Talk:John J. McCloy

A Complete Re-write Required and Underway
John J. McCloy -- love him or hate him -- was a larger than life figure in the workings of U.S. public policy from the 1930's to the 1970's. A prominent attorney, a federal official, a designated "wise-man" in the Cold War era, Wikipedia readers should expect a neutral, first class article about this man. The previous attempted to create a McCloy page seem to be related to editors interested in expressing a POV not about McCloy, but about many of the issues that he faced in his various rolls as a senior government advisor to Roosevelt, Stimson, Truman, etc. This is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article (but very appropriate for many other outlets.)

Since the earlier "firestorm" of 2006 on this article has seemed to pass, I'll be working in the sandbox to bring up an complete re-write, and I'll be interested in hearing from anyone who wants to assist in the initial work. There are many sections to write, and many original sources on line (including the Truman, LBJ, Kennedy Library oral history collections). Please let me know if you are interested. Sclarkson 12:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I simply want to support Sclarkson in the rewrite, but (at age 86-plus) I really can't contribute. I served as deputy G-1 of 4th Infantry Division in Frankfurt, Germany 1951-1952. I knew and appreciated McCloy as a public personality (HICOG -- High Commissioner for Germany) and believe that he is worthy of a good article here. CoppBob 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup Needed
This article needs cleanup for style, citations, content, POV and more. Hopefully this can get on one of the "to be done" lists!

Further evidence of need for style and citations
it was only yesterday (05/31/06) that I added information on McCloy's noxious role in preventing an allied air assult on Auschwitz. my sources are Martin Gilbert's 'Auschwiz and Allies" and Stuart Erdheim's article "could the Allies have bombed Auschwitz?". my input, desparately needed given the previously sanitised treatment of the touchy matter, was deleted. my "editor" did not even deem fit to explain his reasons, though they appear to me as self-evident as they are contemptible. unless he/she or others can in some way challenge the veracity of my information-they cannot, of course- they must rfrain from such cowardly vandalism. Present-day Americans may be uncomfortable with their country's occasionally dubious role during WW2 and its immediate aftermath, being satisfied with a cartoonishly oversimplistic image of snow white heroic idealism, but the truth must and will be revealed

PBS's page on the story (see external links) seems to provide a fairly good synopsis of the disputed points. Phrases like "A downright lie" certainly don't belong on Wikipedia as NPOV. And while his role in preventing the bombing of Auschwitz (or at least not endorsing it) seems fairly well-established, the basis for that is largely on the bombing of nearby industrial centers, not on the allocation of different types of bombers. Deusnoctum 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "a downright lie" cannot be dismissed as a "point of view" for the simple reason that it is an unquestionably correct and accurate depiction of McCloy's statement that the British had the final word in determining bombing targets, indeed it was an outrageous lie. as for your, (deustnoctum's), second obgection. perhaps it is only a matter of a trainwrecked choice of words but it strikes me as meaningless gibberish.

Risible article
As of 28.06, the text of this ostensible article on McCloy falls so far short of giving an apologia, let alone a critical analysis, of his multi-faceted life as to be utterly risible. Readers are thus referred to Kai Bird`s recent biography of him. In closing: since the post-1977 abuse by Likud for Israeli state purposes of the memory of the Holocaust (the TV series of that name and thus the designation "holocaust" for the great extermination date only from 1979), events of WW2 have been interpreted as if owned by the PR section of AIPAC. This may play well in the USA for electoral lobby reaons, but not elsewhere. --62.134.80.68 12:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite why the previous logger deemmed fit to jetision his anti-Israeli venom in this forum of all is inexplicable-without recourse to psychopathology, that is. his writing suggests a disordered mind but it may simply be that he is catastrophically unintelligent. in any event the term "holocaust" originaed in wartime USA. In the much maligned Israel the genocide in question is known simply as SHOA which translates simply "catastrophe". so please no more semitic conspiracies with or without benighted israel bashing

NPOV, factual accuracy/sourcing
By itself, McCloy's letter is not self-contradictory. He says that only some (i.e., heavy) bombers could reach Auschwitz, and that those (relatively) few bombers that could were needed elsewhere. Whether the latter statement was, in fact, true is another matter, and based on the documents available (see PBS links at bottom) it seems quite likely that they are not. However, viewed by itself his letter is logically consistent. Also, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, saying that bombing the labor camp would be "a drop in the ocean" is stylistically bad, and does not reflect a neutral POV (likewise, calling Roosevelt's record "deplorable"). Finally, I was able to find no information about Nahum Goldman making a request specifically to McCloy to bomb Auschwitz, or about McCloy saying that targeting was a British responsibility, which is why I initially removed those statements. If you can find sources for them, please list them. Deusnoctum 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the information about nahum goldman's interview with mccloy is in Martin Gilbert's 'Auschwitz and the Allies' page 321 in the paper back edition. and what about the repeated delitions of the references to McCloy's indiscriminate whitewashing of nazi crimes and its substitution with the inane reference to McCloy's "somewhat controversial" release of Alfried krupp. aside from the fact that Krupp's release was not so much controversial as indefensible as McCloy was forced to concede in an interview with William Manchester (the Arms of Krupp if you're curious). Krupp beastly as he was, was a drop in the ocean beside the great and vicious horde of McCloy's prison break. so please overcome your deletionitis if not the admiration for McCloy whence it stemmes, and let us have some truth in this article.


 * There was a very good reason for the pardons, see Cold War (1947–1953). Releasing a criminal early is not white-washing, and not a full pardon.86.42.196.156 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
Please can the and the anonymous user kindly comment at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-20 John J. McCloy, a case sumbitted by Deusnoctum which I shall mediate if both parties agree. Also, can I kindly ask the anonymous user to create an account, to make this whole process easier? Computerjoe 's talk 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion
I saw this on the 3rd opinion page, but now I see a mediation case... but the mediation case is older than the 3rd opinion request. What's going on? Is a third opinion needed? Is this the same dispute that lead to the mediation? Has the mediation case been resolved? Some clarification would be appreciated. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the mediation was closed because they had not tried other ways to resolve the dispute first. Both parties should remember that Wikipedia is interested in Verifiability, not Truth. Any statements without specific citations and sources must be removed. --Hetar 19:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Appearently it is you (Hetar) who deleted my contributions concerned with McCloy's false statement to Goldman and the frequent low casualties air raids conduced while McCloy was claiming the bombing of Auschwitz "Impracticable" on the ground that it was not supportwd by sources. my sources are Martin Gilbert's Auschwitz And The Allies (as noted above inthe talkpage) and Stuart Erdheim's Could The Allies Have Bombed Auschwitz and an interview with michae Beschloss wherein he reported McCloy's claim that Roosevelt ordered that Auschwitz Is not to be bombed. I have reinstated this statements.

Roosevelt - any links to FDRs less than enthusiastic response to the holocaust? I had assumed this from other behavior but have never seen a primary source. Thanks159.105.80.141 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Word choice
"in 1919, and then received an LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1921" -- Delete "then," since (1) it's unnecessary, and (2) it's inaccurate: it wasn't "then" (1919) that he "received an LL.B."

"McCloy was a crucial voice in setting U.S. military priorities" -- McCloy's voice was a voice, but he himself was a person. Say either that he _had_ a voice or that _he_ was crucial.

"throughout late 1944" -- To say that something occurred "throughout late 1944" seems to me to imply that it had a precise beginning, which I doubt is intended.

"Nazi prisoners" -- This seems to refer to prisoners of the Nazis, but "prisoners who are Nazis" is the more natural interpretation. "camp-and" -- The hyphen should be replaced by a dash.

"Roosevelt's generally unsympathetic response to the Holocaust" -- If Roosevelt were unsympathetic to the Holocaust, he would have wanted to stop it. How does that explain his reluctance to bomb Auschwitz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D021317c (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed for Lack of Proper Citation
1) The Dino Brugioni discovery of Arial Recon of Auschwitz I does not support the facts as states. Further bombers and recon planes are not one in the same. Please get the fact straight. It is a controversial matter, but the above is most definately not NPOV nor is is properly reference.

2) Regarding Beschloss claim that FDR himself dis-allowed the bombing of Auscwitz a) Please see this link which directly contrdicts the Beschlos citation http://hnn.us/articles/4268.html b) According to Michael Berenbaum (as personal corespondence) No evidence exists the FDR was ever aware of the bombing requests.

Lastly, yes McCloy's role in the affair is no doubt indeed problematic, yet let's use citations and when we do so, make sure they are sustainable.

"The War Department was petitioned throughout late 1944 to help save Nazi prisoners by ordering the bombing of the railroad lines leading to Auschwitz and the gas chambers in the camp. McCloy responded that only heavy bombers would be able to reach the sites from England, and that those bombers would be too vulnerable and were needed elsewhere.  However, only a few months earlier, Allied forces had bombed industrial centers just a few kilometers away from the extermination camp, and would continue to do so, apparently even causing some damage to buildings in Auschwitz, while sustaining very low losses. Indeed, regular US bombing raids from Foggia, Italy to nearby strategic targets routinely crossed right over Auschwitz en route. On another occasion, when replying to another appeal to bomb the gas chambers, McCloy claimed that the final decision on the selection of bombing targets, including those attacked by American planes, lay with the British alone. This was an incorrect claim. According to Michael Beschloss, in an interview three years before the latter's death (in 1986) with Henry Morgenthau, III, McCloy claimed that the decision not to bomb Auschwitz was President Roosevelt's and that he was merely fronting for him. This appears possible, given Roosevelt's generally unsympathetic response to the Holocaust, but is otherwise unsupported. Further, McCloy also alleged to Morgenthau that Roosevelt refused to approve the Auschwitz rail bombing because he would then be accused of also killing Auschwitz prisoners. As they were about to be gassed en masse anyway, this allegation by McCloy is highly suspect and self-serving. In the early 1970s, McCloy claimed that he himself "could no more order a bombing attack on Auschwitz than order a raid on Berlin."


 * I've restored the deletions, which appear to go far beyond the complaint raised here. Perhaps the editor could be clearer about the problem with the sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'd be happy to explain further.

1) The release of photographs imply that bombing requests were made, so I think it is superfulous. More importantly a non-specific "article" in the NY TIMES and "eleswhere" does qualify as a valid citation. Perhaps we can site an actual book? I Have have many that discuss the topic. The best is "The Bombing of Auschwitz:Should the Allies have attempted it".

Also, the article as written is materially incorrect when it states "only a few months earlier Allied forces bombed industrial centers only a few miles away from the extrmination camps." Is this what the NY Times article actually claims???? Can you provide this article, I would love to see it? Thank you. I will explain as follows:

The truth is that the earliest request involving bombing, referenced the rail junctions in Budapest only (Not the Camp itself)and was sent on May 25th by Rosewell McCelland (WRB in Switzerland). There were other requests made that all involve the rail lines only. The first request to bomb the camp itself was made by Yitzak Gruenbaum (Jewish Agency) on June 7, 1944 to Pinkerton (U.S. Counsel in Palestine) but it was as an individual and not as a JA representative, although they would latter make requests to bomb the camp to the British on June 26th, 1944. (It was the last of six items on their agenda). Of note on July 1, 1944. Leon Kubowitski (WJC) sent a letter to John Phele, which was fowarded to McCloy, also requesting the rail lines be bombed and specifically requesting that the camp NOT be bombed. However his opinion was overuled by the WJC and on August 9, 1944 a letter from him did indeed request the camp itself be bombed, it also included another request to bomb the rail lines as well. However, the first request that the U.S. received to bomb the camp itself was from J.J. Smernko (Peoples Emergency Committe to Save the Jwesih People of Europe) it was recieved on July 24, 1944. The first item reqeusted rail bombing, while the second requested bombing the camp.

Now, the first deep penentration bombing conducted by the 15th in the area occured on July 7, 1944. While the 15th was operational as early as late April/Mid May, they where also just getting their full compliment of aircraft and of special importance the P-51D Mustang, which was the long range fighter escort they so badly lacked up to that point. This raid was to the Blechammer Facility (slave labor camp held 50,000) and is located 50 miles from Auschwitz.

So while technically the first raid into the area occured 17 days after the first request to bomb the crematorium itself, the requests to bomd the rail lines had been on going for 2 1/2 months. As such the use of the prhase "a few months before" is not really accruate and I believe the article should be changed accordingly..In short the bombing request preceeded the deep pentration raids.

Further more, on this section. I think the use of the word "lie" is NPOV. If you have the link to the article you reference and it uses that word, I would again love to see it. I have read and researched this topic extensively and have never seen a historian use the word "lie". There are historians that believe that non-bombing (the camp) was appropriate and probably more historians that believe it should have been bombed (again the camp only). However many from the latter group and all from the first group, do believe that bombing the rail lines did indeed constitute "a diversion of considerable air support". The reason being that rail lines are easliy repaired and require continued sorties. Since ALL of the latter requests to bomb the camp ALSO requested that the rail line be bombed, the use of the word "lie" is hardly appropriate. However bombing the camp only would NOT have required "a diversion of considerable air support". But then again a request to bomb the camp ONLY was never recieved.

Additionally, McCloy to my knowledge NEVER mentioned the 8th airforce (England). The 15th (Italy) would most certainly have been used. This appears to reference the Beschloss source, which I am attempting to obtain, so we should get some clarity there.

Lastly, "Indeed, regular US bombing raids from Foggia, Italy to nearby strategic targets routinely crossed right over Auschwitz en route." This is also arguably NPOV as "regular" is debatable when one analayzes the sorties the 15th actually flew, the vast majority were not over Poland. Part of the problem is the fact that Stalin did not want us targeting Poland and it is one of the reasons why Operation Frantic was a disaster. The I.G. Fargen facilty for example was 9th priority overall, every thing else higher up was outside of Poland and it was bombed four times.

2) The refrence to McCloy sitting next to Hitler is not even cited at all, so it should not be mentioned at all unless it can be verified. Why did you feel it was appropriate to restore an uncited statement? If you can document it, by all mean include it. Otherwise it should be removed.

3) Regarding the claim that regarding FDR as sited by Beschloss's book, I provided two sources that call into to question the accuracy of the claim. One is linked and written by the director of the Franklin and Eleanor Rososevelt Institute. And the other is based on personal corespondence with a leading holocaust scholar. This is a bit problematic as basically one historian has directly challenged the accuracy of Beschloss's work and another, while not directly mentioning Beschloss does indeed state there is no evidence that FDR was ever aware of the bombing requests. If you insist on retaining this then fine, however at the least we should include the fact that two other historians dispute this "fact". As I previously noted I am attempting to obtain either the original recorded interview, transcripts or hopefully both.

4) I removed the last part becasue, even though it is cited, when the other questionable material is removed it just did not make sense. Perhaps a re-write could be done.

As I mentioned, McCloy has been the subject of a lot of criticism and perhaps rightly so, but then again perhaps not? One historian that comes to mind is Sir Martin Gilbert. He blames John Pehle and/or the War Refugee Board (WRB) for not pushing the issue and frankly he has a point, most certainly FDR would have had to appove the requests and while McCloy knew this, the WRB did not go over his head, and in the same Beschloss transcript you cite, we discovery that even Morganthau Jr. was not made aware of the requests and he could most certainly have gone around McCloy to FDR. Personally I believe McCloy should have briefed FDR on the issue, and in this sense feel he failed too, as the true arbiter of the issue was never even aware it was raised.

The topic is indeed controversial and frankly some historians make some extreme arguements that are not always sustainable. (On both sides). Here is a quote from Michael Brietman's "Official Secrets".

"Heated debate continues, but it does not appear that such a bombing raid would have been easy. Basic facts, however, have been buried in the thickect of controversy and technical detail"

I hope together the wiki community can avoid the follies that he refers to..RandyRP (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that comprehensive reply. You raise many issues and it'll take me a while to get through them. Let me start with the easy ones. Regarding the Beschloss book: It was published by a mainstream, respected publisher, Simon & Schuster, and excerpted in a respected newsmagazine, Newsweek. Therefore it is a reliable source. If there are other reliable sources that have different views we can include those too, but it is inappropriate to simply delete all mention of it. On Wikipedia we should include all significant points of view, not just those that are unopposed. As for the NY Times, I'll check their archive tonight and see if I can find the specific article mentioned. If it's there and contains the purported information, then it is like the Beschloss material in that it should be included though opposing viewpoints can also be included. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * McCloy is mentioned many times in the New York Times. It'll take me a while to go through all of it. One article that does not mention him is about the release of photos of Birkenau. Dated February 24, 1979, it says that aerial photos of the nearby I.G. Farben chemical plant taken in 1944 included images of camp officers marching prisoners to the gas chamber-crematorium compound. The Times also ran two separate reviews of Less Than Slaves by Benjamin Ferencz. That book apparently discusses  McCloy's role in commuting the sentences of several Farben executives, but not decisions about bombing the concentration camps.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will_Beback, I think we are making some nice progress here. I did delete some of the non cited articles tonight as it appears others have made undocumented changes. (I was not sure if it was you and do apologize if it was, but the changes went off in other directions we were not discussing and the ones I deleted were not soucred) I do hope you understand that to me, McCloy is certainly no hero of mine, yet my motivation is only to ensure that we adhere to strict guidlines with regard to history and the truth. The reason being that Six Million Jews were massacred in a way that is UNPRECENTED AND UNIQUE. (If you know the debates, you know what I mean by this). I believe the former and latter are one and the same, and the Six Million Jewish victims deserve to have their story and suffering remembered with the utmost truth, honesty and respect. It's the only reason why I am here. If we sensationalise and vilify McCloy with unproven factoids, we sink to a simplistic level. Good vs Bad, White vs Black. Six Million victins, but Six Trillion shades of grey. Yehuda Bauer thinks it is undestandable, while Ellie Weisel thinks it is not. Who am I to say ?. I only hope we limit the extremes so others can answer that question for themsleves. Thank you and RegardsRandyRP (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Randy, I've restored your deletions again. However I deleted the two items that were marked with tags. I suggest that, rather than just deleting whole hunks of the article, you mark the specific facts that you think need beeter sources. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about the past, just in improving this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do and did venture into opinions of the man, and mine are not positive, but that was only reached after extensive research, and most never spend the time. He remains among the best of Holocast scholars an ambiguos figure to say the least. I seek only to ensure that we adhere to most stringent of policies regarding this man, because the Six Million victims deserve it. Some want to sell a Tabliod version, while others seek the truth.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyRP (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perspective needed
The article needs more on his career as a lawyer. Obviously Holocaust students find his lack of urgency unwelcome, but this article is about him and he did not arrange or approve of the camp murders. As with the British RAF, the choice of targets was a function of military staffs, not politicians. I have found a case in 1934 where he reopened an action for damages against Germany, so he cannot be accused of being entirely pro-German. In the late-1940s Cold War the lesser Nazi criminals like Weiszacker were suddenly useful to the USA, and McCloy's priority was always to augment the power of America and its allies.86.42.255.68 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Had the railways to the camp been bombed, the inmates would have starved from lack of food that was carried by rail. Which was worse? An unpleasant choice for anyone.86.44.148.159 (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ONe has to add that the death penalty in germany was abolished in the Grundgesetz on the request of a rigtwing politician, Hans-Christoph Seebohm, of "Deutsche Partei". He wanted to avoid the death penalty for war criminals. Others saw it as a generic humanitarian sign and a new begin for germany, so it found an odd but broad majority. With the founding of the Bundesrepublik, Adenauer and Schumacher pushed to stop the death penalty on german soil in general, as a sign of souverenity and to integrate the vast amount of veterans with blood on their hands into a democratic society. Think Ruanda or Cambodia. The way McCloy is presented here as the bad boy does not fit the actual situation, so far my fivepence. --Polentario (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can't judge anyone only by their input into the bombing decision. In 1944 Churchill wanted the death camps bombed by the RAF if feasible, and was advised by the Air Ministry that it was not. Implying that it was McCloy's decision is just plain wrong.86.42.195.218 (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Purported honorary citizenship of Germany
I removed this sentence: (In 1978 Ernst Weizsacker's son German President Richard von Weizsäcker conferred honorary German Citizenship on McCloy)

There are a number of things wrong with this statement. First, Weizsäcker was a regular member of parliament in 1978, which severly limits the kinds of things he could have bestowed on anyone at that time. Second, it turns out there is no such thing as "honorary citizenship of Germany", at least not according to The Internet. Also, WP:DE makes no mention of honorary citizenship for McCloy, though "citizen of honor" for the city of Berlin was bestowed in 1985 on the occasion of his 90th birthday (which is well after Richard von Weizsäcker's tenure as mayor of Berlin, so even this hook fails to sink into the paragraph).

i have no good reason for noting all of this here, now, except that these are the things my research into the matter begat. sorry! Doceddi (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing Info
This article needs a lot of work.

Where is any mention of the fact that he chose to pardon convicted war criminals (cf Krupp), restore their estates, etc?

Also, the sentence '..he was merely fronting for him...': seriously? 'Fronting?' Fronting is in no way a term that should be employed in a reference work. Save that for Twitter.

96.26.64.244 (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Atomic Bombing Debate - info needed (January 2014) Suggestion
This article also needs information on McLoy's role in advocating against the use of atomic weapons against Japan during World War II. Extensive interviews with him can be seen in S01E24 of The World at War "The Bomb" (see http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x125ml3_the-world-at-war-ep24-the-bomb_shortfilms min 18:30 begins one interview). joepa T 20:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Report vandalism
This article was heavily vandalized, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._McCloy&diff=559819629&oldid=559578792

Maybe someone finds time to import the deleted but sourced information again? --178.197.224.196 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John J. McCloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030902060336/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19890301faessay5944/william-g-hyland/john-j-mccloy-1895-1989.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19890301faessay5944/william-g-hyland/john-j-mccloy-1895-1989.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

McCloy and Auschwitz
It appears as though this subject has been mentioned here years ago on a few other occasions. While McCloy's role in the controversy should be touched on here, whatever in-depth coverage of that controversy should be reserved for discussion in Auschwitz concentration camp. I have solicited additional feedback in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -Location (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Internment of Japanese Americans
"The actions were unanimously upheld by the US Supreme Court."

WHAT ACTIONS?"

McCloy was strongly opposed to reopening the judicial verdicts on the constitutionality of the internment."

WHAT VERDICTS?

This discussion is hopelessly obscure. Please fix it. ---Dagme (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)