St. Louis Research Paper
Section 1: Identification and Evaluation of Sources The St. Louis was a German transatlantic liner. On May 13, 1939 the St. Louis and it’s captain, Gustav Schröder, departed Hamburg, Germany with 937 passengers that were all searching for a better life in North America. After being turned away by the government of Cuba the refugees hoped to be accepted by the United States, however, president Franklin D. Roosevelt also turned them away. So now the question is, was FDR responsible for the fate of the St. Louis, and how did his reaction reflect on America’s response to the Holocaust as a whole? So, was FDR responsible for the fate of the St. Louis, and how did his reaction reflect on America’s response to the Holocaust as a whole? In order to answer this question I will be using a vast array of primary and secondary sources. The first source is a primary source entitled “The Voyage of the St. Louis”. It was written on June 15, 1939. The source is an original report from the JDC (American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee). The author of this report is currently unknown (it was originally thought to have been written by the leader of the JDC, Joseph C. Hyman, but seeing as he is later mentioned in this report the presumption seemed rather unfitting). The report was created
…show more content…
because that is (presumably) what the protocol requires, to have records of this voyage (or any voyage for that matter). This source is from the viewpoint of an unknown author as they give their first hand account of the voyage of the St. Louis. This source details the voyage the St. Louis made to North America and all the strenuous communication it took to get the refugees to a safe place. This source does an excellent job at detailing all the extra efforts it took to give the refugees a home, and how much more difficult North America made housing these refugees (Cuba only took in about 30 passengers). However, this source can be limiting as it doesn’t really mention the United States of America so much as it does Cuba.
The second source is a secondary source. This source, entitled “New Evidence on FDR and the “Voyage of the Damned””, is my main FDR centric source. The article was written by Dr. Rafael Medoff, an American historian and founder of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in 2009. Dr. Medoff created this source to write an article to analyse different factors of the St. Louis’ voyage as well as new evidence revealing more information about FDR’s decision in 1939. The author wrote this article to shed some light and new evidence on a very old topic (as most historians do). This source brings a lot of new things to the table for this paper. It brings the FDR aspect of the question into the paper as well as provides more information about his effects on the refugees of the St. Louis. However, much unlike the first source, this source can be rather limiting as it doesn’t supply as detailed information about the St. Louis’ voyage. This source source is also limiting as it leans towards a very anti-FDR bias.
Section 2: Investigation
On May 15, 1939, in an attempt to flee Nazi Germany, 937 refugees, 930 of them being Jewish, boarded the St. Louis and set sail for North America. The ship, captained by Gustav Schröder, set sail from Hamburg to Cuba, where all but 22 or so passengers held tourist visas that were issued by the Cuban Director-General of Immigration in order to enter. However, on May 5, 1939, as it is stated in a first hand report to the JDC, “the Cuban government had publicly issued a decree which, in effect, voided all landing permits previously issued by Commissioner of Immigration Benites and distributed by the various cuban consuls in Europe. Every future immigrant, said the decree, would be required to deposit a $500 bond as guarantee against becoming a public charge and against violating Cuban labor laws, and in addition would need a visa authenticated by the Cuban Secretaries of State, Labor, and Treasury.” So, when the St. Louis and its 937 passengers arrived at Cuba on May 27, 1939 the government refused to recognize the validity of their tourist visas. Only 27 passengers, whose families had previously deposited the $500 bonds and whose papers met the new requirements, were allowed entry into Havana. Rejected, the St. Louis continued sailing over to the coast of Florida where it then continued to idle as Captain Schröder and members of the JDC frantically and desperately tried to find a home for the other 907 passengers of the St. Louis. After being turned away by both the U.S. and Canada the St. Louis set sail to return to Europe as Captain Schröder and the officials at the JDC desperately pleaded for the help of the remaining European countries. Belgium was the first country to respond, accepting 250 refugees, and initially got the ball rolling for other countries to accept refugees as well. Holland agreed to take 194 refugees while Great Britain accepted some 250 people, leaving France to take in the remaining 224. On June 17 the St. Louis docked in Antwerp, Belgium where the 907 refugees were then dispersed to their various countries. However, due to the German invasions of Belgium, France, and Holland in 1940 the refugees were again put at risk. Because of the German invasions in continental Europe it is estimated that “only 365 of the 620 passengers who returned to continental Europe survived the war.” So the question still stands, was FDR responsible for the fate of the St. Louis, and how did his reaction reflect on America’s response to the Holocaust as a whole?
When considering FDR’s role in the voyage of the St. Louis one can look at it from three aspects, that of a FDR supporter, a FDR critic, or a FDR skeptic. Starting with the point of view of a FDR supporter, FDR could not allow the passengers of the St. Louis entry into the U.S. due to the filled immigrant quota. In an essay written by Dr. Rafael Medoff entitled “Revisiting the Voyage of the Damned” it is stated that, “for the first time during President Roosevelt’s years in office, the annual quota for immigrants from Germany was filled.” meaning that at the time the United States could no longer accept immigrants from Germany. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s article on the voyage of the St. Louis (which has a clear bias to support FDR, being that it is an American museum and FDR is highly regarded in America), “In 1939, the annual combined German-Austrian immigration quota was 27,370 and was quickly filled. In fact, there was a waiting list of at least several years. US officials could only have granted visas to the St. Louis passengers by denying them to the thousands of German Jews placed further up on the waiting list.” From this source it is shown that when it came to the voyage of the St. Louis FDR’s hands were tied, he could do nothing to help the passengers of the St. Louis. However, there are still two more aspects of this argument to consider.
Considering the point of view of a FDR critic, FDR could have done more in order to push the immigrant quota and fight for the passengers’ entry into the U.S. In another paper written by Dr. Rafael Medoff entitled “New Evidence on FDR and the “Voyage of the Damned”” the new evidence refers to an unpublished memoir by Cecilia Razovsky, a refugee advocate and senior official of the National Council of Jewish Women who had travelled to Havana in May 1939 in order to attempt to resolve the St. Louis crisis along with Cuban and U.S. officials, about the crisis of the St. Louis in which Razovsky referred to FDR as “apathetic”. Medoff gives plenty of resolutions that FDR could have referred to, “He [FDR] could have issued an executive order placing the refugees in a temporary detention center until it was safe for them to return to Germany. He could have put meaningful pressure on the British to let the passengers go to Mandatory Palestine. Or he could have leaned on America's Latin American allies to take in the refugees.” While Medoff may have a point it can also be speculated that these things are “easier said than done”. Lastly, this question can be explored through the point of view of a FDR skeptic. It is discussed in the essay “Revisiting the Voyage of the Damned” that FDR gave little to none public response to the St. Louis crisis. The closest thing that came to a response was the actions of the Coast Guard, who are controlled by the Commander in Chief himself, in which they were ordered to trial the St. Louis in order to ensure that none of its passengers attempted to swim to America while they were on the coast of Florida. From this evidence, it can be gathered that FDR was not directly responsible for the fate of the St.
Louis. However, that does not mean that his response, or rather lack thereof, did a fair job at reflecting the U.S.’s response to the Holocaust. While it can be said by many that the U.S. did little to help in terms of the Holocaust it can also be said that they did as much as they could. The U.S. filled its quota of German immigrants, whether or not those immigrants were victims of the Holocaust could not be determined by the U.S. itself. However, FDR’s response did illustrate the element of indifference that many of the U.S.’s citizens posed when it came to the issue of European
immigrants.
Section 3: Reflection In order to investigate a moment in history like a historian there needs to be a variety of sources. Not only does there have to be at least one primary source but there also needs to be a variety of sources with varying perspectives. However, both types of sources can be limiting. When referring to primary sources there is a high risk of egocentric bias, in which the author of the source only considers things from his/her point of view, as well as other personal biases and prejudices . However, secondary sources can be limiting as well as they also have biases of the author, regardless of the source’s format, and they are also second-hand accounts of the event. The author of a secondary source is but a mere observer of the other perspectives of the event, but includes the other perspectives nonetheless. All these varying perspectives and biases have proven to be quite challenging to analysis and gather information from because while they may provide a more diverse look at the event they also tend to conflict. Archive-based history is also fairly difficult to source because at times (like my source from the JDC) some information as to where exactly it came from and who wrote it tends to be lost. However, one should always evaluate the reliability of one’s sources by fact checking them with other sources. Biases are certain prejudices in papers that make them increasingly difficult to source. This is because many papers that include biases to not provide other perspectives that may contradict said biases. This makes gaining other perspectives increasingly difficult to achieve. However, in my opinion, I feel that it can be possible to describe a historical event in an unbiased way. To do so the source must simply include all the facts from all the different perspectives without leaning in particular to one. The role of a historian is to ensure that our history is recorded and remembered in many different ways. A historian must at often times investigate history in order to gain a multiple range of perspectives about multiple events around the world. While it may not, at times, be appropriate to refer to historical events as “atrocities” I feel like sometimes that is the only word that can be used, especially when referring to things such as war. For war is essentially the act of human being actively killing and eradicating other human beings. Sometimes words with emotional connotations such as “atrocities” are the only thing that’s appropriate.
because that is (presumably) what the protocol requires, to have records of this voyage (or any voyage for that matter). This source is from the viewpoint of an unknown author as they give their first hand account of the voyage of the St. Louis. This source details the voyage the St. Louis made to North America and all the strenuous communication it took to get the refugees to a safe place. This source does an excellent job at detailing all the extra efforts it took to give the refugees a home, and how much more difficult North America made housing these refugees (Cuba only took in about 30 passengers). However, this source can be limiting as it doesn’t really mention the United States of America so much as it does Cuba.
The second source is a secondary source. This source, entitled “New Evidence on FDR and the “Voyage of the Damned””, is my main FDR centric source. The article was written by Dr. Rafael Medoff, an American historian and founder of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in 2009. Dr. Medoff created this source to write an article to analyse different factors of the St. Louis’ voyage as well as new evidence revealing more information about FDR’s decision in 1939. The author wrote this article to shed some light and new evidence on a very old topic (as most historians do). This source brings a lot of new things to the table for this paper. It brings the FDR aspect of the question into the paper as well as provides more information about his effects on the refugees of the St. Louis. However, much unlike the first source, this source can be rather limiting as it doesn’t supply as detailed information about the St. Louis’ voyage. This source source is also limiting as it leans towards a very anti-FDR bias.
Section 2: Investigation
On May 15, 1939, in an attempt to flee Nazi Germany, 937 refugees, 930 of them being Jewish, boarded the St. Louis and set sail for North America. The ship, captained by Gustav Schröder, set sail from Hamburg to Cuba, where all but 22 or so passengers held tourist visas that were issued by the Cuban Director-General of Immigration in order to enter. However, on May 5, 1939, as it is stated in a first hand report to the JDC, “the Cuban government had publicly issued a decree which, in effect, voided all landing permits previously issued by Commissioner of Immigration Benites and distributed by the various cuban consuls in Europe. Every future immigrant, said the decree, would be required to deposit a $500 bond as guarantee against becoming a public charge and against violating Cuban labor laws, and in addition would need a visa authenticated by the Cuban Secretaries of State, Labor, and Treasury.” So, when the St. Louis and its 937 passengers arrived at Cuba on May 27, 1939 the government refused to recognize the validity of their tourist visas. Only 27 passengers, whose families had previously deposited the $500 bonds and whose papers met the new requirements, were allowed entry into Havana. Rejected, the St. Louis continued sailing over to the coast of Florida where it then continued to idle as Captain Schröder and members of the JDC frantically and desperately tried to find a home for the other 907 passengers of the St. Louis. After being turned away by both the U.S. and Canada the St. Louis set sail to return to Europe as Captain Schröder and the officials at the JDC desperately pleaded for the help of the remaining European countries. Belgium was the first country to respond, accepting 250 refugees, and initially got the ball rolling for other countries to accept refugees as well. Holland agreed to take 194 refugees while Great Britain accepted some 250 people, leaving France to take in the remaining 224. On June 17 the St. Louis docked in Antwerp, Belgium where the 907 refugees were then dispersed to their various countries. However, due to the German invasions of Belgium, France, and Holland in 1940 the refugees were again put at risk. Because of the German invasions in continental Europe it is estimated that “only 365 of the 620 passengers who returned to continental Europe survived the war.” So the question still stands, was FDR responsible for the fate of the St. Louis, and how did his reaction reflect on America’s response to the Holocaust as a whole?
When considering FDR’s role in the voyage of the St. Louis one can look at it from three aspects, that of a FDR supporter, a FDR critic, or a FDR skeptic. Starting with the point of view of a FDR supporter, FDR could not allow the passengers of the St. Louis entry into the U.S. due to the filled immigrant quota. In an essay written by Dr. Rafael Medoff entitled “Revisiting the Voyage of the Damned” it is stated that, “for the first time during President Roosevelt’s years in office, the annual quota for immigrants from Germany was filled.” meaning that at the time the United States could no longer accept immigrants from Germany. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s article on the voyage of the St. Louis (which has a clear bias to support FDR, being that it is an American museum and FDR is highly regarded in America), “In 1939, the annual combined German-Austrian immigration quota was 27,370 and was quickly filled. In fact, there was a waiting list of at least several years. US officials could only have granted visas to the St. Louis passengers by denying them to the thousands of German Jews placed further up on the waiting list.” From this source it is shown that when it came to the voyage of the St. Louis FDR’s hands were tied, he could do nothing to help the passengers of the St. Louis. However, there are still two more aspects of this argument to consider.
Considering the point of view of a FDR critic, FDR could have done more in order to push the immigrant quota and fight for the passengers’ entry into the U.S. In another paper written by Dr. Rafael Medoff entitled “New Evidence on FDR and the “Voyage of the Damned”” the new evidence refers to an unpublished memoir by Cecilia Razovsky, a refugee advocate and senior official of the National Council of Jewish Women who had travelled to Havana in May 1939 in order to attempt to resolve the St. Louis crisis along with Cuban and U.S. officials, about the crisis of the St. Louis in which Razovsky referred to FDR as “apathetic”. Medoff gives plenty of resolutions that FDR could have referred to, “He [FDR] could have issued an executive order placing the refugees in a temporary detention center until it was safe for them to return to Germany. He could have put meaningful pressure on the British to let the passengers go to Mandatory Palestine. Or he could have leaned on America's Latin American allies to take in the refugees.” While Medoff may have a point it can also be speculated that these things are “easier said than done”. Lastly, this question can be explored through the point of view of a FDR skeptic. It is discussed in the essay “Revisiting the Voyage of the Damned” that FDR gave little to none public response to the St. Louis crisis. The closest thing that came to a response was the actions of the Coast Guard, who are controlled by the Commander in Chief himself, in which they were ordered to trial the St. Louis in order to ensure that none of its passengers attempted to swim to America while they were on the coast of Florida. From this evidence, it can be gathered that FDR was not directly responsible for the fate of the St.
Louis. However, that does not mean that his response, or rather lack thereof, did a fair job at reflecting the U.S.’s response to the Holocaust. While it can be said by many that the U.S. did little to help in terms of the Holocaust it can also be said that they did as much as they could. The U.S. filled its quota of German immigrants, whether or not those immigrants were victims of the Holocaust could not be determined by the U.S. itself. However, FDR’s response did illustrate the element of indifference that many of the U.S.’s citizens posed when it came to the issue of European
immigrants.
Section 3: Reflection In order to investigate a moment in history like a historian there needs to be a variety of sources. Not only does there have to be at least one primary source but there also needs to be a variety of sources with varying perspectives. However, both types of sources can be limiting. When referring to primary sources there is a high risk of egocentric bias, in which the author of the source only considers things from his/her point of view, as well as other personal biases and prejudices . However, secondary sources can be limiting as well as they also have biases of the author, regardless of the source’s format, and they are also second-hand accounts of the event. The author of a secondary source is but a mere observer of the other perspectives of the event, but includes the other perspectives nonetheless. All these varying perspectives and biases have proven to be quite challenging to analysis and gather information from because while they may provide a more diverse look at the event they also tend to conflict. Archive-based history is also fairly difficult to source because at times (like my source from the JDC) some information as to where exactly it came from and who wrote it tends to be lost. However, one should always evaluate the reliability of one’s sources by fact checking them with other sources. Biases are certain prejudices in papers that make them increasingly difficult to source. This is because many papers that include biases to not provide other perspectives that may contradict said biases. This makes gaining other perspectives increasingly difficult to achieve. However, in my opinion, I feel that it can be possible to describe a historical event in an unbiased way. To do so the source must simply include all the facts from all the different perspectives without leaning in particular to one. The role of a historian is to ensure that our history is recorded and remembered in many different ways. A historian must at often times investigate history in order to gain a multiple range of perspectives about multiple events around the world. While it may not, at times, be appropriate to refer to historical events as “atrocities” I feel like sometimes that is the only word that can be used, especially when referring to things such as war. For war is essentially the act of human being actively killing and eradicating other human beings. Sometimes words with emotional connotations such as “atrocities” are the only thing that’s appropriate.