLD, President, Northwestern National Life Insurance Company and Chairman, 35th Annual Convention of The Association of Life Insurance Presidents

Waldorf-Astoria, New York City, December 11, 1941

By W. H. COWLEY, President, Hamilton College

Delivered at the Thirty-fifth Annual Convention of The Association of Life Insurance Presidents, Waldorf-Astoria, New York City, December 12, 1941

By RODNEY L. MOTT, Director of the School of Social Sciences, Colgate University

Over WGY, Schenectady, N. Y., December 13, 1941


Over combined Radio Stations, from Washington, D. C., December 15, 1941

By GROVE PATTERSON, Editor of the Toledo Blade

Delivered at the Bill of Rights Anniversary Dinner, Waldorf-Astoria, New York, December 15, 1941

By ROBERT A. TAFT, U. S. Senator from Ohio

Before the Executives Club of Chicago, Friday, December 19, 1941

By FRANKLIN BLISS SNYDER, President of Northwestern University

Address given at the Founders' Day Anniversary Meeting of the Union League Club of Chicago, December 19, 1941

By DR. MONROE E. DEUTSCH, Vice-President and Provost of the University of California

At the meeting held in behalf of Russian War Relief at Scottish Rite Hall, Oakland, California, December 19, 1941

By WENDELL L. WILLKIE, Presidential Candidate, 1940

Over Columbia Broadcasting System, December 20, 1941

By JAMES BRYANT CONANT, President of Harvard University

At the Annual Dinner of the New England Society of New York, Hotel Plaza, December 22, 1941

24 December 1941, Washington, D.C.

The Fight To Protect Camp Hale

In order to protect 40,000 acres of Colorado land, 30,000 of which include Camp Hale, legislators have been pushing the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act. The act passed in the House in 2019 but remains to pass through the Senate.

Ruins at Camp Hale.

If it passes, it would turn the camp into the first National Historic Landscape in the nation. A National Historic Landscape is a hybrid classification combining preservation of the terrain and education about its history. This would be the perfect designation for Camp Hale’s combination of history and natural beauty.



In the mid 17th century, Peter Stuyvesant, the last Director-General of the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, sought to maintain the position of the Dutch Reformed Church refusing to allow other denominations such as Lutherans, Catholics and Quakers the right to organize a church. He also described Jews as "deceitful", "very repugnant", and "hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ". [2] Prior to this, the inhabitants of the Dutch settlement of Vlishing had declared that "the law of love, peace, and liberty" extended to "Jews, Turks, and Egyptians." [3]

According to Peter Knight, throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States rarely experienced antisemitic action comparable to the sort that was endemic in Europe during the same period. [4]

Civil War Edit

Major General Ulysses S. Grant was influenced by these sentiments and issued General Order No. 11 expelling Jews from areas under his control in western Tennessee:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled . within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Grant later issued an order "that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the road southward." His aide, Colonel John V. DuBois, ordered "all cotton speculators, Jews, and all vagabonds with no honest means of support", to leave the district. "The Israelites especially should be kept out . they are such an intolerable nuisance."

This order was quickly rescinded by President Abraham Lincoln but not until it had been enforced in a number of towns. [5] According to Jerome Chanes, Lincoln's revocation of Grant's order was based primarily on "constitutional strictures against . the federal government singling out any group for special treatment." Chanes characterizes General Order No. 11 as "unique in the history of the United States" because it was the only overtly antisemitic official action of the United States government. [6]

Immigration from Eastern Europe Edit

Between 1881 and 1920, approximately 3 million Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe immigrated to America, many of them fleeing pogroms and the difficult economic conditions which were widespread in much of Eastern Europe during this time. Pogroms in Eastern Europe, particularly Russia, prompted waves of Jewish immigrants after 1881. Jews, along with many Eastern and Southern European immigrants, came to work the country's growing mines and factories. Many Americans distrusted these Jewish immigrants. [5]

Between 1900 and 1924, approximately 1.75 million Jews immigrated to America's shores, the bulk from Eastern Europe. Whereas before 1900, American Jews never amounted even to 1 percent of America's total population, by 1930 Jews formed about 3.5 percent. This dramatic increase, combined with the upward mobility of some Jews, contributed to a resurgence of antisemitism.

As the European immigration swelled the Jewish population of the United States, there developed a growing sense of the Jew as different. Jerome Chanes attributes this perception on the fact that Jews were concentrated in a small number of occupations: they were perceived as being mostly clothing manufacturers, shopkeepers and department store owners. He notes that so-called "German Jews" (who in reality came not just from Germany but from Austria, Poland, Bohemia and other countries as well) found themselves increasingly segregated by a widespread social antisemitism that became even more prevalent in the twentieth century and which persists in vestigial form even today. [7]

Populism Edit

In the middle of the 19th century, a number of German Jewish immigrants founded investment banking firms which later became mainstays of the industry. Most prominent Jewish banks in the United States were investment banks, rather than commercial banks. [8] [9] Although Jews played only a minor role in the nation's commercial banking system, the prominence of Jewish investment bankers such as the Rothschilds in Europe, and Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in New York City, made the claims of antisemites believable to some.

One example of allegations of Jewish control of world finances, during the 1890s, is Mary Elizabeth Lease, an American farming activist and populist from Kansas, who frequently blamed the Rothschilds and the "British bankers" as the source of farmers' ills. [10]

The Morgan Bonds scandal injected populist antisemitism into the 1896 presidential campaign. It was disclosed that President Grover Cleveland had sold bonds to a syndicate which included J. P. Morgan and the Rothschilds house, bonds which that syndicate was now selling for a profit, the Populists used it as an opportunity to uphold their view of history, and argue that Washington and Wall Street were in the hands of the international Jewish banking houses.

Another focus of antisemitic feeling was the allegation that Jews were at the center of an international conspiracy to fix the currency and thus the economy to a single gold standard. [11]

According to Deborah Dash Moore, populist antisemitism used the Jew to symbolize both capitalism and urbanism so as to personify concepts that were too abstract to serve as satisfactory objects of animosity. [12]

Richard Hofstadter describes populist antisemitism as "entirely verbal." He continues by asserting that, "(it) was a mode of expression, a rhetorical style, not a tactic or a program." He notes that, "(it) did not lead to exclusion laws, much less to riots or pogroms." Hofstadter still concludes, however, that the "Greenback-Populist tradition activated most of . modern popular antisemitism in the United States."

In the first half of the 20th century, Jews were discriminated against in employment, access to residential and resort areas, membership in clubs and organizations, and in tightened quotas on Jewish enrollment and teaching positions in colleges and universities. Restaurants, hotels and other establishments that barred Jews from entry were called "restricted". [13]

Lynching of Leo Frank Edit

In 1913, a Jewish-American in Atlanta named Leo Frank was convicted for the rape and murder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old Christian girl who he employed. In the middle of the night on April 27, 1913, a 13-year-old girl named Mary Phagan was found dead by a night watchman in the basement of a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. [14] Leo Frank, the superintendent of the factory, was the last person to acknowledge seeing her alive earlier that day after paying her weekly wages. Detectives took Frank to the scene of the crime and the morgue to view the body. After further questioning, they concluded that he was most likely not the murderer. In the days following, rumors began to spread amongst the public that the girl had been sexually assaulted prior to her death. This sparked outrage amongst the public which called for immediate action and justice for her murder. On April 29, following Phagan's funeral, public outrage reached its pinnacle. Under immense pressure to identify a suspect, detectives arrested Leo Frank on the same day. Being a Jewish factory owner, previously from the north, Frank was an easy target for the anti-Semitic population who already distrusted northern merchants who had come to the south to work following the Civil War [15] [16] During the trial, the primary witness was Jim Conley, a black janitor who worked at the factory. Initially a suspect, Conley became the state's main witness in the trial against Frank.

Prior to the trial, Conely had given four conflicting statements regarding his role in the murder. In court, the Frank's lawyers were unable to disprove Conley's claims that he was forced by Frank to dispose of Phagan's body. The trial gathered immense attention especially from Atlantans, who gathered in large crowds around the courthouse demanding for a guilty verdict. In addition to this, much of the media coverage at the time took an anti-Semitic tone and after 25 days, Leo Frank was found guilty of murder on August 25 and sentenced to death by hanging on August 26. The verdict was met with cheers and celebration form the crowd. Following the verdict, Frank's lawyers submitted a total of five appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that Frank's absence on the day of the verdict and the amount of public pressure and influence swayed the jury. After this, the case was brought to Georgia governor John M. Slaton. Despite the public demanding for him to hold the verdict, Slaton changed Frank's verdict from death sentence to life imprisonment, believing that his innocence would eventually be established and he would be set free. [15] This decision was met with immense public outrage, causing riots and even forcing Slaton to declare Martial Law at one point. On August 16, 1915, 25 citizens stormed a prison farm in Milledgeville where Leo Frank was being held. Taking Frank from his cell, they drove him to Marietta, the hometown of Mary Phagan, and hanged him from a tree. Leaders of the lynch mob would later gather at Stone Mountain to revive the Ku Klux Klan.

In response to the lynching of Leo Frank, Sigmund Livingston founded the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) under the sponsorship of B'nai B'rith. The ADL became the leading Jewish group fighting antisemitism in the United States. The lynching of Leo Frank coincided with and helped spark the revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan disseminated the view that anarchists, communists and Jews were subverting American values and ideals.

With the entry of the United States into World War I, Jews were targeted by antisemites as "slackers" and "war-profiteers" responsible for many of the ills of the country. For example, a U.S. Army manual published for war recruits stated that, "The foreign born, and especially Jews, are more apt to malinger than the native-born." When ADL representatives protested about this to President Woodrow Wilson, he ordered the manual recalled. The ADL also mounted a campaign to give Americans the facts about military and civilian contributions of Jews to the war effort. [17]

Antisemitism in the United States reached its peak during the interwar period. [ citation needed ] The rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, the antisemitic works of newspapers and radio speeches in the late 1930s indicated the strength of attacks on the Jewish community.

One element in American antisemitism during the 1920s was the identification of Jews with Bolshevism where the concept of Bolshevism was used pejoratively in the country. (see article on "Jewish Bolshevism").

Immigration legislation enacted in the United States in 1921 and 1924 was interpreted widely as being at least partly anti-Jewish in intent because it strictly limited the immigration quotas of eastern European nations with large Jewish populations, nations from which approximately 3 million Jews had immigrated to the United States by 1920.

Discrimination in education and professions Edit

Jews encountered resistance when they tried to move into white-collar and professional positions. Banking, insurance, public utilities, medical schools, hospitals, large law firms and faculty positions, restricted the entrance of Jews. This era of "polite" Judeophobia through social discrimination, underwent an ideological escalation in the 1930s.

Restriction on immigration Edit

In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson–Reed Act severely restricting immigration. Although the act did not specifically target Jews, the effect of the legislation was that 86% of the 165,000 permitted entries were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The act effectively diminished the flow of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe to a trickle.

The Dearborn Independent Edit

Henry Ford was a pacifist who opposed World War I, and he believed that Jews were responsible for starting wars in order to profit from them: "International financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the international Jew: German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all those countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme . here the Jew is a threat". [18] Ford believed that Jews were responsible for capitalism, and in their role as financiers, they did not contribute anything of value to society. [19]

In 1915, during World War I, Ford blamed Jews for instigating the war, saying "I know who caused the war: German-Jewish bankers." [20] Later, in 1925, Ford said "What I oppose most is the international Jewish money power that is met in every war. That is what I oppose—a power that has no country and that can order the young men of all countries out to death'". According to author Steven Watts, Ford's antisemitism was partially due to a noble desire for world peace. [20] [21]

Ford became aware of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and believed it to be a legitimate document, and he published portions of it in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent. Also, in 1920–21 the Dearborn Independent carried a series of articles expanding on the themes of financial control by Jews, entitled: [22]

  1. Jewish Idea in American Monetary Affairs: The remarkable story of Paul Warburg, who began work on the United States monetary system after three weeks residence in this country
  2. Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve System: What Baruch was in War Material, Paul Warburg was in War Finances Some Curious revelations of money and politics.
  3. Jewish Idea of a Central Bank for America: The evolution of Paul M. Warburg's idea of Federal Reserve System without government management.
  4. How Jewish International Finance Functions: The Warburg family and firm divided the world between them and did amazing things which non-Jews could not do
  5. Jewish Power and America's Money Famine: The Warburg Federal Reserve sucks money to New York, leaving productive sections of the country in disastrous need.
  6. The Economic Plan of International Jews: An outline of the Protocolists' monetary policy, with notes on the parallel found in Jewish financial practice.

One of the articles, "Jewish Power and America's Money Famine", asserted that the power exercised by Jews over the nation's supply of money was insidious by helping deprive farmers and others outside the banking coterie of money when they needed it most. The article asked the question: "Where is the American gold supply? . It may be in the United States but it does not belong to the United States" and it drew the conclusion that Jews controlled the gold supply and, hence, American money. [23]

Another of the articles, "Jewish Idea Molded Federal Reserve System" was a reflection of Ford's suspicion of the Federal Reserve System and its proponent, Paul Warburg. Ford believed the Federal Reserve system was secretive and insidious. [24]

These articles gave rise to claims of antisemitism against Ford, [25] and in 1929 he signed a statement apologizing for the articles. [26]

According to Gilman and Katz, antisemitism increased dramatically in the 1930s with demands being made to exclude American Jews from American social, political and economic life. [27]

During the 1930s and 1940s, right-wing demagogues linked the Depression of the 1930s, the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt, and the threat of war in Europe to the machinations of an imagined international Jewish conspiracy that was both communist and capitalist. A new ideology appeared which accused "the Jews" of dominating Franklin Roosevelt's administration, of causing the Great Depression, and of dragging the United States into World War II against a new Germany which deserved nothing but admiration. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was derisively referred to as the "Jew Deal". [27]

Father Charles Coughlin, a radio preacher, as well as many other prominent public figures, condemned "the Jews," Gerald L. K. Smith, a Disciples of Christ minister, was the founder (1937) of the Committee of One Million and publisher (beginning in 1942) of The Cross and the Flag, a magazine that declared that "Christian character is the basis of all real Americanism." Other antisemitic agitators included Fritz Julius Kuhn of the German-American Bund, William Dudley Pelley, and the Rev. Gerald Winrod.

In the end, promoters of antisemitism such as Coughlin, Smith, Kuhn and Winrod achieved no more than a passing popularity as the threat of Nazi Germany became more and more evident to the American electorate. Steven Roth asserts that there was never a real possibility of a "Jewish question" appearing on the American political agenda as it did in Europe according to Roth, the resistance to political antisemitism in the United States was due to the heterogeneity of the American political structure. [28]

American attitudes towards Jews Edit

In a 1938 poll, approximately 60 percent of the respondents held a low opinion of Jews, labeling them "greedy," "dishonest," and "pushy." [29] 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had "too much power in the United States," and this figure rose to 58 percent by 1945. [30] Several surveys taken from 1940 to 1946 found that Jews were seen as a greater threat to the welfare of the United States than any other national, religious, or racial group. [31]

Charles Coughlin Edit

The main spokesman for antisemitic sentiment was Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest whose weekly radio program drew between 5 and 12 million listeners in the late 1930s. Coughlin's newspaper, Social Justice, reached a circulation of 800,000 at its peak in 1937.

After the 1936 election, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini, as an antidote to Bolshevism. His weekly radio broadcasts became suffused with themes regarded as overtly antisemitic. He blamed the Depression on an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers, and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. [32]

Coughlin began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, during this period, in which he printed antisemitic polemics such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like Joseph Goebbels, Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot. The 5 December 1938 issue of Social Justice included an article by Coughlin which closely resembled a speech made by Goebbels on 13 September 1935 attacking Jews, atheists and communists, with some sections being copied verbatim by Coughlin from an English translation of the Goebbels speech.

On November 20, 1938, two weeks after Kristallnacht, when Jews across Germany were attacked and killed, and Jewish businesses, homes and synagogues burned, Coughlin blamed the Jewish victims, [33] saying that "Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted." After this speech, and as his programs became more antisemitic, some radio stations, including those in New York and Chicago, began refusing to air his speeches without pre-approved scripts in New York, his programs were cancelled by WINS and WMCA, leaving Coughlin to broadcasting on the Newark part-time station WHBI. This made Coughlin a hero in Nazi Germany, where papers ran headlines like: "America is Not Allowed to Hear the Truth."

On December 18, 1938 two thousand of Coughlin's followers marched in New York protesting potential asylum law changes that would allow more Jews (including refugees from Hitler's persecution) into the US, chanting, "Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!" and "Wait until Hitler comes over here!" The protests continued for several months. Donald Warren, using information from the FBI and German government archives, has also argued that Coughlin received indirect funding from Nazi Germany during this period. [34]

After 1936, Coughlin began supporting an organization called the Christian Front, which claimed him as an inspiration. In January, 1940, the Christian Front was shut down when the FBI discovered the group was arming itself and "planning to murder Jews, communists, and 'a dozen Congressmen'" [35] and eventually establish, in J. Edgar Hoover's words, "a dictatorship, similar to the Hitler dictatorship in Germany." Coughlin publicly stated, after the plot was discovered, that he still did not "disassociate himself from the movement," and though he was never linked directly to the plot, his reputation suffered a fatal decline. [36]

After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war in December 1941, the anti-interventionist movement (such as the America First Committee) sputtered out, and isolationists like Coughlin were seen as being sympathetic to the enemy. In 1942, the new bishop of Detroit ordered Coughlin to stop his controversial political activities and confine himself to his duties as a parish priest.

Pelley and Winrod Edit

William Dudley Pelley founded (1933) the antisemitic Silvershirt Legion of America nine years later he was convicted of sedition. And Gerald Winrod, leader of Defenders of the Christian Faith, was eventually indicted for conspiracy to cause insubordination in the armed forces during World War II.

America First Committee Edit

The avant-garde of the new non-interventionism was the America First Committee, which included the aviation hero Charles Lindbergh and many prominent Americans. The America First Committee opposed any involvement in the war in Europe.

Officially, America First avoided any appearance of antisemitism and voted to drop Henry Ford as a member for his overt antisemitism.

In a speech delivered on September 11, 1941 at an America First rally, Lindbergh claimed that three groups had been "pressing this country toward war": the Roosevelt Administration, the British, and the Jews—and complained about what he insisted was the Jews' "large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government." [37]

In an expurgated portion of his published diaries Lindbergh wrote: "We must limit to a reasonable amount the Jewish influence. . Whenever the Jewish percentage of total population becomes too high, a reaction seems to invariably occur. It is too bad because a few Jews of the right type are, I believe, an asset to any country."

German American Bund Edit

The German American Bund held parades in New York City in the late 1930s which featured Nazi uniforms and flags featuring swastikas alongside American flags. Some 20,000 people heard Bund leader Fritz Julius Kuhn criticize President Franklin D. Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as "Frank D. Rosenfeld", calling his New Deal the "Jew Deal", and espousing his belief in the existence of a Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy in America.

In the years before and during World War II the United States Congress, the Roosevelt Administration, and public opinion expressed concern about the fate of Jews in Europe but consistently refused to permit immigration of Jewish refugees.

In a report issued by the State Department, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat noted that the United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe and did not significantly raise or even fill its restrictive quotas, accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland. [38]

According to David Wyman, "The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews." [39] There is some debate as to whether U.S. policies were generally targeted against all immigrants or specifically against Jews in particular. Wyman characterized Breckenridge Long as a nativist, more anti-immigrant than just antisemitic. [40]

SS St. Louis Edit

The SS St. Louis sailed out of Hamburg into the Atlantic Ocean in May 1939 carrying one non-Jewish and 936 (mainly German) Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Nazi persecution just before World War II. On 4 June 1939, having failed to obtain permission to disembark passengers in Cuba, the St. Louis was also refused permission to unload on orders of President Roosevelt as the ship waited in the Caribbean Sea between Florida and Cuba. [41] [42]

During the Holocaust, antisemitism was a factor that limited American Jewish action during the war, and put American Jews in a difficult position. It is clear that antisemitism was a prevalent attitude in the US, which was especially convenient for America during the Holocaust. In America, antisemitism, which reached high levels in the late 1930s, continued to rise in the 1940s. During the years before Pearl Harbor, over a hundred antisemitic organizations were responsible for pumping hate propaganda to the American public. Furthermore, especially in New York City and Boston, young gangs vandalized Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, and attacks on Jewish youngsters were common. Swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans, as well as antisemitic literature, were spread. In 1944, a public opinion poll showed that a quarter of Americans still regarded Jews as a "menace." Antisemitism in the State Department played a large role in Washington's hesitant response to the plight of European Jews persecuted by Nazis. [43]

In a 1943 speech on the floor of Congress quoted in both The Jewish News of Detroit [44] and the antisemitic magazine The Defender of Wichita [45] Mississippi Representative John E. Rankin espoused a conspiracy of "alien-minded" Communist Jews arranging for white women to be raped by Black American men:

When those communistic Jews—of whom the decent Jews are ashamed—go around here and hug and kiss these Negroes, dance with them, intermarry with them, and try to force their way into white restaurants, white hotels and white picture shows, they are not deceiving any red-blooded American, and, above all, they are not deceiving the men in our armed forces—as to who is at the bottom of all this race trouble.

The better element of the Jews, and especially the old line American Jews throughout the South and West, are not only ashamed of, but they are alarmed at, the activities of these communistic Jews who are stirring this trouble up.

They have caused the deaths of many good Negroes who never would have got into trouble if they had been left alone, as well as the deaths of many good white people, including many innocent, unprotected white girls, who have been raped and murdered by vicious Negroes, who have been encouraged by those alien-minded Communists to commit such crimes.

US Government policy Edit

Josiah DuBois wrote the famous "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews," which Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., used to convince President Franklin Roosevelt to establish the War Refugee Board in 1944. [46] [47] [48] Randolph Paul was also a principal sponsor of this report, the first contemporaneous Government paper attacking America's dormant complicity in the Holocaust.

Entitled "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews", the document was an indictment of the U.S. State Department's diplomatic, military, and immigration policies. Among other things, the Report narrated the State Department's inaction and in some instances active opposition to the release of funds for the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, and condemned immigration policies that closed American doors to Jewish refugees from countries then engaged in their systematic slaughter.

The catalyst for the Report was an incident involving 70,000 Jews whose evacuation from Romania could have been procured with a $170,000 bribe. The Foreign Funds Control unit of the Treasury, which was within Paul's jurisdiction, authorized the payment of the funds, the release of which both the President and Secretary of State Cordell Hull supported. From mid-July 1943, when the proposal was made and Treasury approved, through December 1943, a combination of the State Department's bureaucracy and the British Ministry of Economic Warfare interposed various obstacles. The Report was the product of frustration over that event.

On January 16, 1944, Morgenthau and Paul personally delivered the paper to President Roosevelt, warning him that Congress would act if he did not. The result was Executive Order 9417, [49] creating the War Refugee Board composed of the Secretaries of State, Treasury and War. Issued on January 22, 1944, the Executive Order declared that "it is the policy of this Government to take all measures within its power to rescue the victims of enemy oppression who are in imminent danger of death and otherwise to afford such victims all possible relief and assistance consistent with the successful prosecution of the war." [50]

It has been estimated that 190,000–200,000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others. [51]

Liberty Lobby Edit

Liberty Lobby was a political advocacy organization which was founded in 1955 by Willis Carto in 1955. Liberty Lobby was founded as a conservative political organization and was known to hold strongly antisemitic views and to be a devotee of the writings of Francis Parker Yockey, who was one of a handful of post-World War II writers who revered Adolf Hitler.

Antisemitic violence in this era includes the 1977 shootings at Brith Sholom Kneseth Israel synagogue in St. Louis, Missouri, the 1984 murder of Alan Berg, the 1985 Goldmark Murders, and the 1986 Murder of Neal Rosenblum.

NSPA march in Skokie Edit

Seeking a venue, In 1977 and 1978, members of the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) chose Skokie. Because of the large number of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, it was believed that the march would be disruptive, and the village refused to allow it. They passed three new ordinances requiring damage deposits, banning marches in military uniforms and limiting the distribution of hate speech literature. The American Civil Liberties Union interceded on behalf of the NSPA in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie seeking a parade permit and to invalidate the three new Skokie ordinances.

However, due to a subsequent lifting of the Marquette Park ban, the NSPA ultimately held their rally in Chicago on July 7, 1978, instead of in Skokie. [52]

African-American community Edit

In 1984, civil rights leader Jessie Jackson speaking to Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown." He later apologized. [53]

During the Crown Heights riot, marchers proceeded carrying antisemitic signs and an Israeli flag was burned. [54] [55] Ultimately, black and Jewish leaders developed an outreach program between their communities to help calm and possibly improve racial relations in Crown Heights over the next decade. [56]

According to Anti-Defamation League surveys begun in 1964, African Americans are significantly more likely than white Americans to hold antisemitic beliefs, although there is a strong correlation between education level and the rejection of antisemitic stereotypes for all races. However, black Americans of all education levels are nevertheless significantly more likely than whites of the same education level to be antisemitic. In the 1998 survey, blacks (34%) were nearly four times as likely as whites (9%) to fall into the most antisemitic category (those agreeing with at least 6 of 11 statements that were potentially or clearly antisemitic). Among blacks with no college education, 43% fell into the most antisemitic group (vs. 18% for the general population), which fell to 27% among blacks with some college education, and 18% among blacks with a four-year college degree (vs. 5% for the general population). [57]

Other manifestations Edit

During the early 1980s, isolationists on the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left in the United States to join forces against government policies in areas where they shared concerns. [58] This was mainly in the area of civil liberties, opposition to United States military intervention overseas and opposition to US support for Israel. [59] [60] As they interacted, some of the classic right-wing antisemitic scapegoating conspiracy theories began to seep into progressive circles, [59] including stories about how a "New World Order", also called the "Shadow Government" or "The Octopus", [58] was manipulating world governments. Antisemitic conspiracism was "peddled aggressively" by right-wing groups. [59] Some on the left adopted the rhetoric, which it has been argued was made possible by their lack of knowledge of the history of fascism and its use of "scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history." [59]

Towards the end of 1990, as the movement against the Gulf War began to build, a number of far-right and antisemitic groups sought out alliances with left-wing anti-war coalitions, who began to speak openly about a "Jewish lobby" that was encouraging the United States to invade the Middle East. This idea evolved into conspiracy theories about a "Zionist-occupied government" (ZOG), which has been seen as equivalent to the early-20th century antisemitic hoax,The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. [58] The anti-war movement as a whole rejected these overtures by the political right. [59]

In the context of the first US-Iraq war, on September 15, 1990 Pat Buchanan appeared on The McLaughlin Group and said that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East – the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." He also said: "The Israelis want this war desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war machine. They want us to finish them off. They don't care about our relations with the Arab world." [61]

Many in the Jewish community celebrated the vice-presidential candidacy of Senator Joseph Lieberman as marking a milestone in the decline of antisemitism in the United States. [ citation needed ]

New antisemitism Edit

In recent years some scholars have advanced the concept of New antisemitism, coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and argue that the language of Anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly. In this view, the proponents of the new concept believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism. [62]

A 2009 study entitled "Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes", published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2009, tested new theoretical model of antisemitism among Americans in the Greater New York area with 3 experiments. The research team's theoretical model proposed that mortality salience (reminding people that they will someday die) increases antisemitism and that antisemitism is often expressed as anti-Israel attitudes. The first experiment showed that mortality salience led to higher levels of antisemitism and lower levels of support for Israel. The study's methodology was designed to tease out antisemitic attitudes that are concealed by polite people . The second experiment showed that mortality salience caused people to perceive Israel as very important, but did not cause them to perceive any other country this way. The third experiment showed that mortality salience led to a desire to punish Israel for human rights violations but not to a desire to punish Russia or India for identical human rights violations. According to the researchers, their results "suggest that Jews constitute a unique cultural threat to many people's worldviews, that anti-Semitism causes hostility to Israel, and that hostility to Israel may feed back to increase anti-Semitism." Furthermore, "those claiming that there is no connection between antisemitism and hostility toward Israel are wrong." [63]

In October 2014 the controversial opera The Death of Klinghoffer was staged in the Metropolitan Opera in New-York. The opera tells the story of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists, and the killing of Jewish passenger Leon Klinghoffer. Some of the criticism opposed to the opera claimed it's partly antisemitic and glorifies the killers, [64] as American writer and feminist Phyllis Chesler, an opera aficionado, wrote:

The Death of Klinghoffer also demonizes Israel—which is what anti-Semitism is partly about today. It incorporates lethal Islamic (and now universal) pseudo-histories about Israel and Jews. It beatifies terrorism, both musically and in the libretto. [65]

On April 25, 2019, The New York Times 's international edition included a cartoon featuring US President Donald Trump wearing a kippah and being led by a dog with the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wearing a Star of David collar. [66] The New York Times issued an apology. [67]

College campuses Edit

On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced its finding that incidents of antisemitism are a "serious problem" on college campuses throughout the United States. [68]

Stephen H. Norwood compares the Antisemitism in contemporary American University to the antisemitism in campuses during the Nazi era. [69] His article shows how the support in Anti-Zionist opinions encourages anti-Semitism inside American campus. Norwood describes in his article: "In 2002, Muslim student groups at San Francisco State University similarly invoked the medieval blood libel, distributing fliers showing a can with a picture of a dead baby beneath a large drop of blood and two Israeli flags, captioned: "Made in Israel. Palestinian Children Meat. Slaughtered According to Jewish Rites Under American License." On that campus a mob menaced Jewish students with taunts of "Hitler did not finish the job" and "Go back to Russia." The transfer between the criticism on Israel to pure anti-Semitism is significant.

During April 2014 there were at least 3 incidents of swastika drawings on Jewish property in University dormitories. At UCF for example, a Jewish student found 9 swastikas carved into walls of her apartment. [70]

On the beginning of September 2014 there were two cases of antisemitism in College campuses: two students from East Carolina University sprayed swastika on the apartment door of a Jewish student, [71] while on the same day, a Jewish student from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte was told "to go burn in an oven." The student had also told the media she is "hunted" because of her support in Israel: "I have been called a terrorist, baby killer, woman killer, [told that] I use blood to make matzah and other foods, Christ killer, occupier, and much more." [72]

In October 2014 fliers were handed out in the University of California in Santa Barbara that claimed "9/11 Was an Outside Job" with a large blue Star of David. The fliers contained links to several websites that accused Israel of the attack. [73] A few days later antisemitic graffiti was found on a Jewish fraternity house in Emory University in Atlanta. [74] Another graffiti incident occurred in Northeastern University, where swastikas drawn on flyers for a school event. [75]

A survey published in February 2015 by Trinity College and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law found out that 54 percent of the participants had been subject to or witnessing antisemitism on their campus. The survey included 1,157 self-identified Jewish students at 55 campuses nationwide. The most significant origin for antisemitism, according to the survey was "from an individual student" (29 percent). Other origins were: in clubs/ societies, in lecture/ class, in student union, etc. The findings of the research compared to a parallel study conducted in United kingdom, and the results were similar. [76]

In October 2015 it was reported that a few cars in the parking lot of the UC Davis were vandalized and scratched with antisemitic slurs and swastika sketches. [77] A few days later, antisemitic slurs were found on a chalkboard in a center of the campus at Towson University. [78]

Nation of Islam Edit

Some Jewish organizations, Christian organizations, Muslim organizations, and academics consider the Nation of Islam to be antisemitic. Specifically, they claim that the Nation Of Islam has engaged in revisionist and antisemitic interpretations of the Holocaust and exaggerates the role of Jews in the African slave trade. [79] The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) alleges that NOI Health Minister, Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad, has accused Jewish doctors of injecting Blacks with the AIDS virus, [80] an allegation that Muhammad has denied.

The Nation of Islam claimed that Jews were responsible for slavery, economic exploitation of black labor, selling alcohol and drugs in their communities, and unfair domination of the economy.

Some members of the Black Nationalist Nation of Islam claimed that Jews were responsible for the exploitation of black labor, bringing alcohol and drugs into their communities, and unfair domination of the economy.

The Nation of Islam has repeatedly denied charges of antisemitism, [81] and NOI leader Minister Louis Farrakhan has stated, "The ADL . uses the term 'anti-Semitism' to stifle all criticism of Zionism and the Zionist policies of the State of Israel and also to stifle all legitimate criticism of the errant behavior of some Jewish people toward the non-Jewish population of the earth." [82]

American attitudes towards Jews Edit

According to an Anti-Defamation League survey 14 percent of U.S. residents had antisemitic views. The 2005 survey found "35 percent of foreign-born Hispanics" and "36 percent of African-Americans hold strong antisemitic beliefs, four times more than the 9 percent for whites". [83] The 2005 Anti-Defamation League survey includes data on Hispanic attitudes, with 29% being most antisemitic (vs. 9% for whites and 36% for blacks) being born in the United States helped alleviate this attitude: 35% of foreign-born Hispanics, but only 19% of those born in the US. [84]

Hate crimes Edit

Escalating hate crimes targeting Jews and other minority groups prompted passage of the federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990. On April 1, 2014, Frazier Glenn Miller, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan arrived to the Jewish center of Kansas City and murdered 3 people. [85] After his capture the suspect was heard saying "Heil Hitler". [86]

In April 2014, the Anti-Defamation League published its 2013 audit of antisemitic incidents that pointed out a decline of 19 percent in antisemitic records. The total number of antisemitic attacks across the U.S. was 751, including 31 physical assaults, 315 incidents of vandalism and 405 cases of harassment. [87]

The Vassar Students for Justice in Palestine published a Nazi World War II propaganda poster in May 2014. The poster displays Jews as part of a monster who tries to destroy the world. Vassar college president Catharine Hill denounced the poster. [88] A few months later, a physical attack occurred in Philadelphia, when a Jewish student on the campus of Temple University was assaulted and punched in the face by a member of the organization Students for Justice in Palestine, who called him an antisemitic slur. [89]

In May 2014, a Jewish mother from Chicago accused a group of students at her eighth-grade son's school of bullying and antisemitism. They used the multi-player video game Clash of Clans to create a group called "Jews Incinerator" and described themselves: "we are a friendly group of racists with one goal- put all Jews into an army camp until disposed of. Sieg! Heil!" Two students wrote apology letters. [90] [91]

In June 2014 there were several antisemitic hate crimes. A swastika and other antisemitic graffiti were scrawled onto a streetside directional sign in San Francisco. [92] Another graffiti found at the Sanctuary Lofts Apartments, where a graffiti artists drew antisemitic, satanic and racist symbols inside the apartment complex. [93] Towards the end of the month a young Jewish boy was attacked while he was leaving his home in Brooklyn. The suspect, who was on a bike, opened his hand while passing and struck the victim in the face, then yelled antisemitic slurs. [94]

In July 2014, during operation Protective Edge in Gaza, there was an increase in the occurrence of antisemitic incidents. In the beginning of the month an antisemitic banner was flown above Brighton Beach and Coney Island. The banner contained symbols that meant "peace plus swastika equals love". The word "PROSWASTIKA" also appeared on the banner. [95] Additionally, there were more than 5 incidents of antisemitic graffiti across the country. In Borough Park, Brooklyn, New York, three man were arrested for vandalizing a Yeshiva property and a nearby house in the Jewish neighborhood by spraying swastikas and inscriptions such as "you don't belong here". [96] Later that month swastika drawings were found on mailboxes near a national Jewish fraternity house in Eugene, Oregon. [97]

Swastika drawings and also the phrase 'kill Jews' were found on a playground floor in Riverdale, Bronx. [98] There were also two incidents of graffiti in Clarksville, Tennessee and Lowell, Massachusetts. [99] [100] Some vandalism incidents occurred on a cemetery in Massachusetts. [101] and in country club in Frontenac, Missouri [102] Toward the end of the month there were two places were the word 'Hamas' was scribbled on Jewish property and on a Synagogue [103] [104] In addition, linked with the operation in Gaza Strip, anti-Jewish leaflets were found on cars in the Jewish neighborhood in Chicago. The leaflets threatened violence if Israel did not pull out of Gaza. [105]

In August 2014 there were two incidents in Los Angeles and Chicago where leaflets from the Nazi era in Germany got resurrected. In Westwood, near the UCLA a Jewish store owner got swastika-marked leaflets contained threatens and warnings. [106] A few days earlier, during a pro-Palestinian rally in Chicago, antisemitic leaflets were handed out to passersby. Those leaflets were exactly the same Nazi propaganda used in 1930's Germany. [107] Besides the above, there were more than six [108] incidents of graffiti and vandalism aimed at the Jewish populations in various cities in the United States. Some of the graffiti compared Israel to Nazi Germany. [109] There was also an antisemitic attack on four Orthodox Jewish teens in Borough Park, Brooklyn towards the mid-month. [110] Another physical attack occurred in Philadelphia, when a Jewish student on the campus of Temple University was assaulted and punched in the face by a violent member of the anti-Israel organization SJP. [89]

In the beginning of September 2014 there were more than 6 incidents of antisemitic graffiti across the country, [111] three of them outside religious buildings such as a synagogue or Yeshiva. [112] Most of the drawings included swastika inscriptions, and one of them had the words "Murder the Jew tenant". [113] Later that month another antisemitic graffiti was found on the Jewish Community Center in Boulder, Colorado. [114] Then, a few days later a violent attack occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, when during Rosh Hashanah a man who drove near the Jewish school shot three man after shouting "Jews, Jews, Jews". [115]

Towards the end of the month a rabbi was thrown out of a Greek restaurant when the owner found out he was Jewish. Moreover, the owner suggested him a "full size salad" or "Jewish size salad" which according to him meant "cheap and small". [116] Besides the above, Robert Ransdell, a write-in candidate for US Senate from Kentucky used the slogan "With Jews we lose" for his running. [117] Another incident occurred in the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, when a Jewish student was told "to go burn in an oven." The student had also told the media she is "hunted" because of her support in Israel: "I have been called a terrorist, baby killer, woman killer, [told that] I use blood to make matzah and other foods, Christ killer, occupier, and much more." [72]

October 2014 started with an antisemitic slur from a coffee shop owner in Bushwick who wrote on Facebook and Twitter that "greedy infiltrators" Jewish people came to buy a house near his business. [118] Later that month, two synagogues were desecrated in Akron, Ohio and in Spokane, Washington. One of them was sprayed with swastika graffiti [119] and the other one was damaged by vandalism. [120] During the month there was also a physical attack, when the head of a Hebrew association was beaten outside Barclays Center after a Nets-Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball game. The attacker was a participant in a pro-Palestinian demonstration outside the hall. [121] During another incident in October, fliers were handed out in the University of California in Santa Barbara that claimed "9/11 Was an Outside Job" with a large blue Star of David. The fliers contained links to several websites that accusing Israel of the attack. [73] A few days later an antisemitic graffiti was found on Jewish fraternity house in Emory University in Atlanta. [74]

During December 2014 a Jewish Israeli young man was stabbed in his neck while standing outside of the Chabad-Lubavitch building in New York City. [122] Another antisemitic incident in New York occurred when a threatening photo was sent to a Hasidic lawmaker. The photo showed his head pasted on the body of a person beheaded by the Islamic State jihadist group. [123] Besides those incidents, several antisemitic graffiti found across the country, [124] and a couple of synagogues were vandalized in Chicago [125] and in Ocala, Florida. [126]


"Moral embargo" Edit

The act was seen as a codified "moral embargo" in that it was an expression of moral outrage [5] stemming from the Japanese bombing of civilians in mainland China in the late 1930s. In June 1938, US Secretary of State, Cordell Hull condemned the slaughter and its "material encouragement." A month later, the Department of State notified aircraft manufacturers and exporters that the US government was "strongly opposed" [5] to the sale of airplanes and related materiel to nations using airplanes to attack civilian populations.

In 1939, the nonbinding embargo was extended to materials essential to airplane manufacture and to plans, plants, and technical information for the production of high-quality aviation gasoline. The measures resulted in the suspension of the export to Japan of aircraft, aeronautical equipment, and other materials within the scope of the moral embargoes. As Japanese purchases of items other than aircraft and aeronautical equipment were minuscule, the moral embargo ultimately stopped the exportation of arms to Japan.

End of commercial treaties Edit

Following the failure of diplomatic efforts to protect endangered American lives, rights, and economic interests in China, America considered commercial retaliation against Japan, Japanese authorities, or Japanese-sponsored agents in China. The American government felt that its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan was not affording an appropriate level of protection to US commerce in areas within or occupied by Japan. Simultaneously, Japan's position under the treaty, as a most favoured nation, legally prevented the adoption of retaliatory measures against Japanese commerce. The United States gave its six months' notice of its withdrawal from the treaty in July 1939 and so removed the primary legal obstacle for embargo. [5] [6]

The embargo, which halted the shipment of material such as airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline, was designed to be an unfriendly act. However, expanding it to include oil was specifically avoided. Since Japan was dependent on US oil, it was then thought that it would be a provocative step. [7]

The act was expanded in September of that year to include iron and steel scrap, [8] an act that Japanese Ambassador Kensuke Horinouchi warned Hull on October 8, 1940, might be considered an "unfriendly act [9]

Controls were first authorized in 1940 in regard to munitions and similar materials essential to the defense effort, and they were extended in 1942 to all commodities. [10] Always intended to be temporary, the 1940 act was successfully extended in 1944, 1945, 1946, and 1947. [11]

After World War II, the Export Control Act was expanded to prevent the diversion of advanced technology to the Soviet bloc and China and, in later years, to alter the behavior of foreign countries. [1] Scarcity of certain goods in the world markets made the continuance of controls necessary to prevent a drain on such goods from plentiful American supplies, with its consequential inflationary influence. It was envisioned that remaining controls would soon disappear at the time of re-enactment in 1949, [12] but national security and foreign policy, especially following the outbreak of the Korean War, were new and compelling reasons for extending the Export Control Act of 1949 [13] in 1951, 1953, 1956 and again in 1958. [14]

The Export Control Act of 1949 is an example of the type of legislation that it renders, subject to the regulations promulgated under it, all persons wherever situated. Under its provisions, exports of scarce materials are controlled both from an economic standpoint (short supply and consequent inflationary effect on foreign demand) and the security standpoint (autarchy and self-sufficiency in strategic resources not available in sufficiently-large quantities). They are both domestic policies aimed primarily at conditions within the United States, but controls are also directed at conditions outside the country as an instrument of US foreign policy. That is exemplified by the restrictions on the export of certain strategic or military items to the Soviet bloc or to other countries that it felt, if permitted, would be detrimental to American foreign policy. [15] The last motive became so strong that it brought legislation directing the president to enlist the co-operation of other nations in enacting controls on trade with the Soviet block to parallel those of the United States. The benefits of the various economic and military aid programs were to be withheld from non-cooperating nations. [16]

Cordell Hull on Need for Strong National Defense - HISTORY

I am deeply conscious of the honor which was conferred on me this morning. I am happy to visit this magnificent campus. From it, throughout our country's national existence, generations of leaders have gone to every corner of the land bearing the torch of truth and of humanity. There is no more fitting site from which to survey the great problems and issues that now confront this Nation.

These are black days for the human race. These are ominous days for us in this country.

There are at work in the world today powerful forces the significance of which no individual and no nation can ignore without falling into a position of the gravest danger and of the utmost jeopardy. These forces are not new in the experience of mankind. They rose on many occasions in the past and, for varying periods and with varying intensity, held sway over human affairs. They spring today from the same source from which they have always sprung in the past-from godless and soulless lust for power which seeks to hold men in physical slavery and spiritual degradation and to displace a system of peaceful and orderly relations among nations by the anarchy of wanton violence and brute force.

Fortunately, these forces have not triumphed in every instance in which they have challenged human freedom and interrupted the advance of civilization. There are times in the lives of individuals and of nations when realization of mortal peril, far from making men recoil in horror and defeat, strengthens and ennobles the soul, gives indomitability to will and to courage, and leads to victory through suffering and sacrifice. History records many heartening instances when in this manner the forces of conquest, violence, and oppression were hurled back, and the onward march of civilized man was resumed.

Never before have these forces flung so powerful a challenge to freedom and civilized progress as they are flinging today. Never before has there been a more desperate need for men and nations who love freedom and cherish the tenets of modern civilization, to gather into an unconquerable defensive force every element of their spiritual and material resources, every ounce of their moral and physical strength.

We, Americans of today, have behind us a century and a half of national existence, to which we point, with justifiable pride, as a successful experiment in democracy and human freedom. That experiment began when a resplendent generation of Americans resolved to stake on its success their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. With unshakable faith in their cause and an unswerving determination to make it prevail, they risked their all for the creation of a nation in which each citizen would have-as his inalienable rights-liberty under law, equality of opportunity, freedom of thought and of conscience. Those Americans believed unreservedly that in a nation founded upon these great principles, the people could enjoy individually a far greater measure of well-being and happiness than is possible under any other form of political and social organization, and could achieve collectively a degree of internal strength and unity of purpose necessary to insure for the Nation itself the inalienable right to manage its own affairs solely by the will of its own people.

A century and a half of active and, at times, tumultuous history have vindicated this faith. The Nation which that generation of Americans founded lives today and has grown great and powerful beyond the fondest dreams of its founders. This has come about because, through the stresses and strains of internal adjustment and external conflict, succeeding generations of Americans have never faltered in their devotion to that faith and have rededicated themselves to it, freely and reverently because in each generation there was sufficient resoluteness of spirit, tenacity of purpose, moral and physical courage, and capacity for unselfish sacrifice to accept individual and collective responsibility for the preservation of the principles upon which this Nation was founded and upon which it has built its way of life.

Our American history has not been achieved in isolation from the rest of mankind there is no more dangerous folly than to think that its achievements can be preserved in isolation. It has been a part of a vast movement-in the Old World, as well as the New-which has opened new vistas in the destiny of man which has carried human progress to new and exalted heights which has, through scientific attainment, lessened the tyranny over man of the blind forces of nature which, as never before, has expanded for the human race as a whole the opportunity for freedom of mind and of spirit. To this, great stream of new ideas, new attainments, new cultural values, we have made our contribution and we ourselves, in turn, have been nourished by it.

The massed forces of lust for tyrannical power are directed today against the very bases of the way of life which has come to be the cherished ideal of a preponderant majority of mankind-against the moral, spiritual, social, political, and economic foundations of modern civilization. Nation after nation has been crushed into surrender, overrun and enslaved by the exercise of brute force combined with fraud and guile. And as the dismal darkness descends upon more and more of the earth's surface, as its menacing shadow falls blacker and blacker athwart our continent, the very instinct of self?preservation bids us beware.

We have the power to meet that menace successfully, if we, at this time, face the task which is before us in the same spirit in which former generations of Americans met the crises that confronted them in their times. We need material means of defense. These means we are determined to create, and we are creating them. But more than that is needed.

Men will defend to the utmost only things in which they have complete faith. Those who took part in the struggle by which freedom was won for this Nation would have found its hardships unbearable if they had not been imbued with transcendent faith in the things for which they fought. The task of preserving and defending freedom requires at times as stern and determined a struggle as the task of achieving freedom, and as firm a faith.

No more vital test has ever confronted the American people than that which confronts it today. There are difficult and dangerous times ahead. Our national independence and our cherished institutions are not immune from the challenge of the lust for power that already stalks so much of the earth's surface. Unprecedented effort and heavy sacrifices will be required of us as the price of preserving, for ourselves and for our posterity, the kind of America that has been fostered and preserved for us by the vigilance, courage, and sacrifice of those who preceded us. We shall succeed if we retain unimpaired the most precious heritage which they bequeathed us-an unshakable faith in the everlasting worth of freedom and honor, of truth and justice, of intellectual and spiritual integrity and an immutable determination to give our all, if need be, for the preservation of our way of life.

Without that faith and that determination, no material means of defense will suffice. With them, we need fear no enemy outside or within our borders.
In times of grave crises, there are always some who fall a prey, to doubt and unreasoning fear some who seek refuge in cynicism and narrow self-interest some who wrap themselves in the treacherous cloak of complacency. All these are dangers that lie within us. All these impair the faith and weaken the determination without which freedom cannot prevail.

Each and every one of us must, search his mind and his heart for these signs of fatal weakness. The stern realities of the crisis which is upon us call, as never before, for vision and for loyalty. They call for all the strength of hand, of mind, and of spirit that we can muster. They call for self?reliance, for self?restraint, for self-imposed and freely accepted discipline. They call for the kind of national unity that can be achieved only by free men, invincible in their resolve that human freedom must not perish. They call for unselfish service today if we are to win through to a secure and bright tomorrow.

A responsibility seldom equalled in gravity and danger rests upon each and every one of us. Neglect or delay in assuming it, willingly and fully, would place in mortal danger our way of life and the sacred cause of human freedom. Were we to fail in that responsibility, we would fail ourselves we would fail the generations that went before us we would fail the generations that are to come after us we would fail mankind we would fail God.

I am supremely confident that we shall not fail. I am certain that in the minds and hearts of our people still-still-lie welling springs inexhaustible and indestructible-of faith in the things we cherish, of courage and determination to defend them, of sacrificial devotion, of unbreakable unity of purpose. I am certain that, however great the hardships and the trials which loom ahead, our America will endure and the cause of human freedom will triumph.

Cordell Hull on Need for Strong National Defense - HISTORY

We intend to act in this field with unremitting vigor.
We are seeking to advance by every appropriate means the spirit of inter-American solidarity and the system of continental defense. In conformity with the procedure set up at Buenos Aires and Lima, the Panama Consultative Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics adopted important measures to safeguard the national and collective interests of the American nations, their peace, and their economic, security. Last summer they met again, at Habana, to consult with regard to several threats to the peace and security of the Americas, the danger of which, they unanimously agreed, existed. To ward off these threats, they took positive?steps to prevent any transfer of sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere from one non?American nation to another, embodied in an international convention and in the Act of Habana. They also agreed upon procedures for combating subversive activities in the American nations and they adopted measures of economic defense and collaboration.

We have concluded an arrangement with Great Britain under which we have acquired long-time leases of eight strategically located naval and air bases which will enable us to create a protective girdle of steel along the Atlantic seaboard of the American Continent-bases which will be available for use by all of the American republics. We are engaged in defense consultations with our neighbors to the south, and we have created facilities for such consultations with Canada. In all these fields, we intend to continue vigorous effort.

We have sought in every appropriate way to discourage conquest and to limit the area of war. We have followed consistently the policy of refusing recognition of territorial changes effected by force or threat of force. We have taken every opportunity to express our concern over threatened changes by force in the existing political status of colonial possessions, disturbance of which would extend the area of hostilities. We have placed under license the funds of invaded countries. In these respects, too, we intend to continue our activities. We believe that the safety and the primary interests of the United States must be upheld with firmness and resolution-supported by the speediest and fullest possible armament for all defensive purposes. In view of the unprecedented character of menacing developments abroad, we have frankly recognized the danger involved and the increasing need for defense against it.

As an important means of strengthening our own defense and of preventing attack on any part of the Western Hemisphere, this country is affording all feasible facilities for the obtaining of supplies by nations which, while defending themselves against barbaric attack, are checking the spread of violence and are thus reducing the danger to us. We intend to continue doing this to the greatest practicable extant. Any contention, no matter from what source, that this country should not take such action is equivalent, in the present circumstances, to a denying of the inalienable right of self-defense.

In our democracy the basic determination of foreign policy rests with the people. As I sense the will of our people today, this Nation is determined that its security and rightful interests shall be safeguarded.

The dangers with which we are confronted are not of our making. We cannot know at what point, or when, we may possibly be attacked. We can, however, be prepared, first, to discourage any thought of assault upon our security and, if any such assault should be attempted, to repel it.

The people of this country want peace. To have peace, we must have security. To have security, we must be strong. These are times that test the fiber of men and of nations.

Our system of defense must, of necessity be many-sided, because the dangers against which safeguards are imperatively required are manifold. Essential to effective national defense are constant and skilful use of political and economic measures, possession of military weapons, and continuous exercise of wisdom and of high moral qualities. We must have planes and tanks and ships and guns. We must have trained men. We must hold to the ideal of a world in which the rights of all nations are respected and each respects the rights of all in which principles of law and order and justice and fair-dealing prevail. Above all, we must be a united people-united in purpose and in effort to create impregnable defense.

Thus can we maintain our inheritance. Thus will we continue tomake this country's high contribution toward the progress of mankind on the roadway of civilized effort.

Cordell Hull on Need for Strong National Defense - HISTORY

"The Need for a Strong National Defense"
by Cordell Hull
October 26, 1940

It is with no light heart that I address you and any others who may be listening tonight on the subject of our international relations. I should be lacking in candor if I did not emphasize the gravity of the present situation.

Only once before in our national existence has as grave a danger from without threatened this Nation as the danger which looms today on the international horizon. That was in the stirring days when the founders of this Republic staked everything on their unshakable conviction that a nation of free men could be established and would endure on the soil of America. Theirs was a struggle and a victory the fruits of which have been the proud inheritance of succeeding generations of Americans for more than a century and a half. These generations, including our own, have enjoyed this inheritance in a world where human freedom, national independence, and order under law were steadily becoming more and more firmly established as a system of civilized relations among nations and among individuals.

Today that system and all peaceful nations, including our own, are gravely menaced. The danger arises out of the plans and acts of a small group of national rulers who have succeeded in transforming their peoples into forceful instruments for widespread domination by conquest.

To understand the significance of this danger and to prepare to meet it successfully we must see clearly the tragic lessons taught by what has occurred since the protagonists of conquest began their march across the earth. I ask you to review with me the whirlwind developments of one of the saddest and most crucial decades in the history of mankind-that of the nineteen-thirties.

The opening years of the decade were filled with ominous rumblings of impending disaster. Profound economic dislocation had spread rapidly to every part of the world. It had disrupted international economic relations and was causing untold distress everywhere. The structure of international peace was still intact, but a dangerous breach was opened in it by the Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1931. That act, universally condemned at the time, proved to be only the beginning of an epidemic of callous disregard of international commitments?probably unparalleled in the annals of history. International discussions for the reduction and limitation of armaments, begun much earlier, were dragging along. Their failure to result in effective agreements was adding to the general feeling of apprehension and insecurity.

These developments were bound to create grave difficulties and grave dangers for our country, as well as for the rest of the world. The problems which they presented imperatively demanded on our part vigorous initiative and leadership in the promotion and defense of the national interest.

Accordingly, in the conduct of foreign policy, this Government directed its efforts to the following objectives: (1) Peace and security for the United States with advocacy of peace and limitation of armament as universal international objectives (2) support for law, order, justice, and morality and the principle of non-intervention (3) restoration and cultivation of sound economic methods and relations (4) development of the maximum measure of international cooperation (5) promotion of the security, solidarity, and general welfare of the Western Hemisphere. These basic objectives of a good?neighbor policy represented a sound and practical middle course between the extremes of internationalism and isolation. They have been consistently pursued throughout. The sweep of events has, of course, required the focusing of our attention at different periods upon different problems and different geographic areas.

In the early thirties the relations among the American republics left much to be desired. Elements of mistrust, apprehension, and disunion had to be eliminated if a good?neighbor policy was really to prevail on the American Continent and provide a foundation upon which 21 free and independent American republics could establish peaceful and mutually beneficial relations among themselves and with the rest of the world.

The Seventh International Conference of American States, meeting at Montevideo in December 1933, offered an opportunity for a far-reaching move in this direction. There, a solid foundation was laid for a new structure of inter?American relations built on lines so broad that the entire program of principles was of universal application. At that meeting, the American republics took effective action for the maintenance of inter-American peace, agreed upon non-intervention, and adopted an economic program of common benefit based on the rule of equal treatment. During the years which immediately followed, the United States gave tangible proofs of its determination to act in accordance with the newly created system of inter-American relations.

At the same time we inaugurated a new policy in the sphere of economic relations. In the summer of 1934, this country adopted the reciprocal-trade-agreements program, designed to restore and expand international commerce through the reduction of unreasonable trade barriers and the general reestablishment of the rule of equality of commercial treatment. This program proved to be the greatest constructive effort in a world racing toward economic destruction.

In the meantime, other phases of international relations were undergoing further and rapid deterioration. Efforts to achieve international security through the reduction and limitation of armaments were unsuccessful. The long and weary conferences at Geneva during which plan after plan failed of adoption showed that the world was not ready to grasp an opportunity for action which, had it been taken, might have prevented subsequent disasters. This and the notice given by Japan in December 1934 of her intention to terminate the Washington Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments opened the way for a new armament race.

At this juncture, Italy announced her intention to secure control over Ethiopia-by force of arms, if necessary. While there was still a possibility for an amicable settlement of the, difficulties between Italy and Ethiopia, the attitude of the Government of the United States was made clear on September 13, 1935, in a statement which read in part as follows:

"Under the conditions which prevail in the world today, a threat of hostilities anywhere cannot but be a threat to the interests-political, economic, legal and social-of all nations. Armed conflict in any part of the world cannot but have undesirable and adverse effects in every part of the world. All nations have the right to ask that any and all issues between whatsoever nations be resolved by pacific means. Every nation has the right to ask that no nations subject it and other nations to the hazards and uncertainties that must inevitably accrue to all from resort to arms by any two."

During the summer of 1935 under the influence of these rapidly unfolding developments threatening the peace of the world the Congress enacted a statute known as the Neutrality Act of 1935. The purpose of this act was to reduce the risks of our becoming involved in war. Unfortunately, it contained as its principal feature the provision for a rigid embargo on export of arms to belligerents. This provision was adopted under the influence of a fallacious concept temporarily accepted by a large number of our people that this country's entrance into the World War had been brought about by the sale of arms to belligerents and the machinations of so-called "international bankers".

It was clear then, and has become even clearer since, that a rigid embargo on export of arms might have an effect the opposite of that which was intended. On the occasion of the signing of the act, the President pointed out that "history is filled with unforeseeable situations" and that conditions might arise in which the wholly inflexible provision for an arms embargo "might drag us into war instead of keeping us out". I myself repeatedly pointed out that in addition to the unforeseeable consequences of the provision itself reliance upon that concept might mean the closing of our eyes to manifold dangers in other directions and from other sources.

By 1938, there was no longer any doubt that the existence of the arms embargo provision was definitely having the effect of making wide-spread war more likely. Accordingly, early in, 1939, the executive branch of the Government urgently recommended to Congress the repeal of that provision. That was finally accomplished, after the outbreak of war in Europe, at a special session of Congress called by the President for that specific purpose.

The Italo-Ethiopian war and its attendant circumstances left, in an already shaken Europe, a new condition of intense bitterness and unsettlement. Into that situation, Germany, after three years of intensive military preparation, flung, early in 1936, her first serious challenge to world order under law. The German Government tore up the Treaty of Locarno, into which Germany had freely and voluntarily entered, and proceeded to fortify the Rhineland in violation of the express provisions of that treaty. In the summer of that year, a violent civil conflict flared up in Spain, and that unfortunate country became a battleground of newly emerging power politics.

During this period, the President and I on numerous occasions emphasized the .gathering dangers in the world situation. In June 1935, I made the following statement

"We witness all about us a reckless, competitive-building up of armaments, a recurrence of the mad race which prior to 1914 led the nations of the world headlong to destruction. If persisted in, this course will again plunge the world into disaster."

Tragic indeed is the fact that, from the end of 1935, the voice of reason became increasingly drowned by the rising clangor of the furious rearmament by nations preparing for conquest.

We continued our efforts for peace. We continued to carry forward our program of economic restoration through the trade-agreements policy. We intensified the process of strengthening our naval armaments and of improving in other ways our means of defense. Speaking for the Government, I pointed out that we would not serve the cause of peace by not having adequate powers of self?defense that we must be sure that in our desire for peace we would not appear to any other country unable to protect our just rights.

In view of the imminence of an impending world crisis, we proposed to our sister republics of the Americas in January 1936, an extraordinary conference to consider the best means of safeguarding the peace of this hemisphere. At this Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, convoked at Buenos Aires, the 21 American republics, building on the foundations laid down at Montevideo, adopted for the first time the great principle that a threat from without the continent to the peace of any of them should be regarded by the American republics as a threat to each and every one of them. They established in contractual form the obligation to consult together whenever the peace of the Americas is menaced whether from within or from without.

During the year 1937, while the cauldron of European politics seethed dangerously, the focus of world events again shifted to the Far East. In the summer of that year, Japan struck a further and more extensive blow at China. This new threat to the peace of the world rendered appropriate a restatement of the fundamental aims and principles of the foreign policy of the United States. In a statement issued on July 16, 1937, I set forth those principles. We urged upon all nations the acceptance and observance of those principles. We repeatedly offered to be of assistance toward composing the Chinese-Japanese conflict in accordance with those principles. We participated-and Japan refused to participate-in the Brussels conference of the signatories to the Nine Power Pact, convoked for the purpose of bringing about a peaceful solution of that conflict.

During the year 1938, the focus of events returned to Europe. In March of that year, the armed forces of Germany passed beyond that country's borders, and the annexation of Austria marked the first forcible alteration of the frontiers established in Europe by the treaties of peace. This was followed, within a few months, by an intense crisis, culminating in the Munich conference and the first dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. The darkening shadows of an approaching war deepened over the fields and homes of the European Continent.

It is not necessary for me to dwell in detail on the kaleidoscopic events of the anguished year that preceded the outbreak of the European war, nor of the 14 months we have since lived through. All of us recall the feverish activity in Europe which became a prelude to war and our repeated attempts to influence the contending nations to adjust their differences by pacific means on the basis of justice, equality, and fair?dealing, without recourse to force or threat of force. The tragic and the heroic developments of the war months and the brutal invasion and ruthless extinguishment of the independence and freedom of many countries are too vivid in the minds of all of us to need recapitulation.

The appalling tragedy of the present world situation lies in the fact that peacefully disposed nations failed to recognize in time the true nature of the aims and ambitions which have actuated the ruler of the heavily arming nations. Recoiling from the mere contemplation of the possibility of another widespread war, the peoples of the peaceful nations permitted themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by the assurances made by these rulers that their aims were limited. This continued even as succeeding events left less and less room for doubt that, behind the screen of these assurances, preparations were being made for new attempts at widespread conquest. To mask still further this monstrous deception, these rulers and their satellites attempted to brand as "war mongers" and "imperialists" all who warned against the clearly emerging dangers, and poured upon them vituperation and abuse.

The United States, together with most other nations, has stood firmly for the basic principles underlying civilized international relations?peace, law, justice, treaty observance, non?intervention, peaceful settlement of differences, and fair?dealing, supported by the fullest practicable measure of international cooperation. The advocacy of these principles has won for us the friendship of all nations, except those which, vaguely describing themselves as the "have-nots" and claiming a superior right to rule over other peoples, are today on the march with great armies, air fleets, and navies to take by force what they say they need or want.

The rulers of these nations have repudiated and violated in every essential respect the long-accepted principles of peaceful and orderly international relations. Merciless armed attack unrestrained terrorization through slaughter of non?combatant men, women, and children deceit, fraud, and guile forced labor confiscation of property imposed starvation and deprivations of every sort?all these are weapons constantly used by the conquerors for the invasion and subjugation of other nations.

They adhere to no geographic lines and they fix no time limit on their programs of invasion and destruction. They cynically disregard every right of neutral nations, and, having occupied several such countries, they then proceed to warn all peaceful nations that they must remain strictly neutral until an invading force is actually crossing their borders. They have as a fixed objective the securing of control of the high seas. They threaten peaceful nations with the direst consequences if those nations do not remain acquiescent, while the conquerors are seizing the other continents and most of the seven seas of the earth.

Let no one comfort himself with the delusion that these are mere excesses or exigencies of war, to be voluntarily abandoned when fighting ceases. By deed and by utterance, the would-be conquerors have made it abundantly clear that they are engaged upon a relentless attempt to transform the civilized world as we have known it into a world in which mankind will be reduced again to the degradation of a master?and?slave relationship among nations and among individuals, maintained by brute force.

The hand of crushing assault has struck again and again at peaceful nations, complacent and unprepared in their belief that mere intention on their part to keep peace was an ample shield of security.

There can be nothing more dangerous for our Nation than for us to assume that the avalanche of conquest could under no circumstances reach any vital portion of this hemisphere. Oceans give the nations of this hemisphere no guaranty against the possibility of economic, political, or military attack from abroad. Oceans are barriers but they are also highways. Barriers of distance are merely barriers of time. Should the would-be conquerors gain control of other continents, they would next concentrate on perfecting their control of the seas, of the air over the?seas, and of the world's economy they might then be able with ships and with planes to strike at the communication lines, the commerce, and the life of this hemisphere and ultimately we might find ourselves compelled to fight on our own soil, under our own skies, in defense of our independence and our very lives.

These are some of the governing facts and conditions of the present-day international situation. These are the dangers which must be recognized. Against these dangers, our policies and measures must provide defense.

The Long, Ugly History of American Antisemitism

Reading the horrified reactions to the bloody attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, one has the impression that the assault was carried out by a crazed individual operating from the most deranged fringe of America’s alt-right: a product of the brutal politics of Donald Trump and social media run amok. The fact is that, though America would dearly love to forget it, anti-Semitism has long been deeply embedded in the U.S.

In the Spring of 1942, the sociologist David Riesman described American anti-Semitism as “slightly below the boiling point.”

Indeed, the despicable image of an American president slamming shut his country’s Southern border to desperate refugees fleeing the violence of their homeland is nothing new. The same tragic tale played out in the United States in the spring of 1939, when Franklin Roosevelt was President: U.S. authorities refused to let a ship, the St. Louis, loaded with more than 900 passengers, most of them Jews attempting to escape from Germany, refused to let them dock in the U.S.

Already forbidden from landing in Cuba, the ship’s German captain Gustav Schroder (not a Jew), circled off the coast of Florida, hoping for permission to enter the United States. But Secretary of State Cordell Hull advised President Franklin Roosevelt not to accept the Jews. Still determined to save his passengers, Captain Schröder considered running aground along the U.S. coast to allow the refugees to escape. But, again, acting on Cordell Hull’s instructions, US Coast Guard vessels shadowed the ship and prevented such a move.

Also refused entry by Canada and Great Britain, Captain Schroder finally returned to Europe, but only after several European countries other than Germany agreed to accept a portion of the refugees. But Hitler still caught up with many of them: more than 250 of the St Louis passengers ultimately died in the Holocaust.

That was just one episode of America’s shameful role during World War II. “The Nazis were the murderers, but we were the all too passive accomplices.” Such was the verdict of American historian, David Wyman, a Protestant, who, after years of the most thorough research, in 1984 produced an extremely disturbing book, “The Abandonment of the Jews” (Pantheon).Wyman’s findings have not been disputed. There have been similar books on the subject, documenting chapter and verse.

For instance, little Switzerland—charged with closing its borders to the Jews during WWII —in fact accepted as many Jewish refugees during the war — 21,000 — as did the vastly greater United States. That pitifully small number represented only 10 percent of the number who could have been legally admitted under U.S. immigration quotas at the time.

Tens of thousands of Jews were turned away or dissuaded from applying for visas by U.S. officials intent on keeping the inflow to a trickle.

It is clear that by the summer of 1942, Washington had confirmed accounts of Hitler’s plan to exterminate the Jews. But, according to Mr. Wyman: “The American State Department and the British Foreign Office had no intention of rescuing large numbers of European Jews. On the contrary, they continually feared that Germany or other Axis nations might release tens of thousands of Jews into Allied hands. Any such exodus would have placed intense pressure on Britain to open Palestine and on the United States to take in more Jewish refugees — a situation the two great powers did not want to face. Consequently, their policies aimed at obstructing rescue possibilities and dampening public pressures for government action.”

Incredibly, according to Mr. Wyman, Anthony Eden even opposed a joint plea from the Allies to Germany to release the Jews because of his fear that Germany might actually agree.

Strong popular pressure could have made a difference. Why wasn’t it there? Anti-Semitism and anti-immigration attitudes were widespread in American society and entrenched in Congress. In the late 1930s, as Jews were scrambling to escape from Europe, a Roper poll showed that 70 to 85 percent of the American people opposed raising quotas to help Jewish refugees enter the United States.

Even more shocking, another set of polls taken in the years between 1938 and 1945 revealed that as much as 35 to 40 percent of the U.S. population was prepared to approve an anti-Jewish campaign in America. Only 30 percent would have opposed it, and the rest would have remained indifferent.

There was also the failure of the mass media — including newspapers like the New York Times — to publicize Holocaust news, even though the wire services and other sources made most of the information available early on.

Added to that were the near silence of the Christian churches and most of their leaders and the indifference of American political and intellectual nabobs.

One of the greatest American journalists of the day, Walter Lippmann, for instance, wrote not a single column about the Holocaust or the death camps.

As for President Franklin Roosevelt, according to Mr. Wyman, he did nothing about the mass murder for 14 months after first learning about it. And then he “moved only because he was confronted with political pressures he could not avoid and because his administration stood on the brink of a nasty scandal over its rescue policies.”

Even most of America’s Jewish leaders at the time were remiss, caught up in internal bickering, concerned about provoking anti-Semitism, more worried about establishing the state of Israel than saving Jews from the Holocaust.

It’s ironic how insistent we were after the war that the Germans recognize their shameful history—teach it in their schools, and so on. The French also have similarly felt obliged to confront their shameful willingness to collaborate in the Holocaust. As have the Swiss.

Americans and Canadians and Brits, meanwhile, have done their best to bury and forget—and have been very successful at it.

Watch the video: An American Globalist - Cordell Hull - WW2 Biography Special (January 2022).