And really, if we were all judged by the actions we've failed
to take in life, then I'm pretty sure every single one of us living in a first-world country could be considered technically guilty for at least a few counts of manslaughter by gross negligence.
I know this comes from Cracked.com, but it does kind of illustrate a point, but in one article it states that in the Western world each person gets a new mobile phone roughly ever 12 to 18 months:
In China, improper disposal of handheld electronics has already tainted countless tons of rice with cadmium, chronic exposure to which causes kidney, liver, and lung failure. And cancer. And osteoporosis. The list goes on and on, and sadly not one item on it is a superpower.
The impact of trashing a device doesn't stop at pollution, because as soon as we commit those scarce metals to the landfill, more will have to be mined in order to make new iPhones -- and the mining process for one of the rarest elements found in almost every electronic device has created a real-life sequel to Blood Diamond. Coltan extraction has destroyed large tracts of Congo's rain forests and fueled rebel groups, killing millions of Congolese in the process. And thanks to the ad hoc nature of coltan mining, it's hard as hell to determine where exactly the stuff is coming from.
If that is indeed the case, then surely anyone who's bought a new mobile phone after their old one has been thrown in a landfill, and the new phone's coltan has been mined in Congo must be held partially responsible for genocide.
Sure, you can blame a lack of government dis/incentives making mobile phone manufacturers seek out cheaper, more easily mined/produced component materials, but thanks to global demand acting in line with current technology at current prices (and whatever determines those), the majority of people with a mobile phone will pretty much be a part of this problem.
Given that, how was FDR "and the rest of the American government" any more "an accessory to the Holocaust" than any US citizen who didn't campaign or do anything to get those people out of Germany and into the US?
But that's just my opinion
EDIT: Actually, if the "executive order" thing is true, then obviously FDR had much more power to make a decision about immigration and seeking asylum than some guy living in suburban New York (Does New York have suburbs? I don't know. Whatever), so he does bear more responsibility that the average US citizen.
However, and this is just an unfortunate fact of the matter, Nazi Germany lost the war, not the US, the UK, France or the USSR. Annoyingly, that does mean that the Nuremberg Trials, and any similar events which may have happened, were based on the idea that the Nazis were monsters and that the allied governments were the victors, playing no part in the horrors of the death camps of Central Europe. FDR, through that fact alone, would not have faced trial at Nuremberg. Yeah, maybe he should have, but that's not how the world works. Sucks, but you can't change the past.
On a similar note, I think, to an extent, Winston Churchill could be considered somewhat overrated. Sure, he was PM during our glorious victory over the Third Reich, but other than that, not so great.