Title: The Grey Book
Author: Johan M. Snoek
Release date: January 23, 2005 [eBook #14764]
Most recently updated: December 19, 2020
Language: English
Copyright (C) 1969 Johan M. Snoek.
Produced by the nephew of the author.
Transcriber's Note: (Gutenberg preparation by Ge J. Snoek 2004: g.snoek3@chello.nl The original printed paper book pages are marked as <xxx> right aligned, (because lots of pages are referenced: omitting page nrs troubles comfortable searching, while footnotes are marked/numbered between square [123] hooks.)
Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke—Assen, 1969
INTRODUCTION (by Uriel Tal)
INTRODUCTION (by Uriel Tal)
The protests of the non-Roman Catholic Churches against the persecution and extermination of the Jews during the Nazi period, carefully compiled and amply documented in this volume, possess a significance that is not confined to the history of Christian-Jewish relations. They constitute an important chapter in the history of Christianity itself in that they reveal the deeper aspects of the Church's antagonism to the anti-religious and hence anti-Christian character of Nazi anti-semitism. The well-attested facts presented to us in this volume are a clear confirmation of the Church's reputation of Nazi doctrines, not only when these doctrines were directed against the Jews but, first and foremost, when they threatened the very existence of the Church itself, both as a system of theological doctrines and beliefs and as an historical institution. The Church regarded freedom, freedom of man as well as its own, as an inalienable right rooted in the nature of man as a rational being created in God's image. Hence, when the Church was deprived at the right of self-determination, it felt its very existence endangered, and it was then that it recognized the full symbolic import of Jewish persecution. This view was plainly set forth at the beginning of the persecution of the Jews by the Nazi-regime in Holland, by D. J. Slotemaker de Bruine, Protestant pastor and Minister of State, who declared:
"…Freedom of the spirit is our life-blood. By that I mean freedom in questions of the spirit, freedom of conscience, freedom of the Church, freedom of instruction, freedom of the Word of God, freedom to bear witness…" [1] <I> In the light of this statement it is obvious that the Church was provoked to raise its voice in protest chiefly because the Nazis appropriated the messianic structure of religion which they exploited to their own ideological and political ends. This was made clear already in the early days of the Third Reich by "Die Geistlichen Mitglieder der Vorlaufigen Leitung der Evangelischen Kirche" who, in a memorandum (Denkschrift) addressed to the Fuehrer (May 1936), accuse Hitler of pursuing a policy that is not only directed against the Church but which is designed "to de-Christianize the German people" (das deutsche Volk zu entchristlichen), quoting, among other things, the words of Reichsorganisationsleiter Dr. Robert Ley:
"The Party lays total claim to the soul of the German people…and hence we demand the last German, whether Protestant or Catholic…" [2]
To those Church circles that raised their voices in protest this totalitarian structure of the Nazi regime presented a double threat to the very existence of the Church. First, the pseudo-religious and pseudomessianic character of Nazism was calculated to weaken the Church from within and to mislead the Christian community, especially its youth. It became increasingly clear to these circles that the Nazi racial doctrine - which Hitler and also the "Deutsche Christen" had called positive Christianity in their first formulation as early as 5 May 1932 - constituted a kind of additional gospel of messianic redemption that ostensibly strengthened Christianity as an institution and as a religion of revelation. Secondly, this pseudo- messianic and pseudo-religious authority that the Nazi regime arrogated to itself was able by means of its repressive measures to curtail the influence of the Church and even to reduce it to silence. This danger was perceived at an early date by the "Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche" in its Botschaft (Part I, par 2, 5) adopted by the Conference held in Berlin- Dahlem 19-20 October 1934, which stated: <II> "The National Church that the Reich's bishop has in view under the slogan: One State - one People - one Church, simply means that the Gospel is no longer valid for the German Evangelical Church and that the mission of the Church is delivered to the powers of this world…. The introduction of the Fuehrer principle into the Church and the demand of unconditional obedience based upon this principle are contrary to the Word of Scripture and bind the officials of the Church to the Church regiment instead of to Christ… [3]
Towards the end of the period that is dealt with in the sources collected in this volume, in the year 1943, we also meet with a clear expression of the Church's opposition to this pseudo-religious and pseudo-messianic character of Nazism in the "Pastoral concerning National Socialist Philosophy" that was sent in Holland:
… to parochial church councillors to give them the necessary basis for their opposition in the struggle against National Socialist ideology, and especially against the intangible, but all the more dangerous religious ideas and expressions of National Socialism which will exercise an influence even after the war."
In its penetrating analysis of the totalitarian character of Nazism this
Pastoral observes:
"…It is not surprising that National Socialism has the power to become the religion of the masses, and its assemblies to take the form of a kind of popular worship in which a great deal of latent religious emotion is released…. In carrying out its ministry the Church must therefore make its work in this connection even more definite in character, and must tell its members very clearly and resolutely that what is at stake here is the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods besides me…!" [4] <III> This pseudo-religious and pseudo-messianic character of Nazism was by no means accidental or the product of mass hysteria induced by some skilful propagandists. It was rather an ideological structure that was consciously given definite patterns and developed within a conceptual system in accordance with its own laws of logic. In this development the traditional theological concepts of Christianity were retained but given an altogether different meaning. Values that had previously been regarded as relative in the culture of Christianity and of the West now became absolute; and values that had formerly been considered absolute, being interpreted as metaphorical or visionary, became relative. Phenomena with an imminent historical essence were lifted to a meta-historical plane. Means were converted to ends, and ends were endowed with absolute authority in so far as they sanctified the means. In this manner the fundamental concepts of religion were not invalidated nor the integrative functions served by these concepts impaired, such as those cohesive factors that hold together the social structure and ensure its normal functioning. The Nazis retained these concepts and their functions as a legitimate part of their racial theory and, after depriving them of their authentic historical content, turned them into political expedients to be used in their attack against humanism, religion and Christian values. Basic theological concepts such as God, redemption, sin and revelation were now used as anthropological and political concepts. God became man, but not in the theological Christian sense of the incarnation of the Word: "…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…" (John 1. 14) or in the Pauline conception of the incarnation of God in Christ in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2. 9). In the new conception God becomes man in a political sense as a member of the Aryan race whose highest representative on earth is the Fuehrer. This change in the essential meaning of the concepts God-man is, from the standpoint of cognition, effected by converting the relative into the absolute and, from the standpoint of theology, by transferring the Pauline conception (Ephesians 4. 24; Colossians 3. 10) from the plane of metaphysics and eschatology to that of nationality rind politics. <IV> It was this radical change from Christian doctrines to pagan myths that aroused the Churches to express their protest against Nazism, and also against the persecution of the Jews, in the above Pastoral of the year 1943:
"And there is now a return to the worship of life and power by accepting and exalting the old Adam as the original and eternal MAN. There is an attempt at self-salvation - the old Adam is not crucified with Christ (Rom. 6. 6) but by his very own inmost strength achieves a new life and a heightened vitality…" [5]
Similarly, the theological concepts of sin and redemption were transferred to a legal category of administrative regulations that demanded outer conformity and inner obedience. The traditional conception of sin and redemption that was common to all currents of Christian thought held that man's redemption, and hence eschatological existence, depends on his faith: "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ… since all have sinned and… they are justified by grace… through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…"(Rom. 3. 22-24). In the totalitarian Nazi regime the concepts sin and redemption were used as means by the State or the Party to convert man into a loyal subject whose allegiance is assured by his constant fear not only of violating some concrete ordinance or governmental decree but simply of just deviating from the official ideology. The Christian belief that man could be saved through faith in the forgiveness of Jesus who died for his sins, "so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin" (Rom. 6.6), was transferred from the theological to the secular, political plane. Even the comforting assurance of the believer that his sins shall be forgiven and that he shall be found worthy of the purifying influences of grace could now be gained only by the individual's complete identification with the State, the Party and the superior Aryan race. An instructive illustration of this shift from theology to ideology is to be found in the circular letters (Rundschreiben) and in the speeches of the Reichsorganisationsleiter Dr. Robert Ley, for example in his words of 26. June 1935:
"Strength through joy (Kraft durch Freude) is the embodiment of National Socialism. <V> Over against sin we put discipline, over against penitence pride! Over against the weak and their infirmities we put strength… " [6]
This doctrine was not mere Aryan propaganda; it became an integral part of school studies and was systematically inculcated into the minds of the young. The following is an example of a dictation given in 1934 to the third grade of an elementary school:
"Just as Jesus redeemed mankind from sin and hell, so did Hitler rescue the
German people from destruction. Jesus and Hitler were persecuted; but whereas
Jesus was crucified, Hitler rose to be Chancellor… Jesus worked for
heaven, Hitler for the German soil…" [7]
This same pattern of reversing meanings was also applied by the totalitarian Nazi regime to the basic concepts of western culture. Nationalism as an historical phenomenon of a people with a common language and culture and with the consciousness of a common destiny was raised to a mythical, meta-historical plane. The essence of national unity was discovered to reside in race and soil; the cultural and spiritual creations of the nation were attributed to man's biological resources. Similarly, the State became an end in itself, an ideal meta-historical entity that was identical with the national spirit. [8] This view was critically described by the Dutch Church as follows:
"… The whole cult of National Socialism finds its most powerful manifestation in a State which claims to support, lead and fill in the material and spiritual, educational, cultural and religious spheres, the whole life of its subjects. Not only does the State order the life of the individual, but it takes a creative part in it. It becomes the founder of the true religion and the dispenser of the true philosophy; it furnishes the data for knowledge…" [9] <VI> Mythical nationality in the totalitarian regime thus developed a monolithic structure which functioned as the only ontological framework in which the individual may acquire his own identity, his selfknowledge and understanding. While in a different, non-totalitarian civilization man establishes his inner freedom by means of intellectual autonomy, the Nazi regime made the actual biological belonging to the Aryan race into the ultimate condition for the self-realization of Man. Hence one who could not belong to the Aryan race, the prototype of whom was the Jew, was doomed to be completely alienated, deprived not only of all rights, but of the very justification to exist. It was this reversal of the status of the individual which prepared the ground for subsequent developments against which the Church protested, such as forced labour, the repression of independent thought, the indoctrination of the young by the State and their estrangement from their parents, teachers and preachers. An example of this tendency towards the total dehumanization of the individual, as reflected in the persecution of the Jews, and that provoked the Church to protest, was the decree authorizing sterilization. The stand of the Church in this matter was stated in the "Letter on the Question of Sterilization" that was sent in May 1943 by the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Holland to the officials of the Reich and in which, among other things, we find the following:
"…In the last few weeks the sterilization of the so-called mixed marriages has begun. But God, who created heaven and earth and whose commandments are for all men, and to whom even your Excellency will have to give account one day, has said to mankind: 'Be fruitful and multiply' (Gen. 1. 18). Sterilization is a physical and spiritual mutilation directly at variance with God's commandment that we shall not dishonour, hate, wound or kill our neighbours. Sterilization constitutes a violation of the divine commandment as well as of human rights. It is the last consequence of an anti-Christian racial doctrine that destroys nations, and of a boundless self-exaltation. It represents a view of the world and of life which undermines true Christian human life, rendering it ultimately impossible… [10] <VII> The fact that the protest of the Church against the persecution and annihilation of the Jews was an inseparable part of its general protest against the inhuman and anti-Christian character of modern anti-semitism places the documents collected in this volume in a broad historical context. These documents offer ample evidence of the Church's opposition to an historical phenomenon rooted long before the Nazis came to power, hence also prior to the rise of modern anti-semitism. The protest of the Church was fundamentally directed against those pagan and mythological elements that had crept into Christianity itself in the course of its historical development among the heathen. To many of the fathers of modern anti-semitism, which is the racial and political Anti-semitism that arose towards the end of the 19th century and reached its highest stage during the Third Reich, the rejection of Judaism was tantamount to the rejection of religion in general. This view goes back to Feuerbach's anthropological criticism of religion, to the young Hegelians (Max Stirner, Bruno Bauer) and to the early Romantics who longed to return to the primitive forms of a religion called "vorchristliches Germanenthum". [11] Modern anti-semitism was influenced by these streams of thought through Nietzsche's concept of the 'Antichrist', although Nietzsche himself kept aloof from the more vulgar manifestations of political anti-semitism of his day. In him the anthropological view reaches its culmination - God, who is nothing more than the deified form of man [12] is finally overthrown by Dionysian man who found courage to assert his instinctive life and abjure the gross and enslaving notions of Christianity that men <VIII> are equal and can be redeemed by faith, the gospel of the downtrodden and everything that creeps on earth. [13] These views, inimical to religion and to Christianity, were already being expounded with great vigour towards the end of the 19th century. Christian doctrine was accused of perverting man's instinctive life, vitiating his natural enthusiasm, inflaming his ego, invading his private life over which it declares its dominance only to enslave human nature, to weaken and alienate man, by imposing upon him "un-natural" restraint such as the anguish of his conscience. Wilhelm Marr, one of the early fathers of modem racial and political Anti-semitism and the man who during the late 70's coined the term 'anti-semitism'[14] included in the rejection of Judaism his critique of Christianity as early as the year 1862. In a polemical work called "Der Christenspiegel von anti-Marr" by Moritz Freystadt, a member of the "Society for History and Theology" in Leipzig, written in answer to Marr's "Judenspiegel", the author interprets Marr's rejection of Judaism as a rejection of monotheism, based on his anthropological view of God as a subjective product of our conscious life - an antireligious analysis Marr evidently borrowed from Voltaire, Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer. [15]
With Marr's intensification of anti-Jewish propaganda inspired by the new racial anti-semitism we find increased criticism of Christianity both as a system of beliefs and as an institution. In one of his popular books "Religioese Streifzuege eines Philosophischen Touristen" (1876) Marr, relying on theories propounded by Voltaire and Feuerbach, observes that from the atheistic point of view it is evident: <IX> "that Christianity, in its dogmas and precepts, is like every religion, a malady of human consciousness. The philosopher explains… every religion as a product of man's conscious life and relegates to the sphere of phantasm the so-called 'revelations' of which all people boast depending on the state of their culture…" [16]
Most additional factors in the rejection of Judaism, Marr continues, go beyond the attack directed against Christianity as a system of beliefs and superstitions that demoralizes man and corrupts his nature. Anti-semitism is not only called to combat religion and Christianity; its chief aim is to save the German nation and the whole world from Jewish domination and from the moral depredation of the Jewish race. Christianity is not yet fully cognizant of the gravity of the problem, and it deceives itself when it thinks that baptism or conversion is a gratuitous deliverance from native corruption, for the Jew's aberrations are not religious but biological and hence incorrigible. The Jewish question, Marr concludes, is a racial question for the infidelity of the Jew is essentially biological, and hence Christianity is in no position to save the world from the perils of the Semitic-Jewish race. [17] <X>
We here encounter a primary distinction between the doctrines of racial anti-semitism and those of the Christian Heilsgeschichte, a contradiction that awoke the Church to the dangers of Nazism when, in 1933, it opposed the "Arierparagraph". This racial law rejected the notion that the Jews could still hope for redemption, and for a renewed status of election, assured them in the New Testament (Rom. 9-11) on condition that they acknowledge their error and accept the redeeming truth of Christianity. Even in the early years of racial anti-semitism, in the seventies and eighties of the last century, we already find this inner contradiction between a racial theory that regards Jews as the ontological embodiment of an ineradicable evil and the views of the Heilgeschichte that believes this evil to be remedial if only the Jews could be persuaded that salvation comes from the Savior who was sent first of all to the Jews themselves, and who atoned for the sins of all mankind. It is this inner tension between the recalcitrance of the Jew and the incorrigibility of Judaism that refuses to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, already conspicuous in the change that took place in Luther's attitude to the Jews between 1523 and 1543, which charactarizes the theological and political attitude of Adolf Stoecker, court preacher in the Bismarck era and one of the leading figures of modern anti-semitism. Until recently historians concentrated much on his importance in preparing the ground for racial and political anti-semitism. It is true that without his powerful influence during the last decades of the 19th century the rise of modern political anti-semitism would be incomprehensible. A more balanced approach has been taken lately, as may be seen in the instructive study by Walter Holsten on the part played by Stoecker in the rise of modern anti-semitism. The author shows that many phases of Stoecker's anti-semitism had their roots in the conservative tradition of Lutheranism and at the same time were opposed to the anti-Christian tendencies of racial anti-semitism. [18] <XI> The early phases of Stoecker's activity already reveal the ambivalent nature of his attitude to the Jews and to Judaism, an ambivalency that characterized the anti-Christian elements in antisemitic "Christian" ideology throughout the days of the Third Reich. In his speeches after the political defeat of his Christian Social Labor Party in the summer of 1878, Stoecker insisted on making a distinction between the anti-Jewish attitude that arises in conjunction with or flows from Christianity and the antisemitic attitude which at the same time also impugns Christian ethics. In his well-known antisemitic speech as early as 19.9.1879 Stoecker warns his listeners:
"We can already detect here and there a hatred directed against the Jews that is contrary to the Gospels". [19]
Even in his most violent speeches against the Jews Stoecker did not draw the extreme biological consequences of his racial theories and continued to maintain that conversion was the only authentic solution to the Jewish question that would complete the universal mission of Christianity and that only baptism could save the Jews from their ignominious belief in the validity of the halacha after the coming of Jesus. The salvation promised to the Jew then is to be saved from his Judaism. The final redemption, however, will not raise the Jews above the nations of the world, as promised in the Old Testament, but this position of eminence and election will pass, or actually has already passed, from the Jews not just to the Christians but to Christian Germany. The redemption promised to the Jews is thus to be attained by way of the baptismal font at the entrance to the Church: <XII> "All Israel will be saved when the fullness of the heathen shall have come to an end. This was Paul's promise to his beloved people - final salvation and not a future glory that will raise Israel above the other nations as proclaimed in the Old Testament… and every believing Christian knows well what a rejoicing there will be in the Kingdom of God when the people of the Old Testament finally acknowledge their sin against Christ and repent. This event will be hailed by all Christendom and by the angelic hosts with paeans of praise, and it will be turned by the Church in the End of Days into glory and renown when Israel will bring to it its uncommon religious talents and intellectual gifts…" [20]
The inner tension between the theological view that sees the solution of the Jewish question in the liquidation of Judaism and the racial view that sees it in the liquidation of the Jews is clearly expressed in an address delivered by Stoecker on 8.2.1882 about the danger to the German Reich from Jews in public life, in which he states:
"We regard the Jewish question not as a religious nor indeed as a racial question. Although it is at bottom both of these, it appears in its external form as a social-ethical question, and is treated by us as such. No people can tolerate the preponderance of an alien spirit without degenerating and being destroyed? We would not solve the Jewish question radically by force, but gradually in a spirit of peace and amity… We must keep the wounds open until they are healed…" [21]
Although Stoecker himself was opposed to the use of force, modern political anti-semitism, which was to no small degree influenced by him, did not shrink from advocating violence in its hostility to Judaism, to religion and finally to Christianity. A significant contribution in this direction was made by the Darwinian racial doctrines of Eugen Duehring and his antisemitic disciples. Whereas Marr had formulated the anti-religious meaning of modern anti-semitism in ominous terms of the Jewish domination of Europe and especially Germany, Dühring adopted a so-called constructive approach by suggesting an alternative to religion and religious culture, namely, race. In his antisemitic writings after 1880 Judaism serves as the prototype of religion in general, including Christianity. <XIII> The primary aim of this anti-Christian anti-semitism was for Duehring the struggle against Jews and Judaism, and this also entailed the struggle against the monotheistic religions and all forces that suppressed what he called "the instinct of the free, natural life." In his anti-religious book "Wert des Lebens" (1877), and especially in the third edition issued four years later, he points out that Christianity as a monotheistic religion is opposed to life and that all religious systems are nothing but pathological maladies (ein Stueck weltgeschichtliche Krankheitslehre des Geistes). Christianity is thus not interested "in ennobling man, but rather in suppressing his natural instincts" as is evident, for example, in the "paradox Christian doctrine" of the crucifixion of the flesh. [22] Hence, it is absurd and hopeless to conduct the struggle against the Jews with Christian theological concepts borrowed from Judaism, and those Christians who attach importance to this only deceive themselves for it is plain that:
"…their anti-semitism lacks the primary truth, namely, that Christianity itself is Semitism, a truth… that must serve as the terminus a quo for all genuine anti-Hebraism…" [23]
As long as the Christians fail to disavow their Jewish source and their Jewishness they themselves will be tainted by its anti-natural influence. But since Christianity is inextricably bound to its Jewish origins, and even the New Testament is nothing but "a racially Jewish tradition" (eine rassenjuedische Ueberlieferung), the only hope for struggling humanity is to throw off once for all this humiliating yoke, meaning the religious heritage of Jews and Christians alike. The liberation from the Jewish-Christian heritage, on the one hand, and the strengthening of the Nordic German race on the other cannot be achieved through the process of education or civilization but only by means of racial purity which will cleanse man of religious depravities and restore the vital sources of his instinctive life. Christianity is inadequate for this struggle since it is itself ineradicably debased by its complicity with Judaism: <XIV> "Those who would cling to Christian tradition are in no position to combat Judaism effectively. …An understanding Christian cannot be a serious antisemite… The Nordic gods are rooted in nature itself, and no millennial diversion can eradicate them… We here see a vivid phantasy in operation that is incomparably loftier than the Jewish slave-imagination…" [24]
This basic thesis that racial anti-semitism must also be directed against Christianity continued to be elaborated from the end of the 19th century onwards by Theodor Fritsch as well as in a number of journals: the Antisemititche Correspondenz, which in 1888 became the official organ of the D.A.P. under the name of Deutsche-Soziale Blaetter, the Antisemiten-Katechismus which was later called Handbuch zur judenfrage and, in the early years of the present century, the influential journal Hammer. The general tendency of this movement was directed against Christianity as an ecclesiastical institution, sometimes chiefly against the Catholic Church which was suspected of "ultramontanist" sympathies for a foreign ecclesiastical power. Christianity was also opposed as a system of beliefs and practices that tended to debilitate the German Aryan race in its struggle for existence. Finally, Christianity was opposed because of its Jewish origins which deteriorate the whole human race by elevating spirit over body, rational thought over the wisdom of the senses, abstract ideas over direct and spontaneous experience, and the discursive intellect over the vital emotions. In the course of this debate the antisemitic movement displayed a readiness to reconcile itself to the continued existence of Christianity on condition that it subsitute the biological values of the Aryan race for its Jewish origins, as was recommended by the idealogues who made Jesus a member of the Aryan race - Julius Langbehn, Max Bewer, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Leopold Werner, and the German Christians in the days of the Third Reich. [25] <XV> We find the same line of thought pursued by the followers of Duehring, such as Prof. Paul Foerster, as well as in those circles connected with the antisemitic journals, such as Heimdall, Freideutschland, Staatsburger Zeitung, also some of the functionaries connected with the imperialist Der Alldeutscher Verband, such as Friedrich Lange, the author of the anti-Christian Reines Deutschtum (1893), and numerous writers, historians, orientalists, scientists and students influenced by anthropology, materialism and Darwinism. A popular exposition that reveals the national and Romantic roots of this ideology appeared in the Hammer (Oct. 1908), and reads in part as follows:
"What shall we do with a Christ whose kingdom is not of this world? A Bluecher, a Gneisenau, a Koerner, an Arndt can always be useful for Germany, but not a Christ. The God who was called upon at Leuthen, Leipzig and Sedan was not the God of love, nor the God of Abraham. Christ comforts the lowly, the weak and the sick. We too are sorry for these poor folk and try to alleviate their condition; but they are of no use to us and to our future. They only degrade that which we deem to be the highest good - the German character. Strength, health, the joy of life are what we need. The kingdom of Heaven can be left to the lowly and the wretched, as long as we possess the earth. Give the Bible to the sick and the lonely, the shut-ins and the scholars who wear their faces on their backs!…" [26]
Similarly, the antisemitic propagandist, Dr. Ernst Wachler, writes in the same journal (Jan. 1911):
"Away with the stones and tales, the doctrines and precepts of Jews as well as of Christians!… Not only the free-thinkers, but our basic Aryan instincts demand: the Church with all its trappings must be done away with…" [27]
<XVI + (whole page XVII is footnote)>
The available historical sources, including the documents collected in this volume, clearly indicate that the protests of the Church against the persecution of the Jews, with its human and ethical concern for their fate, were an inseparable part of a more comprehensive opposition directed against the pseudo-messianic and hence anti-Christian character of Nazism. Seen in this context, the protest of the Church gives rise to a number of historical and theological questions that require further study. The questions that arise fall into three groups.
A. To what extent did the secularizing tendencies of the last century, the rationalistic attacks on religion, the Romantic philosophies, pagan mythology, Darwinism and the anthropological critique of religion, contribute to the anti-Christian character of modern anti-semitism? How did the process of secularization influence the teachings and art of Richard Wagner, the Christian mythology of Houston St. Chamberlain, Julius Langbehn, Ernst Bergmann and the movement of the "German Christians", or the "Mythus" of Alfred Rosenberg? Can modem historiography support the psychoanalytical Freudian explanation of anti-Christian anti-Semitism in terms of a revival of vestigial pagan elements which were latent in Christianity itself, and which consequently revolted against the ethical Judaic basis of Christianity and against the Jews who were now made responsible for all that disturbed the Christian conscience?
From the vast literature that has grown up around these problems [28] we see that side by side with the all-pervasive secularization of life there were also historical and theological factors embedded in Christianity which later turned against Christianity itself. Through further study, we might find in the history of Christianity traditions <XVIII> that originated in the barbarism of the pagan world, turned anti-Christian by that very paganism, then continued as anti-Jewish attitudes and policies on the part of the Christian world - and finally culminating dialectically into a destructive force that was directed not only against Judaism, but through Judaism against Humanity and hence also against Christianity. One of these powerful anti-Jewish elements which rooted in Christianity, and after having been secularized became an effective means used by totalitarianism against the Jews as well as against the Jews as the symbol of non-conformism, as the embodiment of the human quest for a free existence, for the right to be different and yet to be, is the very concept of Collective Guilt. Its origin is the idea of guilt for the crucifixion of God who took on Flesh (Matt. 27. 25; I Thess. 2. 15), a guilt which lies as a heavy yoke on the shoulders of all the Jews till the end of the days.
It was applied to social life by various Church Synods (such as Elvira in 306, Clermont in 535, Orleans in 538, the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215) with their succession of repressive measures and harassments directed against the Jews. It culminated under the influence of blood libels in the late Middle Ages (Andreas of Ryn p. 1462, Simon of Trient 1475) [29], and in Modern Times (Tisza-Esslar, Korfu, Xanten, Polna, Konitz) - down to the days of the Third Reich. By using the very pattern of a Collective Guilt, the Christian projected on to the Jew the frailties common to all human beings. This mechanism enabled the Christian to see his own weakness reflected in the Jew so that by persecuting the Jew, moreover by exterminating him, the Christian could obliterate his own image as a sinner, and cleanse his conscience from the burden of guilt. These patterns of thought and conduct, these models of generalization, projection and prejudice that originally were established by Christianity with respect to the Jews - to what extent were they now employed by the Nazi regime against Humanity, as well as against the Church itself whenever the racial antisemites attacked its ethical Judaic basis? <XIX> B. The second group of questions concerns the problems as to whether the survival of the Jews on the one hand, and their ultimate Christianization on the other, are both indispensable to Christianity. Since the promise made to the Jews in the Old Testament (Gen. 22 .18; II Sam. 7. 12; Isaiah 7.14), will be fulfilled or perhaps superseded by those of the New Testament (Rom. 9-11) when the Jews return in penitence and acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, it seems that the Christian concern for the fate of the Jews, even in the days of the holocaust, is unavoidably accompanied by an interest in his salvation. Alas, his salvation is conceived by the Christian in terms that are unacceptable for the Jew as long as he wishes to adhere to Judaism as a religion, a people and an unfulfilled eschatology.
As we study the documents before us in their total historical context including parts not directly relevant to the very protest and therefore not printed in this volume, we are impressed with the following fact; while the Church raised its voice against the persecution of the Jews out of human motives, as well as in the hope of thereby strengthening its own members, the traditional, dogmatic concept of the Jew continued to be dominant. According to this view the persecution of the Jews constitutes an error, not only for reasons of humanity, but mainly because persecution prevents the Jew from seeking redemption among his persecutors. It prevents the Jew from turning to Jesus as the Messiah and from seeking in the New Testament that salvation which not only is promised him, but without which Christianity itself is doomed to remain unfulfilled. From the theological point of view regarding the right of Judaism to exist, the Church in its protest against the Nazis reverted to the original attitude of Luther, as expressed in "Das Jesus Christus eyn geborener Jude sey" of 1523. When Luther protested against the anti-Jewish policy of the Church, claiming that the Church treated the Jews "als waren es hunde", and that under such circumstances he himself would: "…ehe eyn saw geworden denn eyn Christe", this very protest was also not based on an acknowledgment of the right of Judaism to exist as an independent, autonomous religion. The motive that inspired this protest was the hope that Christianity would mitigate the persecution of the Jews and apply to them instead the Christian Commandment of love and tolerance, as written by Luther: <xx> "…Ob etliche halsstarrig sind was ligt daran? Sind wyr doch auch nicht alle gute Christen…". In that case, and only in that case, Christians might be hopeful that the Jews would return in penitence and believe in the salvation brought to them by their own Messiah. Against this historical background [30] it seems that even during the Holocaust, Christianity continued to identify the Jew not in his own, authentic, terms, but according to the classical traditions. The Jew is one who persists in the impenitent rejection of Christ, but must be saved, for it is the Jew who has to complete the eschatological process of the Heilsgeschichte. Therefore Jews, and especially converts, have to be rescued from racial discrimination. Moreover, since Judaism continues to be an integral part of Christianity, the very notion of the Jews as a race can have no basis whatsoever in Christian theology. [31] This has been stated as early as September 1933 by the theological faculty of the University of Marburg in its statement against the "Arierparagraph". Similar statements were issued by theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and the members of the Bekenntnis der Vaeter und die bekennende Gemeinde (Betheler Bekenntnis), 1934 [32]. Thus, even at the height of Nazi persecution and in times of the extermination of the Jews, the Church would not acknowledge Judaism as a religion in its own right and on its own terms, but insisted that a Jew who became a Christian was merely fulfilling his predestined role; such a Jew did not leave his faith, he returned to his true faith. It is most symptomatic and instructive to note that in the controversy between Heinrich Vogel, one of the leaders in the protests against the persecution of Jews and the author of the "65 Theses of Protest" (March 1933) and Friedrich Gebhart, a spokesman of the "German Christians" and the author of the "Reply to the 65 Theses" (May 1933), <XXI> both sides, despite their theological and political contradictions adhere to the same traditional Christian view that the Jews are in a state of rejection (Verwerfung). One view holds that the Jew can abrogate his old covenant with Jehovah and step over to the side of the Redeemer; the other holds that the derelict Jew is beyond salvation and the redeeming influences of the Church, that Ueberzeuging cannot overcome Zeugung, that the Vollendung of Judaism in Christ should be turned into the Endloesung of Jewish existence. Both, however, despite the far reaching differences and contradictions between them, deny the Jew the right to live on his own terms and according to his own autonomy. This approach to the Jewish question on the part of those who protested against the persecution of the Jews was not confined to the Bekennende Kirche in Germany. Even the Dutch Church, in the early forties, did not deviate from its theological tradition. A typical illustration is to be found in the Pastoral Letter written by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church (Sept. 1941), a document that will go down in history as a striking witness to spiritual integrity and moral courage. Although the Letter emphasizes the fact that the New Testament is dependent on the Old Testament (Deut. 6, 4-5; Mark 12, 29-31) and that the love of one's fellowman also applies to the treatment of the Jew (Lev. 19, 18; Matt. 22, 39), it defines Judaism as a religion that is destined to disappear by being redeemed through and in Christianity. Again, this is in keeping with Christian tradition which holds that the metaphysical status of election and the promise of eschatological salvation as given to the Jews in the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus who is "…the fulfilment of all God's promises to Israel, the true king of this nation sent by God…" [33] Hence, the document continues, having rejected Jesus as the redeemer, the Jews are still sunk in sin: "…Israel did not recognize Him, but rejected Him… In this way they hardened their hearts against the grace of God… They are no longer Israel in the original sense of the lord, they are 'Jews' now. A Jew is a man of Israel who rejects Jesus Christ, and thus is to us a sign of human hostility to the Gospel…" [34] The Church that protested Jewish persecution by the Nazis with such courage and religious conviction still finds it indispensable to advocate conversion as the only solution to the problem of Jewish stubborn existence, an existence which equals infidelity: <XXII>
"…The true destiny of the Jewish people lies in its Conversion to Christ, by joining the Christian Church. The Jew remains a Jew in the bitter sense which this word has for him first and foremost; the Jew cannot free himself from himself, as long as he does not come to Christ…" [35]
Are there any pronouncements of the Church that offer a Christian-Jewish relationship other than that of conversion? [36] Is there a possibility that the Church may acknowledge the inherent right of self-determination for the Jew, so that he could retain his identity and not seek to "free himself from himself?" This "bitter sense" of the Jew the Church spoke about even when protesting against Nazism, is it indigenous to Judaism or rather the result of the social and political conditions in a Christian world? Similar questions arise when we read the documents in Appendix I which do not deal with the period of the Third Reich but with the period after the Second World War. In these documents we find a number of explicit statements by eminent Christian theologians condemning anti-semitism. But even here we find no acknowledgment of the right of Judaism to exist on its own terms. Nor do we find such acknowledgment in the special declaration of a group of theologians, during the Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches which convened in Evanston in 1954, entitled "Hope of Israel" [37]. In this declaration a systematic attempt is made to renew relations with <XXIII> Judaism since"… to be a member of the Christian Church is to be involved with the Jews… and the people of the New Covenant cannot be separated from the people of the Old Covenant…" [38] Jews, however, are still regarded as candidates for salvation on Christian terms, so that even in this enlightened document - a document which was composed years after the wholesale extermination of the Jews by the Nazis - theologians find no other solution but "…to hope for the conversion of the Jewish people…" [39]. Moreover, when these circles in the Church desire for reasons of conscience and remorse to express "…the grievous guilt of the Christian people towards the Jews throughout the history of the church…", they find no better way to express their deep sorrow than to revert to the "Findings of the pre-Evanston Conference of the American committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews" (Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, August 8-11, 1954) which states that '… the Church cannot rest until the title of Christ to the Kingdom is recognized by His own People according to the flesh…'" [40].
Another typical example of this attitude is the proclamation of the Joint Committee of the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council, after its Consultation at the Ecumenical Institute, Bossey, Sept. 12-18, 1956. An attempt was made to elevate the missionary activities of the Church, to seek the salvation of the Jews by the power of the spirit only: "…Our hope for the Jews does not mean that we can calculate the time or define the nature of the coming of Christ in his Kingdom… We may find a further warning against too precise speculation with regard to the Second Coming of Christ…" (Ch. III, par. c, d.). [41] In conclusion, however, the Joint Committee could not help adding a declaration which for the Jew makes any authentic dialogue meaningless if not impossible: "… The Jewish people will not find their true destiny until they return and acknowledge Jesus as Christ and Lord" (Cf. Chap. IV, 6) [42]. <XXIV>
C. The third group of questions that arise from reading the documents and require careful study, deal with the actual situation as it existed during the Nazi regime. Were the protests of the Church effective, in rescuing Jews and then in strengthening the spirit of resistance, or even the religious feelings among Christians? Were the protests raised at the right time and under the proper circumstances, to mitigate the persecution or to postpone the annihilation of the Jews? Was the protest the most useful means of rescuing Jews, or would it have been more helpful for the Church to keep quiet so that it could devote itself more to actual underground activities - but, then, could the Church keep quiet? Was the Church, in its protest, ready to endanger its members as well as their relatives for the sake of an effective anti-Nazi struggle, or did the protest function as a Catharsis, relieving the members of the Church from the burden of moral responsibility towards the persecuted? Did the protests create a new, perhaps even a revolutionary non-conformist stand of the Church over against political power? How was the protest of the Church related to the concept of obedience to the existing regime, as expressed in Paul's Letter to the Romans Ch. 13, and in Luther's "Von weltlicher Obrigkeit wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig ist" 1523? Finally, what was the reaction of the Jews who were persecuted, and especially of those Jews who lived in free countries and who might have been expected to exert themselves to save their brethren? Did they endanger their personal safety to rescue their fellow-Jews and display a deeper sense of responsibility towards them than the Church?
This collection of sources, by concentrating on only one aspect of the entire interrelationship between Christianity and Judaism during the period of the holocaust may confuse the reader in thinking that the Protest was the prime characteristic and policy of the Church regarding anti-semitism, the persecution of the Jews and their extermination. The author of this book, the Rev. Johan M. Snoek, is correct in bringing to our attention that the Protest must be viewed as one and only one aspect of the position of the Church and of the Christian world as a whole during the Nazi regime. A collection of sources on the Protest of the Church does not preclude the fact that there existed other positions among Christians; the position of cooperation with antisemites, whether it was active or passive, direct or indirect, with knowledge of without, whether voluntary or <XXV> through coercion. This volume does not attempt to research the entire and definite historical and theological position of the Church during the Holocaust. Its purpose is to bring light upon one aspect, which until now has not been sufficiently investigated. By having gathered these documents, and by having placed them before us in their historical and geo-political order, a major contribution has been made towards a more balanced and varied understanding of this period.
Uriel Tal
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
<XXVI>
Much has been published as to whether the Pope remained silent during the persecution of the Jews in Europe, primarily as a reaction to Rolf Hochhuth's play "The Representative" (Der Stellvertreter in German or in Dutch "Plaatsbekleder"). Not so much, however, has been published about the attitude of the non-Roman Catholic Churches. When there is a vacuum in our knowledge, it is an excellent breeding place for myths. We should fill a gap therefore as well as possible.
There exist certain myths, which die hard. Many people still believe that it was Richard III who murdered the princes in the Tower, though this has been shown to be false. The Dutch people for instance did not behave as courageously during the Second World War as is generally believed, but the myth seems to be firmly established; just as is the story that the King of Denmark walked through the streets of Copenhagen wearing the yellow badge in protest against the German measures concerning the Jews.
One should not lightly dismiss the existence of such historical untruths on the assumption that there is always a grain of truth in every myth. Sometimes a myth is completely false, as in the case of murdered princes. Moreover, this type of myth is sometimes very harmful. We need only remind ourselves of the infamous ritual-murder myth, suggesting that the Jews used the blood of a Christian child for ritual purposes. <1>
It is undeniable that throughout the ages many Christians took an active part in the persecution of Jews. [43] This fact has been officially and repeatedly admitted by Christian bodies. Some of the statements in this documentation unequivocally plead guilty in this respect. Small wonder, then, that many Christians, as well as Jews, honestly believe that "there was a complete and terrible silence on the part of the Church" [44]. In the process of creation of anti-Jewish myths, there is a tendency to generalize: "The Jews have …" We like to think in general terms because stereotypes are so easy, whilst it costs us much more mental effort to discriminate. Let us not commit the same offence against logic as the anti-Semites have and let us remember that it is just as fallacious to talk about "the Churches" as about "the Jews".
It is important for many reasons not to overrate the positive things the Churches did and said. It is also important, again for many reasons, not to belittle them. We certainly must denounce acts of anti-Semitism, even when outstanding leaders of the Church were the perpetrators, but this remains a negative. We must also mention the positive, which is more encouraging. I believe this is one of the underlying intentions of "Yad Vashem's" competent Department in trying to seek out and honour the "righteous of all Nations": non-Jews who helped Jews at the risk of their own lives. [45] It seems far too early to come to a definite evaluation of many aspects of the holocaust. Far be it from me, to claim that I can say the last word about that one aspect under discussion here: the attitude <2> of the non-Roman Catholic Churches. I can and must try to be objective, but I cannot be detached, as probably none of our generation can: we were all involved, in one way or another. [46] But I am convinced that our generation can and must do the groundwork. It must collect the material that may otherwise be completely lost or forgotten, and investigate it before even more people, who were personally involved, have passed away.
Collecting these documents was like trying to make a jigsaw puzzle from which many pieces are missing, the difference being that in this case one often does not even know that something is missing. However, the lack of other pieces is known. [47] As regards my own country (the Netherlands), I am fairly sure that the collection of documents is well-nigh complete. Some statements issued by Churches were published in Bulgarian or Slovak, etc., but not in English. Even such documents as were available in English were not generally known. Most of the material in this book had to be translated from Hebrew, French, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Slovak, Hungarian, Bulgarian or Greek. Initially, I sent a circular letter to the heads of Churches in Eastern Europe asking for information and I received some replies, though not many. Some replies stated that no documents were available because everything had been destroyed during the war. This seems quite possible, and perhaps we must give the Churches in question the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, it was not advisable, for security reasons, to keep certain documents. Thus, for instance, all documents of the World Council of Churches and its preceding organizations, which might incriminate Christian leaders in Germany, were destroyed when, in 1940, it was feared that Germany would invade Switzerland. [48] <3> Yet, some Churches, which probably could have sent material, and which in some cases as, for example, the Churches in Bulgaria and Greece, had a good record of resistance against anti-Semitism, failed to do so. It would appear that Church archives are sometimes the safest place in the world for documents not to be found. The Library and Archives of "Yad Vashem", in Jerusalem, had much material. I was also able to spend some days in the Wiener Library, in London, and in the Library of the World Council of Churches, at Geneva. I could never have succeeded in finding the material and having it translated without the help of many interested friends, Jews as well as Christians, to whom I am deeply indebted. It would be difficult to mention all their names, but I should like at least to express here my indebtedness to the late Director of "Yad Vashem", Dr. Arjeh Leon Kubovy, of blessed memory; and to Dr. Shaul Esh, of blessed memory, who made valuable suggestions for the chapters on Germany. I am also especially indebted to Dr. J. Robinson, of New York, and Prof. Dr. C. Augustijn, of Amsterdam, who read the manuscript and suggested many improvements. Of course the responsibility for any eventual mistakes solely rests on me. I am deeply grateful for all the kind help rendered to me by the Chief Librarian of "Yad Vashem", Miss Ora Alcalay, and her assistants.
Most of the chapters in Part III (During the War) have some particulars about anti-Semitic measures taken by the Germans: I wanted to give some historical background for the statements issued by Churches. For the background of statements issued in the different countries before the Second World War, the historical survey and the chapter on Germany in part II should be consulted. One can never have too much knowledge of the situation and background in the countries concerned, if one is to see facts clearly in their historical context and interpret them correctly. Thus, more publications are mentioned in the notes for further study. Some figures concerning the membership of Churches are given in Appendix II, though they are of limited value. Many territorial changes took place in Central and Eastern Europe. Some Churches count as members all who were baptized, whether they ever attended services or not; others count <4> "communicants"; the Baptists do not count the children. But one will at least acquire a conception of the numerical strength of a certain Church.
An investigation into the question whether the non-Roman Catholic Churches kept silent, must necessarily have certain limitations. Firstly, no statement issued by a Church under the authority of the Pope are recorded in this book, with the exception, of course, of joint statements issued by Protestants and Roman Catholics, as was the case in the Netherlands. Thus I have recorded nothing from the Polish Greek Catholic Metropolitan Sheptitsky, or from the Maronite Patriarch of Syria, Mgr. Arida. [49] Secondly, this investigation is not concerned with the acts of individual Christians, unless they were leaders of the Church and clearly spoke in the name of their Church. [50] Thirdly, I have not recorded the contents of protests issued solely against the treatment of Christians of Jewish origin. It was certainly the duty of the Churches to do all in their power to protect those Christians, but this is not my subject. I am interested in what manner the Churches acted or failed to act on behalf of the Jews in general.
This book is first of all an attempt to draw up an inventory, rather than to draw up the balance-sheet. However, the fact that I have often had the privilege of lecturing on the subject to Jewish, Christian or mixed audiences, always followed by brisk discussion, encourages me to feel that I have correctly understood some of the problems and questions which arise.
The Introduction arrived only just in time to be printed. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Uriel Tal for his penetrating comment and questions. It stands to reason that our views need not agree in every detail, but <5> Christians should know that such questions as are raised in the Introduction are asked by many Jews. It is of the utmost importance for Jewish-Christian relations to discuss them as frankly as Dr. Tal did. <6>
Commentators on the attitude of the Churches in certain lands frequently contradict one another. Some Christians, such as Rev. Niemoeller [51] and Rev. Buskes [52] for instance, pass a severe verdict on the Churches and include themselves also. It seems to me that at least one Jewish commentator gives too positive a picture about the attitude of the population in his country, Greece.[53] He may, consciously or unconsciously, have tried not to embarrass the people amongst whom he still lived when he wrote his book. But also the opinion of a Christian that "the hundreds of thousands of Jews that escaped the doom decreed for them owed their survival more to the rescue activities of individuals and private groups, above all the Churches, than to governmental resistance policy" [54], seems to me too favourable.
It must be difficult for Jews who know of anti-Semitic actions perpetrated by Church leaders throughout the centuries, and who personally suffered and lost their relatives in the holocaust, to believe that not merely a few "righteous of all Nations" but also Churches publicly and unequivocally spoke out against Hitler's murderous anti-Semitism. On the other hand, Christians are in danger of trying to whitewash the Church and ignoring the many instances when the Church failed. We all tend to forget our failures and to remember our victories.
Some commentators tend to forget how the actual situation was in those days. Indeed, it is difficult even for people who themselves lived through it, to project themselves back into the time when Hitler seemed all-powerful. Moreover, we now have the benefit of living after the events, and thus we know many facts, which were not generally known in those days. <9>
It seems unbelievable now, but in the summer of 1940, when some people somewhere in the Netherlands formed a resistance group, their leader stated that the British would not liberate us before Christmas 1940, and everybody present felt sorely disappointed. This kind of unwarranted optimism was fostered by many people throughout the war, and thus they underestimated the danger to the Jews and believed that, if German action against them could be delayed by some kind of compromise, much, and perhaps all, would be won. Many people in occupied Europe, in Great Britain and in the United States thought, that the information about the gas-chambers was "atrocity propaganda". The President of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. stated, on May 1, 1943: "What is happening to the Jews on the Continent of Europe is so horrible that we are in danger of assuming that it is exaggerated" [55]. We quote the following from "Unity in Dispersion":
"The undertaking was so staggering that, until the revelation about the Maidanek camp, a majority of the people in the United States as well as in England dismissed the facts of extermination as 'atrocity mongering'… It should be conceded, as extenuating circumstances, that never before in history had states descended to such depths of bad faith, deceit, and treachery as did Germany and some of her satellites in their resolve to murder. In 1942, tens of thousands of Polish Jews volunteered for cunningly disguised 'resettlement' and agricultural work in the territories recently conquered by the Germans in the East, and thus entered of their own accord on a road at the end of which destruction awaited them." [56]
The Germans tried to deceive the victims about their aims as well as the people amongst whom these victims lived, and they succeeded in this to a considerable extent. [57] <10> They had, in occupied Europe, all the instruments of mass communication, such as press and radio, at their disposal. All these and other factors are mentioned in "Unity in Dispersion" [58] in order to explain to some extent "the failure of organized Jewry to halt or even to slow down the most terrible catastrophe in Jewish history". Much of it is, mutatis mutandis, also applicable to "organized Christianity".
On the other hand, when the true facts became known, there was danger mentioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury: "It is one of the most terrible consequences of war that the sensitiveness of people tends to become hardened… There is a great moral danger in the paralysis of feeling that is liable to be brought about." [59]
We now are in danger of forgetting that so many other problems burdened people in those days. The British people were fighting their life-and-death struggle against the Third Reich, but were free. In the occupied countries, many young people were sent to Germany for compulsory labour; food was rationed and became more and more scarce. People went out in the night to cut wood illegally as there was hardly any fuel.
One cannot understand what happened in occupied Europe without remembering these things; neither can one understand, without realising the power of human egoism and the will to survive. No one who has never really been hungry, nor has been deprived of his liberty, can understand what it meant in practice to "love one's neighbour" during the Second World War. The persecution of the Jews was not the only challenge confronting the Churches in those days, though we only now can perceive better that it was the most important one. The list of steps taken by the Churches in the Netherlands shows the type of problems which faced the Churches: intercession in church services for the Queen; arrest of pastors; suppression of the Church press; compulsory labour for youth; requisition of church bells; deportation of labourers to Germany; closing down of the Bible Society; ban on Church conferences; death sentences: plea for mercy; deportation of students, and national-socialist education in Christian schools. [60] <11>
We tend now to underestimate the power of the Hitlerite terror. It has been said that all the Dutch should have blocked the railways with their own bodies, thus preventing the deportation of the Jews, because Hitler could not have murdered the entire Dutch population. I do not doubt that he could have and he would have done precisely that. [61]
It is not surprising then that many lay members of the Church and Church leaders were afraid, and therefore failed to fulfil their duties. Gerstein said, in Rolf Hochhuth's play: "A Christian in these days cannot survive if he is truly Christian". [62] Dr. Banning said: "If the Church had fully exercised the obedience of faith, no pastor or priest would have come out alive. [63]
But the greatness of the risks matched the appalling need to help: the Germans committed genocide. Whenever the Church remained silent in view of the holocaust, it was guilty. "Nevertheless a crime of such magnitude falls in no small measure to the responsibility of those witnesses who never cried out against it - whatever the reason for their silence." [64] Therefore, all the considerations mentioned above cannot exempt Churches, Christians or non-Christians, though they can help us to be fairer in our judgment.
One is sometimes in danger of becoming irritated by people who did not stand the test themselves, and yet claim to know exactly what should have been said and done. There recently appeared a book [65] in which the author sharply criticizes much what was done, or was not done, during the German occupation of the Netherlands. <12> He himself took a very active part in the struggle. Perhaps that is the reason why his criticism is not without compassion, and that it is to a large extent self-criticism. In order to understand how difficult it was to risk one's life or even freedom on behalf of others, one had to have been in it oneself.
I, who am now living in Israel, have sometimes, when lecturing on the subject, invited my audience to imagine for a moment that (God forbid!) some foreign power should occupy the land of Israel, say in the year 1980; and that this foreign power should deport many Jews for compulsory labour abroad, and also ration all food supplies, but that the Jewish part of the population should not risk their lives when complying with the demands of the enemy; that, however, the Christian minority in Israel should be deported and exterminated; that they should be deprived of their ration cards, that their identity cards should be stamped with a C, and that they must wear a yellow badge in the form of a cross, in order to distinguish them as Christians.
I then asked the question: "would you be willing, in such a situation, to hide my wife, one of my children or me, who all look very "Aryan", though you knew that, as in every community, you were in danger of being betrayed and in even greater danger of being given away by careless talk of other people? Or would you, if you were the Chief Rabbi, be prepared to denounce the anti-Christian measures publicly and unequivocally?"
There were many factors that led Churches to protest publicly. One of them is mentioned by the Executive Council of the Federal Council of Churches in the U.S.A. in 1941:
"No true Christian Can be anti-Semitic in thought, word or deed without being untrue to his own Christian heritance." [66]
But how often true Christians were untrue… <13>
The National Council of the Reformed Church in France made a similar statement, in September, 1942, declaring:
"A Christian Church would lose its soul and the reason for its existence, were it not to maintain… the Divine law above human contingencies." [67]
The Bible (the Old as well as the New Testament) was frequently cited in the protests. This may appear strange to people who only knew that the New Testament was used as a source of anti-Semitic influence. The same applies, by the way, to the Old Testament. [68] In my opinion, this use is quite indefensible. We list some of the texts cited in the protests:
"Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy. (Proverbs 31, 8-9).
Indirect reference, particularly in Switzerland and Germany, was made to
Ezekiel 33, when the Church's office as Watchman is mentioned.
"When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: if when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head… But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel…" (Ezekiel 33, 2-4, 6-7). "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7, 1). "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25, 40). "We ought to obey God rather than man." (Acts 5, 29). "…and (God) hath made of one blood all the nations of men…" (Acts 17, 26). "There is neither Jew nor Greek…: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3, 28). <14>
In addition to this, the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10, 30 - 37) was quoted. It was frequently pointed out, though the wordings differ, that Jesus was born a Jew.
With regard to the Churches in the Netherlands, it has been stated that "the moral implications of Christian doctrine motivated the resistance of the Churches". [69] Such a statement seems to me to oversimplify matters. I believe that the Christian doctrine (or rather: the teachings of the Bible) demanded the resistance of the Churches, but it is always possible to find convenient excuses to escape a challenge, as for example the opinion that the Church should not interfere in political matters.
I once tried to convince a devout Protestant (he was an elder of the Church) that he should hide a Jewish child, by reminding him that one day he would have to give account of his deeds to the Supreme Judge. The man, who certainly could have hidden that child (he had a large farm) flatly refused, not because he denied that he would have to give account of his deeds, but because he was afraid, - too afraid to hide the child. I pointed out to him that he should rather fear God and not man, but my words simply had no effect.
Christian teaching did not work in this case, though that does not mean that it did not work in other cases. Chief Rabbi Safran spoke to the Rumanian Patriarch Nicodemus of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge [70], and in this case it worked, though there were probably other motivations as well.
Everybody's decisions are also motivated by the principles to which he adheres, and thus a Christian's decisions are influenced by Christian principles, though it must be admitted that mostly there are many other influences and motivations, probably more than the person who makes a decision, realizes. <15> The whole matter of the attitude of the Churches during the war was once discussed at a conference, and one of the speakers began by expressing as his opinion that Hitler and Eichmann were Christians, but later on he said that Mr. Johannes Bogaard, one of the "righteous of all Nations" who saved many Jews and whose father, brother and son were murdered by the Germans, was "just a courageous Dutchman".
I happen to know Mr. Bogaard very well and I am convinced that he acted as he did during the war, primarily because he is a committed Christian. Of course this does not alter the fact that many Christians did not do very much, if anything, on behalf of their neighbours, the Jews; nor should it be denied that many non-Christians did do what they could, out of national, socialist, humanist or communist convictions.
The same applies to the attitudes of a community.
A member of a left wing kibbutz stated his views very clearly to me, and
I know that many people hold views similar to his:
"Allow me to express my position which is based on dialectical materialism. The Protestant Churches were active everywhere according to the local circumstances, first of all according to the nature of the people amongst whom they lived. The Churches did not act in a vacuum. For instance, in the countries of Western-Europe, such as Holland, Norway and Denmark, where the 'final solution' met with the resistance of all sections of the population, the courageous stand of those nations found its vehement expression in the attitude of the different Churches. The non-Roman Catholic Churches merely reflected the opinion and reactions of the people."
It seems to me that there is more than a grain of truth in such a view and certainly no Church ever acted in a vacuum. Much in the protests issued by Churches in countries such as Bulgaria and Greece, points to nationalist rather than to spiritual-Christian considerations. Reading and analysing the contents of the statements may be of some help when assessing the motivations of Christians and groups of Christians who resisted the persecution of Jews. <16>
If, however, one indeed believes that everything can be explained by the influences of local circumstances etc., one should be consistent and stop holding Churches responsible for acts of anti-Semitism committed by Churches or by people professing to be Christians throughout the ages, for in such a case they were also "merely reflecting the opinion and reactions of the people amongst whom they lived". In the case of such a rigid determinism, it seems difficult to hold anyone anywhere responsible for his acts and decisions.
In my opinion we are all influenced by the people amongst whom we live, by social circumstances and by many other factors. We are all subject to a kind of mimicry, but that does not necessarily mean that we are just chameleons and nothing else. Churches are certainly influenced, just like any other group of people, by circumstances and surroundings, but they on their part influence these circumstances and surroundings. There is interplay of factors.
Similar to the opinion mentioned above is the viewpoint that Churches always tend to support the Establishment. The United States and Great Britain were at war with Germany, and the Churches participated in the crusade against the enemy. The same applies to Churches in occupied Europe, even when their own Government was in exile. I think that the Old Testament already gives us many examples of organized religion supporting the Establishment, but it also gives us some instances when religious leaders (the prophets!) refused to do so. [71]
It is doubtful whether the British Government was pleased with the Church's protest against the pogroms of the "Crystal Night", just after the Munich agreement. [72] The Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in the House of Lords and the Bishop of Chichester's letters to The Times, in 1943, must have embarrassed political leaders who were of the opinion that the main object was to win the war, and that attempts to rescue Jews were of less importance. [73]
The Swiss Churches could hardly be accused of supporting the Establishment, when they protested against the decision of the Swiss Government to return refugees to Nazi Germany who had illegally entered Switzerland. [74] Similar examples can be given regarding the United States, Sweden and other lands. The little that was said by the "Confessing Church" in Germany on behalf of the Jews was certainly not in support of the Establishment. <17> A Church must try to be the conscience of nation and Government, even though this may mean that its leaders have to speak out against the seeming interests of their nation. Churches frequently failed to do so, but we should refrain from generalizing.
Whenever Churches were conscious of belonging to a worldwide fellowship, this contributed to their making a stand against anti-Semitism.
Church leaders in the Netherlands followed the struggle of the "Confessing Church" in Germany, and were on the alert when they were challenged themselves. The Church in Sweden was moved to protest by the statement issued by the Church of Norway. Church leaders in Hungary realized, when they did not carry their protest before the Hungarian public, that this course would "incur… the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches" and stated that, if their intervention proved ineffective, they would be obliged "to testify before the congregations of our Church and the Protestants of the world that we did not suppress the message of God". [75] Many of the Church leaders who took a clear stand, knew one another personally. [76] In view of the attempts of the Germans to deceive world opinion as to their ultimate aims concerning the Jews, and in view of the tendency to dismiss reports about what was going on as "atrocity propaganda", the importance of the information given by the World Council of Churches through its Press Service and by other means can hardly be overestimated. The need to combine efforts and thus break through denominational barriers in order to come to a joint stand, was understood in some countries. In the Netherlands, Protestants and Roman Catholics began a new chapter in their relationship by protesting together. In France and Hungary there was consultation between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but it is to be regretted that they did not achieve a common front. <18>
Sometimes there existed close contact between Christian and Jewish leaders, as for example in the United States, in Great Britain, in Bulgaria and between the leaders of the World Council of Churches and the World Jewish Congress, in Geneva. Thus, again, information about what was going on was communicated and action could be co-ordinated.
The negative implication is also clear: whenever a spirit of particularism, provincialism and isolationism was strong in a Church, it did not fulfil its duty toward the persecuted Jews.
In order to ascertain the practical effects that could be expected from steps taken by the Churches, the political and geographical position of the countries concerned, as well as the time factor, must be born in mind. Where there was a national Government, as was the case in Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, protests had a better chance of some success than in countries under direct Nazi control. Yet even then what Jeno Levai stated about Hungary was sometimes true:
"The Church was not in a position to promise or to threaten. Thus, in spite of their very best intentions, they could obtain only very little. Naturally this little meant life to the persons concerned." [77]
Typical were the differences between the Scandinavian countries: Sweden was neutral; Finland was an ally of the Germans; Denmark was occupied but it had its own King and was officially not even in a state of war with Germany; Norway's King had fled and the infamous Quisling had become Prime Minister. <19>
Geography also played an important role. The Jews in the Netherlands were in a deadly trap; Hungary was, at least for some time, a place of refuge for Jews in the neighbouring countries; Jews in Denmark and Norway had a chance to flee to Sweden and the Jews in France and Italy to Switzerland, in so far as that country was willing to admit them. The time persecution began was a vital factor. The earlier it started, the smaller the chance of saving at least some lives. It should be noted that these three factors were utterly unfavourable in Germany. It is difficult to assess the range of influence of any Church. Figures have been given about membership in Appendix II, but one must remember that many Churches have a high percentage of nominal members who, perhaps since their baptism, never attended a church service. Therefore it can be misleading to read that there were forty-five million Protestants in Germany, or, that 96,2 per cent of the population of Norway are members of the State Church. Only 5 per cent of the members of the Norwegian Church regularly attend Sunday services. In many other countries the situation is similar.
Many people who were not church goers may never even have known about the protests of the Church, and this is especially true of occupied Europe in those days, for there the Church could only speak from the pulpits, not through press and radio. Moreover, many nominal Christians are influenced by other outlooks on life, rather than by the Christian faith. However, when press and radio were silenced and the Church alone could voice an open and public protest, it met with the response of many people who were outside the fold. Church services were better attended than in times of peace. The former editor-in-chief of the Dutch communist daily De Waarheid relates that he went to a church service in those days:
That church meant something to us in those black days, were it only to listen to the prayer of a man, who dared make a public address on behalf of the people tortured in the concentration camps. [78] <20> I myself belong to the persons who, in those days, found their way back to the fold, attracted as we were by the Church's spiritual resistance to the Nazis.
When attempting to assess the practical results of steps taken by Churches or Church leaders on behalf of the Jews, we distinguish between countries under German occupation, countries under a satellite government, neutral countries, and countries that were at war with Germany. In countries under German occupation, efforts made by the Churches had hardly any direct practical result for the Jews in general. Personal intervention did not help or, at best, could only cause some delay in the deportations. The only step that had some effect on the Germans (as we now know!) was the issuing of a public protest.
Again it was evident, that the German authorities did not fear or have any step taken by the Churches as much as their protests which were read from the pulpits. Letters of protest they could throw in the dustbin or file away. They could listen to oral protests without taking them to heart. But they tried in every way to prevent public protests (in those days the only form of public protest), fearing their effect upon the people."[79]
The most effective protests were those, which clearly encouraged the faithful to help the Jews. Others called for non-cooperation with the Germans, and this had at least some result.
Six Roman Catholic police-agents at Utrecht informed their chief on February 24, 1943, that on the grounds of a pastoral letter read in their church on February 21, they would have to refuse if ordered to arrest Jews. Their chief threatened to dismiss them without pension and said that "those who do not announce their intended refusal and yet have the impudence to carry it out will be considered saboteurs, with all the serious consequences. The Germans immediately tried to arrest these agents but they had gone into hiding. The Germans then arrested their wives and children." [80] <21> Generally speaking, the positive indirect effect of public protests was, that it counteracted the attempts of the Germans to separate and isolate the Jews from the non-Jewish population, in order to break their will to resist deportation and annihilation. [81] It is impossible to count the lives saved through the activities of the Churches in the occupied territories. I agree with the opinion of Dr. Visser 't Hooft:
"So far we have only spoken of public protests. But were these protests implemented by deeds? The answer is that they were, though by no means as generally as ought to have been the case. The full story of Christian assistance to the Jews in their hour of great need will never be fully told, for in many cases individuals acted quietly and behind the scenes." [82]
In the countries under a satellite government, actions undertaken by the Churches were of some and sometimes even of much avail. [83] Concerning the neutral countries, the steps and protests of the Churches in Switzerland contributed to the relaxation of measures against the refugees [84], and in Sweden the Lutheran Archbishop encouraged his government to broadcast its willingness to take in the Jews of Denmark. [85] It is difficult to assess how far the protests of the Churches in countries that were at war with Germany had a practical effect. [86] They apparently helped to combat anti-Semitic influences in these countries (the same applies to protests issued in the countries mentioned above) and they contributed towards "breaking the wall of silence." <22> "The world wide public, overburdened with the issues and the incidents of a world conflict fraught with the gravest consequences, was not receptive to reports which it was ready to dismiss as propaganda tales; besides, the facts were hidden from it, not withstanding persistent endeavours by the (World Jewish) Congress to keep it informed. A wall of secrecy concealed the terrible tragedy… The main difficulty was how to convince public opinion and induce the Allied Governments to act. The battles of World War II raged fiercely on three continents, the onslaught of barbarity was nowhere decisively checked, the democratic nations feverishly tried to overcome their unprepared ness for a conflict of such dimensions. The Governments in Exile were chiefly concerned with the sufferings of their nations as a whole." [87]
The pressure exerted by Jewish and Christian leaders on their Governments did not, however, result in effective rescue activities being undertaken by these Governments.
It has been suggested that the protests from the Churches mostly came too late, and thus fell flat. This is partly true. The Protestant leaders in Hungary did speak out very late, and Bishop Wurm of Wurttemberg sent his letters when there only remained a chance of doing something for the "privileged" Jews.
On the other hand, Churches or Church leaders in Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States began to protest in 1933. The Churches in the Netherlands protested at the very beginning of the German attacks on the Dutch Jews, in 1940. The Church of Denmark had prepared a public protest before the deportations started.
It is, however, necessary to keep the dates of protests in mind, in order to arrive at a fair evaluation of the moral courage which such protests required. After Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad, at the end of 1942, and the defeat of Rommel at El-Alamein, it became more and more clear that Germany would lose the war. The measure of success is in itself no yardstick for the moral value of a deed. One can hardly say that Church leaders in Rumania behaved better than Church leaders in, for instance, the Netherlands, because the former, contrary to the latter, actually succeeded in saving many lives. <23>
To this it must be added, however, that the seeming absence of any chance of success could not be an excuse for maintaining silence or for doing nothing against the terror of the Nazis. Prince William the Silent is said to have stated that it is not necessary to hope in order to try, nor to succeed in order to persevere.
Apart from the 500,000 Jews who registered as members of their community in 1933, there were some 50,000 Jews in Germany who no longer belonged to the Jewish community. Though born as Jews, they had been baptized. In addition, some 210,000 people had at least one Jewish parent, and another 80,000 one Jewish grandparent; thus a total of some 340,000 people in Germany were, in addition to the "full Jews", affected by racial legislation. [88]
Until the end of the year 1938, Christian leaders and Churches tended to stress the necessity of helping Christian refugees of Jewish origin, rather than calling for help for Jews in general. A notable exception to this rule was the Appeal of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work, in 1933, to help "Jews, Christians of Jewish origin and political refugees". [89] During the war, Churches in countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary and the Netherlands, instituted steps to protect their members of Jewish origin. It can hardly be denied that it was the right as well as the duty of the Churches to do so, but more than once the Churches were tempted to try and save their own members while neglecting the Jews in general. The announcement read from the pulpits of the Hungarian Protestant churches, on July 16, 1944, is significant:
"The Bishops… wish to inform the congregations that in connection with the Jewish question, and particularly in the case of baptised Jews, they have repeatedly intervened with the competent Government authorities…" [90] <24> A comment on the "Confessing Church" in Germany is:
"The Church took up the cudgels for the baptized Jews and that meant to the average churchgoer that the unbaptized Jew, i.e. the Jew as such, was left to the devil." [91]
Church leaders in the Netherlands regarded the issue as a temptation:
"Great dangers and temptations threatened continually. From the German side came the voice of the tempter: 'do not protest; only negotiate'. 'Do not speak on behalf of the Jews any more; then we shall be lenient to the Christians of Jewish origin.'… It is a great miracle that, in general, the Church recognized these voices as coming from the tempter, and boldly rejected the temptation." [92]
That these questions were very difficult indeed, becomes clear from the following comment of Herzberg:
"The baptized Jews [in the Netherlands], who were able to save their lives, owed this exclusively to the resistance of the Churches, a resistance which was especially impressive because of the principles by which it was motivated." [93]
Quite different, however, is the sharp verdict of Presser:
"And the Churches (in the Netherlands)? With what hesitation did they begin their resistance? How many were there, unfortunately, who were resigned to the fatal decrees of the occupying power, even appealing to texts in the Bible, and actually helping to carry out the decrees. How many times did they stand up only on behalf of baptized Jews and not on behalf of others." [94] <25>
It makes a difference, whether Churches on their own initiative stressed the importance they attached to the fate of Christians of Jewish origin, or were forced into a compromise by the tactics of the Germans. The latter was the case when the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH failed to read the telegram of protest publicly in the church services. [95] The Protestant Christians of Jewish origin in the Netherlands indeed survived. We should not pass judgment lightly and we must realize that we now have the benefit of being after the events, Church leaders in those days were not always aware of the fact that the Germans, who offered not to deport the Christians of Jewish origin, were not just making a concession, but were also providing themselves with a means of exerting further pressure on the Churches. It is most regrettable that on several occasions certain Churches interpreted the saying "charity begins at home" as they did.
Christian clergymen in many lands were prepared to baptize Jews if the ceremony of baptism meant that lives could be saved. The following is related of the Lutheran Church in Slovakia:
"Many Jews who tried to escape persecution sought rescue by giving up their religion and by requesting to be received into the Evangelical Church, for the Catholic Church did not receive them. [96] The Evangelical Church did not refuse them, which was an act of courage in those days, but enabled them to become members of the Church… Here some examples follow: <26> In 1940, 20 persons, most of them adults, became Christians in Bratislava. For the year 1941 the number was 83; for the first half of the year 1942: 47 persons; for the second half: 7.828 persons were admitted in 1943; only 2 in 1944. In Horne Zelenice (near Hlohovec), 169 persons became Christians in 1942; 39 in 1943; in 1945 only one. In Frencin 120 persons; in Kochanovce (near Treucin) 45; in Banska Bystrica, 202 persons became Christians in 1942. This help aroused the anger of the rulers, of the Gestapo and of the Hlinka Guard. They began to arrest Evangelical Christians and pastors. 9 pastors were sent to the concentration camps in Germany. Joseph Bucko, minister at Martine, perished in the camp." [97]
It is reported that in Bulgaria,
"… Ministers of various Christian denominations engaged in mass 'mercy baptisms'; several of them were removed from office because of this (one of these ministers, with a community of about 200 souls, managed to baptize 200 additional persons between January 1 and September 1, 1940). High dignitaries of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church declared that 'conversion to Christianity' and 'formal baptism' were two different acts, the first of which necessarily preceded the second, sometimes by a considerable period; because the law spoke of conversion and not of baptism having to have taken place before September 1, 1940, Jews baptized later could also be saved if the minister declared that they had expressed their will to adopt Christianity before that date. Many courts accepted this reasoning. In this way, a number of baptized Jews and offspring of mixed marriages escaped the provision of the law." [98]
The following is quoted from the testimony of Richard Simantov: <27>
"… It must be admitted that, with a few exceptions, all the Christian religious institutions [in Bulgaria], as also their clergy, behaved with sympathy towards the Jewish victims of the anti-Jewish legislation. When issuing the required legal documents to the Christian Jew, the clerk of the court or the judge himself interrogated the priest, whether he had indeed carried out all the religious formalities, and how long the teaching of the catechism had lasted for the person of Jewish origin concerned. The priest would always reply in the affirmative and would declare that the man had received instruction for 3, 4 or 5 months, and that he regularly attended church services etc., although often these documents, which were issued by the Church, were given only in exchange for a payment, without the ceremony having been performed…" [99]
We have the following particulars about Greece :
"Many tried to evade the racial laws through baptism. More than 500 Jews embraced the Orthodox religion; some scores preferred to become Catholics. it was clear that it was not out of conviction that these Jews entered into the Church. It was well-known, that only the desire to escape persecution moved them to seek refuge in the shadow of the cross. Out of compassion, the priests did not hesitate to accept the new converts. They were on friendly terms with them in different ways. Out of noble feelings and not in order to receive a reward, the priests also distributed baptismal certificates to Jews who had never attended a church service…" [100]
The biographer of the Archbishop of Athens, Damaskinos, relates:
"Later on, when the persecutions started affecting the Jews of Athens, the Archbishop decided on the following measures. He summoned the Director General of the Administrative Services of the Community of Athens, Mr. P. Haldezos, and said to him: "I have made the sign of the cross and have spoken to God, and have decided to save as many Jews as I can, even though I run a great risk. I am going to baptize them, and you must give certificates enabling them to obtain the identity cards of Christian Greeks. Mr. Haldezos agreed to this. With the help of a Municipal official, they opened a register wherein they registered 560 Jews as Christians, all of whom were saved. There was no treachery." [101]<28>
Rev. J.J. Buskes discussed the considerations, which led clergymen in the
Netherlands to provide Jews with false certificates of Baptism:
"We are well aware that many pastors had conscientious objections to giving forged baptismal certificates. But, thank God, there were other ministers who had conscientious objections about not doing so. Such a certificate was, of course, false. But the man who wrote it out and gave it to a Jew, did service to the truth and helped his neighbour. The one, however, who would not write it and thus refused help to a Jew, served falsehood and failed the Jew. There is a truth which is like a lie and there is a lie which is like the truth. God commanded us to lie in the service of the truth. Not the end, but the obedience to God's commandment (to love our neighbour as ourselves) justified the means. Thus the humble and scrupulous Dr. Oorthuis wrote in a pamphlet of the underground movement: even forged passports can be safe-conducts from the Lord, and stolen ration cards be gifts of mercy from God, which we accept with Thanksgiving." [102]
Many people may feel horrified when reading the views of Rev. Buskes. The same author stated in another publication:
"If I can save a man whose life is threatened by a scoundrel by saying to that scoundrel that two and two make five, I shall say so to him, in obedience to the ninth commandment. In such a case I am even prepared to declare that two and two make ten." [103]
A personal friend of mine, who is a devout Christian, took the oath declaring that a child in his house was not Jewish but his own child born out of wedlock. He saved the child. People who are horrified at such behaviour, probably never lived under German occupation. At any rate, they should remember St. Paul's saying: "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law". [104]
In my opinion, it was morally permissible and even laudable to baptize Jews in those days in order to save their lives, as long as it was mutually understood that this was in order to deceive the persecutors and that the baptism in fact was invalid. <29>
a. Hitler's Rise to Power - the Nuremberg Laws. (Jun., 1933-Sept., 1935)
President Hindenburg entrusted Hitler with the Chancellorship on January 30, 1933. The Reichstag fire, on February 27, was followed by a wave of arrests. The "Ordinance for the Protection of the People and the State", issued on February 28, suspended the sections of the Constitution which guaranteed individual and civil rights. The "Enabling Act" (March 23) stripped Parliament of its power and handed it over to the Reich Cabinet. Laws enacted by the Cabinet were to be drafted by the Chancellor (Hitler) and might deviate from the Constitution.
On April 1, Jewish shops throughout Germany were boycotted. Jewish civil servants were dismissed on April 7. On the same day the exclusion of "non-Aryan" lawyers was ordered. According to a decree of April 22, no Jewish physicians were allowed to work for sick funds anymore. At the end of April another decree restricted the admission of Jewish children and students to schools and universities. In the following months Jews were excluded from working in the fields of art, music, literature and journalism. The "Law on revocation of naturalizations and deprivation of German citizenship" (July, 14) robbed Jews, who had been naturalized before or had been born outside Germany, from their citizenship. In January, 1934, it was decreed that Jews could no longer be members of the Labour Front. When President Hindenburg died, on August 2, 1934, Hitler became President and Supreme Commander of the Army. On May 21, 1935, it was decreed that only "Aryans" could serve in the army.
It is estimated that 37,000 Jews emigrated from Germany in 1933; in 1934, the number was 23,000, whilst 21,000 Jews left Germany in 1935. [105] <33>
b. The Nuremberg Laws - Crystal Night. (Sept., 1935-Nov., 1938)
On September 15, 1935, two fundamental laws were adopted by the Reichstag meeting at Nuremberg. One, the "Law Respecting Reich Citizenship", decreed that only a national of German or kindred blood, who proved by his conduct that he was willing and likely to serve the German people and Reich faithfully, could be a citizen. The second, the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour", specifically referred to the Jews and singled them out as undesirable aliens, impure of blood and dangerous to the honour and security of the German people. There followed seven paragraphs, the first of which dealt with the prohibition of marriages between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood. Paragraph three prohibited Jews to employ in domestic service female nationals of German or kindred blood, under the age of forty-five years.
On April 26, 1938, it was decreed that all Jewish assets in excess of 5,000 marks should be registered. On June 15, 1938, about 1,500 Jews were arrested and deported to a concentration camp. On July 25, it was decreed that Jewish physicians were no longer permitted to treat non-Jewish patients. In the same month, Jews had to apply for special identity cards. On August 17, 1938, the first name "Israel" for Jewish men and "Sara" for Jewish women was made compulsory in addition to their own names. In October, all passports of Jews were stamped with the letter J. Austria had been incorporated into the Third Reich, on March 13, 1938. The German anti-Jewish laws were also enforced in Austria, where about 180,000 Jews were living. It is estimated that 25,000 Jews emigrated from Germany in 1936, and 23,000 in 1937. [106]
In March, 1938, President Roosevelt invited thirty-three governments to join in a co-operative effort to aid the emigration of refugees from Germany and Austria. On July 6, 1938, the Intergovernmental Conference met at Evian, France. Nearly all the delegates expressed their sympathy for the refugees but were very careful not to assume any obligations on behalf of their Governments. <34>
It is important to keep some of the major political events of those days in mind. Italy attacked Ethiopia on October 3, 1935. In May, 1936, the Ethiopian emperor went into exile into Great Britain. On March 2, 1936, the Rhineland was remilitarized. On November 25, 1936, the anti-Comintern Pact with Japan was signed. On July 16, 1936, civil war in Spain broke out. On September 30, 1938, the Munich agreement was signed by Hitler, Chamberlain, Mussolini and Daladier. As a result, Sudetenland was occupied by Germany. Poland and Hungary also occupied part of Czechoslovakia.
c. Crystal Night - the Outbreak of the War. (Nov., 1938-Summer, 1939)
On October 28, 1938, 15,000-17,000 Jews of Polish origin were rounded up and expelled. On November 7, a seventeen-year-old Jewish boy, Herschel Grynspan, whose parents had been among the people expelled to Poland, shot Ernst vom Rath, a minor Nazi official in the Paris Embassy. He died two days later. This was the pretext for unleashing a pogrom that has entered history under the name Crystal Night: 7,500 Jewish shops were looted and windows of shops and houses were smashed; many synagogues were burned; more than 26,000 Jews were arrested, many of whom were sent to concentration camps; at least 91 were killed. [107]
On November 12, the Jews in Germany were ordered to pay a collective fine of thousand million Reichsmark. On November 15, Jewish children were dismissed from German schools. Jews were prohibited from visiting theatres, cinemas, concert halls, museums and public baths. On December 8, a decree was issued expelling Jews from the universities.
At the beginning of January, 1939, the "Aryanisation" of Jewish enterprises began. Since January 17, 1939, Jews were forbidden to be employed in the professions of dentist, pharmacist and veterinary surgeon. On January 30, 1939, Hitler publicly declared that the Jewish race in Europe would be annihilated if war broke out. <35> Hitler annexed Czechia, on March 15, 1939. Slovakia became "independent". In April, 1939, Mussolini occupied Albania.
From the beginning of 1938 until October 1, 1941 (when further emigration was forbidden) an estimated 170,000 Jews left Germany. [108] Jews in Germany at the beginning of the Hitler regime, numbered 499,682. The 1939 census, registered within the borders of the pre-Hitler Reich, amounted to no more than 213,930. [109]
The vast majority of the Protestants of Germany belonged to one of the 28 Landeskirchen (Lutheran, Reformed or Uniate), of which the largest was the Church of the Old Prussian Union, with 18 million members. The Landeskirchen were independent members of the German Evangelical Church Union, founded in 1922. In all, there were forty-five million Germans who were, nominally at least, members of the Protestant Church. In 1932, members of the Church who supported Hitler had founded the "German Christians' Faith Movement". These "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" demanded the creation of one Protestant Church, the application of the Fuehrer principle in Church affairs, the introduction of racialism within the Church, the "Germanization" of Christianity (the "Aryan Jesus"!) and the elimination of "Jewish influence" from teaching, liturgy and preaching. In 1933, some 3000 pastors belonged to this group. Church elections took place on July 23, 1933. On the eve of the elections, Hitler made an unexpected radio appeal asking the electorate to vote "GERMAN CHRISTIANS". They won a decisive victory.
On September 21, 1933, Rev. Martin Niemoeller and others created the "Pastors' Emergency League", which opposed the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS". In the beginning, Niemoeller's group was definitely in the minority. By December, 1933, its membership had grown to 6,000. Between the two groups, a majority tried to remain neutral while more or less sympathizing with the group of Niemoeller, but in practice obeying Hitler's orders without open protest. <36> After a protege of Hitler, Ludwig Mueller, had been elected as Reich Bishop under pressure of the Government, Niemoeller's opposition group constituted the "CONFESSING CHURCH" which declared itself to be the legitimate Protestant Church of Germany and set up a provisional Church government. [110] The "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" had, in the meantime, gained control in several Landeskirchen, sometimes with the active help of the national-socialist party. In April, 1933, the Landeskirche of Thuringia required of its clergy a formal oath of allegiance to Hitler; the "Thuringian Christians" wanted to give this symbol of unconditional obedience to Hitler as a birthday present. There was a division in other Landeskirchen, as for instance in the largest: the Church of the Old-Prussian Union. In the summer of 1933, a law had been issued forbidding the appointment of pastors or Church officers of "non-Aryan descent" and ordering the dismissal of such pastors and Church officers. [111] In its session on Sept. 5, 1933, the Synod of the Old Prussian Union accepted this law; the opposition party protested and, when this was of no avail, left the meeting. Later on the opposition organized the "CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union". <37>
It is not, as has been stated in the Preface, my intention to record the contents of statements issued by Churches or Church leaders on behalf of Christians of Jewish origin. It is of importance, however, to know to what extent the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" supported discrimination against these members of the Church, and, also, to know that the CONFESSING CHURCH defended them. Thus I mention the more important statements, which were issued, without recording their full contents. [112] There was sharp controversy and much discussion as to whether the anti-Jewish laws should be applied within the Church. The following persons and institutions protested against such a measure: the Theological Faculty of the University of Marburg (Sept. 19, 1933); the Theological Faculty of the University of Erlangen (Sept. 25, 1933); Rev. Martin Niemoeller (Nov. 2, 1933), and Prof. Rudolf Bultmann (Dec., 1933). On the other hand, the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" declared at the beginning of April, 1933, that only those who were "of pure German blood" should be admitted to the ministry. On May 26, 1932, they had already decided to consider Missionary work amongst the Jews as a great danger "as it is the entrance gate for foreign blood into our national body". The example of the Synod of the Old-Prussian Union (see above) was followed by other Landeskirchen, as for instance in Saxony, Thuringia and Braunschweig: ministers of Jewish origin were to be dismissed. The Church in Saxony even voted, on Dec. 10, 1933, to accept the principles of blood and race, and that only those who according to the laws of the State were compatriots should be members of the national Church! <38>
The decision of the Church of Saxony was publicly rejected by the Theological Faculty of the University of Leipzig, and by the Pastors' Society of the Rhine. The majority of the Theological Faculty of the University of Berlin, however, supported the racialism of the Saxonians. This all happened in the years 1933-1934. In those days, it certainly needed courage to stand up publicly for the rights of Christians of Jewish origin in the Church. It should be noted, however, that the publications mentioned above did not publicly oppose discrimination against the Jews in general, nor even discrimination against Christians of Jewish origin outside the Church.
In March, 1935, the CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union sent a "Word to the Congregations", which was read from the pulpits. We quote the following:
"We believe that our nation is threatened by a mortal danger. This danger lies in a new religion…. in it, racial and nationalistic ideology becomes supreme. Blood and race, nationality, honour and freedom become its idols. … Whoever substitutes blood, race and nationality as the creator and source of authority instead of God, undermines the state." [113]
The Government struck back with arrests. 500 pastors were imprisoned.
* * *
After the notorious Laws of Nuremberg had been promulgated, only individuals in the CONFESSING Church pleaded for the issue of a public declaration. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said : "Only the man who loudly cries out on behalf of the Jews, is at liberty to sing the Gregorian chants". [114]
The "Council of Brethren" of the CONFESSING Church stated, in a declaration in defense of the right to baptize Jews, in September, 1935: "We only say the necessary minimum (alas, perhaps even not the minimum) concerning things about which we are not allowed to keep silent…" [115] <39>
The Provisional Church Council of the CONFESSING Church sent a Memorandum to Hitler, in May, 1936. We quote the following from it:
"… When blood, race, nationality and honour are thus raised to the rank of qualities that guarantee eternity, the Evangelical Christian is bound by the first commandment to reject that assumption. When the Aryan human being is glorified, God's word bears witness to the sinfulness of all men. When in the framework of the National-Socialist ideology, anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian obliging him to hate the Jews, he has nonetheless the divine command to love his neighbour…" [116]
The Memorandum, which was published in the foreign press without the consent of the CONFESSING Church, resulted in the arrest of Dr. Weissler who worked in the office of the Provisional Church Council. He perished in a concentration camp. [117]
On June 23, 1937, several members of the Reich Brethren Council were arrested, and on July 1, 1937, Rev. Martin Niemoeller also. He remained a prisoner until the end of the war. The office of the Provisional Church Council was closed by the authorities, and thus the CONFESSING Church was to a large extent forced into underground resistance.
* * *
No public protest was voiced after the Crystal Night pogroms. In September, 1938, an office for helping persecuted Jews, but mainly Christians of Jewish origin, was opened under the direction of Rev. Grueber. Rev. Grueber also contacted the Jewish and Catholic relief-organizations. Repeated journeys to Switzerland, the Netherlands and Great Britain were made to find places for Jewish refugees. <40>
At the end of 1940, Rev. Grueber was arrested and the office in Berlin was closed. The branches in Heidelberg, under Rev. Maas; in Breslau, under Vikarin Staritz; and in Kassel, continued to function, though under the pressure of fierce hostility. On the initiative of Rev. Werner Sylten, Grueber's deputy, an attempt was made to continue the work of the Berlin office on a smaller scale. Conversations with the Evangelical Church Council of Berlin took place; negotiations with the Gestapo were held. This eventually led to the arrest of Rev. Sylten, who perished in the concentration camp of Dachau, at the end of 1942. Only a few of the 35 members of Grueber's office, most of them of Jewish origin, lived to see the end of the war. Most of them died in the gas chambers. [118]
In Dec., 1938, the Kirchentag of the CONFESSING Church stated:
"… We again face the fact that many servants of the Church are being hampered in the execution of their ministry and are being expelled from their offices. In the hour of threatening war some fulfilled the duty of the Church, doing penance for the whole nation and beseeching forgiveness and deliverance from God's judgment. Thereupon, they were charged with high-treason. in view of what happened to the Jews others earnestly preached the Ten Commandments and were persecuted for it…" [119]
The Thuringian Church, followed by Mecklenburg, Anhalt and Sachsen (all directed by "GERMAN CHRISTIANS") promulgated (February, 1939) a law which eliminated Jews from membership in their Churches. <41>
In April, 1939, the infamous declaration of Godesberg was published. It accepted National-Socialism and stated that "the Christian faith is in irreconcilable opposition to Judaism". The declaration was accepted by the leaders of 11 Landeskirchen in which the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" were the ruling party. The CONFESSING Reich Brethren Council sharply opposed the Godesberg declaration in a statement issued on April 13, 1939. One day later, it also opposed the law of the Thuringian Church (see above) which denied permission to Christians of Jewish origin to be members of the Church. The Reich Brethren Council stated:
"… The men responsible for these laws thereby show themselves to be enemies of the Cross of Christ. They cannot exclude anybody from the Church of Christ. They have, however, separated themselves from the holy Christian Church, by the promulgation of these laws…" [120]
The fundamental difference between "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" and the CONFESSING CHURCH is obvious: the former completely identified themselves with national-socialist racialism, the latter repudiated it verbally but showed weakness of action. One feared that, by an all-out intervention on behalf of all non-Aryans, the theological protest against the separation of Christian non-Aryans from the community of the Church would be politically misinterpreted, and that thus the intervention on behalf of them would become even more difficult. [121]
That the CONFESSING Church hardly spoke out at all was not the worst fact; it seems infinitely worse that the so-called "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" supported Hitler and his racialism. One may agree with the words of the German Lutheran pastors in England: "It is not for us who now live in safety to criticise those who, under fire, have done their utmost not to bow to Baal". The fact remains, however, that so many did bow to Baal. [122]
8 THE NETHERLANDS <42>
Before the second world war, no Church in the Netherlands publicly protested against German anti-Semitism, as distinct from Churches in Great Britain, France, Sweden, the United States etc. The following reasons for this can be given: 1. There was little co-operation between the Protestant Churches. 2. The Churches did not speak out publicly on any subject. 3. The spiritual life of many Churches was at a low ebb. 4. Many people were afraid of endangering Holland's precious neutrality and its economic interests with Germany. 5. Many Christians considered National-Socialism a bulwark against Communism. [123] The exceptions to the rule were provided by inter-denominational Church bodies. In April, 1933, the Dutch Council of the "World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches" adopted and published the following motion:
"The Dutch Council of the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, aware of its duty to promote friendly relations among the nations, and convinced that the anti-Jewish measures taken and carried out in Germany must be regarded as a manifestation of racial hatred which considerably prejudices such an understanding, requests the International Executive Committee to define publicly its position with regard to these measures and, subsequently, to do everything in its power in accordance with the aims and principles of the Alliance, to disperse the tension and indignation which these measures have provoked in the Netherlands as well as in the entire civilized world, and to work towards the establishment of those relations which, according to the principles of the Christian conscience, ought to exist among the different races." [124]
This appeal to the International Executive Committee was successful. [125] The same Council also sent a letter to the "Permanent General Committee of the Dutch Israelite Community", informing them that they had heard with a sense of shame and distress of the treatment of the Jews by the German government on grounds of racial hatred. The Council expressed its conviction "that this hatred is contrary to the Christian conscience" and quoted the letter sent to the International Committee. [126] <43>
In May, 1933, a Manifesto was published, signed by many individual Dutchmen, denouncing anti-Semitism. [127] In the same month, Christians of Jewish origin turned to the "Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH", requesting that on one particular Sunday the Jewish question should be the main theme of the sermon. The Committee replied that "they were convinced that it is the duty of the Church to pay attention to Israel and pray for it, but that in the present circumstances it would not be wise to set apart a special Sunday for this purpose". [128] On May 23, 1933, a public meeting of protest was held. Amongst other speakers was the Rev. J.J. Buskes, who later became one of the leaders of Church resistance during the war. He then spoke "as a member of a Christian Church". Dr. W. Banning also protested against the Nazi terror, "in the name of Socialism and of the Gospel". [129]
* * *
On September 19, 1935, a meeting of protest was held at Amsterdam. There were three Protestant speakers, one of them, Rev. J.J. Buskes. [130] In 1936, the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands declared that members of the Church who were members of the Dutch National-Socialist Party, must be advised to terminate their membership of the party. If they would not heed this admonition, they must be barred from participating in Holy Communion. This measure was maintained throughout the war. The report to the Synod on the N.S.B. (National-Socialist Movement of the Netherlands) says:
"Even though the N.S.B. rejects idolization of the race, the manner in which it stresses in its Program the unity of the Aryan race [131] shows, that it is not blameless in this respect." [132] <44>
A Protestant Committee for help to Protestant refugees of Jewish origin was formed on May 5, 1936.
* * *
In 1938, 7,000 Jewish refugees were admitted into the Netherlands. The Government was of the opinion that Holland could not bear too heavy a strain on the labour market. The Protestant Prime Minister declared: "If an unlimited stream of foreign Jews were admitted, public opinion regarding the Jews will take an unfavourable turn". [133] Thus the border was closed and Jews who had "illegally" entered into Holland were sent back to Germany, unless they could prove that their life was in danger there. Of course it is easy to be wise after the event, and in those days it was not yet clear to everybody that the life of all Jews in Germany was in mortal danger. The fact remains that these inhuman measures were taken by a Government of which most of the members were professing Christians. And no Church protested. Prof. D. Cohen states:
"Our Committee [for help to Jewish refugees] had clashed vigorously with the Government on this point, notwithstanding our good relations and good co-operation with it. However, we had public opinion with us." [134]
The last part of his statement is doubtful, at least regarding a large section of the Protestant press. [135]
A national collection was held on December 3, 1938, and recommended by the
Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:
"The Committee, concerned about the bitter sufferings resulting from the persecution of the Jews, considers it to be the duty of the Church to practise Christian mercy. It urgently recommends that all local churches should take up a special collection, on behalf of the victims of this persecution, so that their suffering may be alleviated." [136] <45>
Here help to the persecuted Jews in general was recommended, not just to Christians of Jewish origin. In November, 1938, the Executive of the Dutch Ecumenical Council turned to the World Council of Churches, Geneva, requesting it to organize immediate action on behalf of the German Jews. [137]
The Protestant Churches in Belgium are minority Churches, together comprising less than half a percent of the population. The following statements are all from the year 1933. To the best of my knowledge no other statements were issued after this year. On April 4, 1933, the Federation of Protestant Churches of Belgium sent the following letter to Dr. Kapler, the President of the Protestant Federation of Germany:
"The Federation of Protestant Churches of Belgium has directed us to send a fraternal message to the Protestant Federation of Germany. We would ask you, Mr. President to accept it in the same Christian spirit, and to do us the honour of transmitting it to your Executive Council. We are much distressed by the events of recent weeks during which the German Jewish population has been subjected to discriminatory measures; the situation threatens to deteriorate even further. Our German co-religionists, imbued with a sense of justice, must certainly be equally distressed by these excesses. It certainly cannot be pleasing to them that, in most countries, spontaneous public opinion has espoused the cause of German Jewry. We would therefore ask you, Mr. President, if it would not be possible for the Federation of German Evangelical Churches itself to intervene, discreetly as they may deem fit, on behalf of the German Jews so that they may be reinstated in all their rights of citizenship. Would it not be a great triumph for the spirit of tolerance, which is certainly a Protestant attribute? Would it not mean a re-establishment, in the eyes of the world, of that reputation which your country has enjoyed for so long, of being a highly cultured country? May one not say that German Jews have, up till now, been much attached to their country; that they have added to its distinction in the field of science, art and literature. <46> In short, that they are known for their adherence to the principles of freedom of conscience? Inspired as we are by purely Christian and humane sentiments, we have no doubt that you will accept the above message in the spirit of grace." Yours faithfully, Henri Anet, Secretary; A. Rey, President. [138]
This letter was certainly not lacking in courtesy and we get the impression that it was written in a spirit of moderate optimism. Apparently it was some months later that the President of the Synod of the Evangelical Protestant Churches of Belgium sent the following letter to the Chief Rabbi of Belgium:
"Time has passed since, during the first explosion of hate throughout Germany, it might be supposed that a period of calm would follow. But according to accounts in the press, it seems that a general and lasting exclusion of all Jewish intellectuals cold-bloodedly continues. This illegal and cruel oppression of a highly respectable minority shows that the new Germany is descending into a mental attitude fit only for the Middle Ages. The destruction of such an out-grown mentality had been, until now, the noblest work and the most imperishable glory of the new spirit of the last four centuries." [139]
Even more outspoken was the address of Rev. Schijns, the President of the Federation of Protestant Churches, at a Meeting of Protest in Bruxelles, on April 6, 1933:
"You have heard the lay protests against anti-Semitic persecutions in Germany. You have heard the Catholic protest. May I be permitted to speak on behalf of the Protestant Churches of Belgium. It is true that the voice of Christ, who clearly proclaimed the inviolable rights and imperative demands of justice, has not always been listened to over the centuries; on many occasions Christians themselves have had recourse to violence; I cannot forget that in the 16th century my ancestors, the Huguenots, and the Beggars, [140] also suffered cruel persecution… Nevertheless, thanks to a clearer understanding of the demands of the Gospel, as well as to the progressive evolution of the lay conscience, we had become sincerely convinced that henceforth violence, which was unanimously condemned by public opinion, is morally inconceivable. Yet now we discover that violence has been 'honourably' reinstated, so that even today it is still attacking innocent victims." <47> We never supposed that, in our times, any person, on religious grounds, could be accused of a political offence! Yet, now we hear that in Germany a religion (the Jewish religion) is being formally and coldly proscribed, by the civil authorities. This inhuman attitude, inspired by a narrow, sectarian nationalism, stands in absolute contradiction to the Gospel: it is a monstrous heresy, which cannot but dwarf all other crimes. The ancient Jewish law contains the following beautiful maxim: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might'. It is therefore with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my might that I deliver here, in the name of my Protestant co-religionists, a message of vigorous and profound sympathy for all innocent victims of violence. The sufferings of today, like those in the past, tragically illustrate the struggle of brute force against the forces of the spirit. But just as moral strength has triumphed in ages past, we are sure that to-day also, by virtue of an eternal law, victory lies with the powers of the spirit!" [141]
Though a small minority, numbering altogether not more than 800,000 souls, the spiritual sons of the Huguenots early and unequivocally protested against the persecution of Jews. They themselves had been persecuted.
Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the Protestant Federation of France, sent the following letter to the Chief Rabbi of France, in 1933:
"The Council of the Protestant Federation of France which reassembled to-day, for the first time since the beginning of the period of the great sufferings of your coreligionists in Germany, has asked me to assure you that the Protestants of France whole-heartedly associate themselves with the indignation of their Jewish compatriots and with the distress of the victims of such base fanaticism. The spiritual sons of the Huguenots are stirred with emotion and sympathy whenever a religious minority is persecuted. They are well aware how much Christianity, and in particular the Reformed Churches, owe to the prophets who paved the way for the Gospel, and feel afflicted by the blows descending upon their Jewish brothers. May God help your sorely tried co-religionists to find in Him their strength and consolation, as did their frequently persecuted ancestors. May He impart to you, and to the Jews of France, the secret of soothing pain and reviving hope. <48>
I wish to reassure you, that we are certain, that all our Churches will unite, during the Holy Week, in fervent intercession on behalf of the Jews of Germany." [142]
In the same year the following letter was sent by Rev. Cleisz, Honorary
President of the Consistory of the Reformed Churches of Lorraine, to the Chief
Rabbi of Nancy:
"You will hardly be surprised to find me among those who energetically protest against the wave of anti-Semitism in Germany, which has cast so many Jewish families in distress. I abhor fanaticism, whatever its source, and am dismayed to observe in the middle of the twentieth century such an excess of folly. Therefore I join whole-heartedly with those who protest against such a tyranny. I wish to assure you of my deep compassion for so many human beings overcome by grief…" [143]
Rev. Wilfred Monod sent the following letter to the French Committee for the
Protection of Persecuted Jewish Intellectuals:
"Allow me to express my feelings of relief at the thought that France is offering hospitality to Jews escaping from the darkness of a new Mediaevalism. Although Jews were crushed by the great Empires of the West; later becoming the vassals of the anti-Semitic Kings of Egypt and Syria; politically annihilated by the Romans; hated by the Moslems; persecuted by the Church; held in public disdain; treated as a stateless and homeless people even in the twentieth century, and sometimes deprived of their civil rights in the countries in which they were dispersed; the Jews have not disappeared as did the Phoenicians or the people of Nineveh. Without territory, without government, without currency, without flag, Abraham's race has kept itself alive. What marvellous obstinacy! What supernatural tenacity! In spite of all this, Judaism has given the human race that mysterious Book which maintains alive on this earth the inextinguishable flame of a universal, international ideal, the world-embracing ideal of human catholicity. Israel has bequeathed to men the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the Messianic vision of the Kingdom of God… On 29th August, 1914, up in the Vosges, one of our Catholic soldiers, mortally wounded, asked for a crucifix, and it was the Jewish chaplain who brought him this venerable symbol, some minutes before he himself gave up his soul in the arms of a Jesuit priest. This happened on a Saturday, the holy day of the Jewish Sabbath. Welcome to the representatives of the wandering nation! On French soil they will find a place to rest their head." [144] <49>
On April 17, 1933, a Protest Meeting was held at Lille. Rev. Bosc was the Protestant spokesman, speaking in his "triple capacity as a human being, a Frenchman and a Christian". We quote the following:
"… Finally, to protest against the persecutions and victimisations of the Jews is a task in harmony with the spirit of Jesus Christ, and here I thank Monsieur l'abbe who has just sounded forth a note of profound truth. Everyone of us knows that the spirit of Jesus Christ is the spirit of peace, the spirit of justice, and more than that: the spirit of brotherhood and of love. It is the spirit which to-day imbues all moral and social systems in the world, so that Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the unrivalled ruler not only by Christianity as a whole but also by all mankind… The spirit of Jesus Christ which, Ladies and Gentlemen, means the spirit out of which are woven the dreams we have of a better future for mankind, the dreams we dream when, surrounded by all sorts of iniquities and by all kinds of ugliness, we nevertheless look towards some glorious dawn! The spirit of Jesus means that spirit which will triumph because it is the living truth. It is in my triple capacity as human being, Frenchman and Christian that I fully pledge my entire, conscious support to this movement of truth in its efforts to infuse a little justice and kindness into mankind, against the attempt to lead humanity back to the night and the iniquities of the Middle Ages, from which it began to emerge." [144]
* * *
On November 20, 1935, a Meeting of Protest was held in the Hall of Chopin, Paris. Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the Protestant Federation of France, said the following:
"… Since I am here representing both Christian and Protestant France, I should say that in the light of what is going on in Germany - whether it be the persecutions of Jews or of Christians - it is impossible for us not to add our most energetic protests to those you have heard so far.
What Christianity Owes to Judaism
"Christianity, as has been indicated by President Reynaud, is essentially a universal creed. Once one believes in Christ, whatever one's denomination may be, it is impossible not to subscribe fully to the words of that Jew of olden times St. Paul, the apostle, who having plumbed the depths of Christ's thought, exclaimed: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus'. (Gal. 3, 28). This is the basic tenet on which, since July 1933, all preaching in the Churches of Germany has been practically proscribed. <50>
First I wish to state that what has shocked and appalled Christian conscience, what has provoked protests from one end of the Christian world to the other? Protests which will certainly be reiterated and increased - is precisely the fact that this new gospel of racialism already has been applied to the Jews, and seems to have reached its culmination point in the Nuremberg Decrees. One cannot know whether even worse may not happen later on. I have met many Jews who had been driven out of Germany since the Hitler revolution, and when I went to Germany as recently as this year, on two occasions while travelling through a large part of Germany, I could not but feel intensely moved on seeing, at the entrance of villages and towns, large signboards forbidding access to the Jews; and on many trees along the roads, posters full of insults against them. Christian as I am, and knowing what Christianity owes to Judaism, I know that the Church of Jesus Christ is the daughter of what it calls the ancient Church of Israel. The Protestant in me knows what the Gospel owes to those prophets who, beginning eight centuries before Jesus Christ, have presaged the universalism which the religion of Christ would later proclaim throughout the world. Did not Isaiah welcome the day when all nations would flow unto the mountain of the Lord? And others after him, such as Jeremiah, did they not show their people, the only people ever elected, the road by means of which they were to bring to others the revelation which had been bestowed upon them, so that all nations might come to know the true God? The Gospel is the heritage and fulfilment of that great hope of the prophets. It is impossible for a Christian, when he sees the infamous crusades conducted against Judaism, not to be among those who declare that they are unable to forget what they owe to the Jewish people. We are among those who remember all this with deep gratitude. We believe that this gratitude, in view of the suffering of this people who are being crucified once again, ought to be shown in acts of sympathy and solidarity.
Racialism inside the Christian Churches
"The gospel of racialism of which you have just been told does not rear its ugly head solely outside the Church, but also inside the Christian Churches. Since July 1933, under the pretext of rallying the whole of Germany round the doctrine of racial superiority - you have seen the outcome of such teaching - and of purity of blood, they have begun to persecute those who are not 100 percent Aryan, even inside the churches. I was in Berlin in July, 1933, and there, where every wall might have been equipped with a hidden microphone, I met one of the most representative personalities of the Evangelical Church of Prussia. He informed me of what had been happening during the last few weeks. He said that he had felt compelled to resign from the high position he had occupied in the German Church, even though his resignation would mean a considerable financial sacrifice. He and those who were thinking and acting like him were now unable to speak, to write, to telephone, or to do anything whatsoever. <51> "But," said he, "how could I have agreed to go and tell the young Evangelical pastors whom I ordained two or three years ago, that they are not fit to preach the Gospel or to carry out the duties of their ministry, simply because they have a Jewish grandmother or grandfather? This problem of the non-Aryam has since then caused much anguish to many men who are pastors or simply beadles. The new gospel has made its appearance in the Church, propagated, preached and spread by groups calling themselves the 'Deutsch-Christliche' or the German Christians. It is necessary, they claim, to expel from the churches and from all church posts, in every denomination, those men who are not of absolutely pure Aryan blood for three or four generations back.
The Church Resists
"This has resulted in unbearably painful conflicts. It should be acknowledged that tremendous pressure was exerted by the State authorities as well as by the pressure of the opinion which increasingly tends to assert in religious circles that Adolf Hitler was the man through whom Germany was able to re-establish herself. in spite of all this, however, there have been instances of Catholic and Protestant consciences refusing to bow and submit. Resistance was organized in the Catholic Church, where the warning bell to the conscience of Christians was rung by that admirable man, the Cardinal Archbishop of Munich. In the Protestant Church, the great voice of the theologian, Kar1 Barth, and the voices of many others, have been raised to rally Christian consciences to their call. A completely new Confessing Church has sprung up comprising more than half of the pastors in Germany, quite apart from those who are still hesitating, because they must make a living, and, therefore, ask themselves what will happen to-morrow. About a thousand pastors have placed themselves behind Bishop Mueller, the 'German Christian', whom you, Mr. Paul Reynaud, have just mentioned.
The "New Gospel"
"It is not only through the persecution of the non-Aryans that the desire has arisen amongst many Germam to preach a new gospel, but because of a claim to meet Christ on a new basis, particularly on the basis of the glorification of the German race and blood. The most extraordinary statements have been made. Paganism has asserted itself on the fringes of the Church and its influence gradually has pervaded it. An effort even has been made in certain churches by pastors imbued with the spirit of national-socialism, to have the Old Testament - containing the magnificent history of the Jewish people and I even would say, of God's great acts toward the Jewish race - banned and barred from religious instruction. Included also is that moving page in the first book of your Bible, and ours - note this, any Jews who may be listening to me - where we are told that Abraham went so far as to be ready to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, to God!
"Never will the Churches Agree…" <52>
"Subsequently there have been attempts to make peace with the Churches, and the papers during the past few weeks have brought us news of 'peace feelers' offered to the Churches. Negotiations were envisaged both with the Catholic Church and with the Evangelical Churches. But they never will induce either true Catholics or Protestants, to put as a Gospel source, an affirmation of the superiority of the German race over the others, nor a denial of anybody's right to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. They may again start their persecutions, and I think they will. They may chase pastors and priests from their churches and send them to concentration camps. They may resort to petty annoyance and to persecution; however, I am absolutely convinced that the Christian conscience has been aroused. Perhaps this experience was necessary to awaken it out of a certain stupor? The Christian conscience will absolutely oppose the events which have succeeded each other which such rapidity over the past few years and any attempt which may be made to persuade the Churches in any way to insert into the Gospel (which desires that all men should be considered the children of God and be reconciled in universal brotherhood) an addition which asserts that some shall rank first and others may be excluded. Never will the Churches agree that the Gospel of love, symbolized by the two arms of Christ extended on the cross, will be replaced by a gospel of race and blood. I am convinced that by affirming our sympathy with all in Germany who are being persecuted for their views, and with all in the Christian Church who make efforts to resist (as I have tried to show) the determined attempt to lead them onto the ground of racial discrimination, we are helping them in their resistance. We are helping them to discover that there is a Christian, as well as, a merely secular public opinion, throughout the entire world, which is aware of all that this resistance implies in the way of present sacrifice, and perhaps of still more suffering in the future. Let us therefore be among those who by word and example give evidence of that sympathy and solidarity. Let us unite here, as Mr. Paul Reynaud has asked us to do, without distinction of religious, philosophic or even political convictions, in protest against the besmirching of justice and the dignity of man." [145]
* * *
The Council of the Protestant Federation of France, in its session of
November 29, 1938, unanimously adopted the following Resolution:
"The Council of the Protestant Federation of France, reassembled for the first time since a terrible crime has provided a pretext for new persecutions against the Jews, feels itself to be the mouthpiece of all the Churches which it represents in our country, in making a solemn Protest against a similar outburst of violence and cruelty. <53>
The Christian Churches will betray the message entrusted to them, if they do not unreservedly condemn racial doctrines which are contrary to the teaching of Christ and the apostles; and if they do not express their utmost disapproval of the barbaric methods by which such doctrines are practised…" [146]
In the light of "the serious problem confronting the authorities by the arrival on French territory of numerous foreigners who had been expelled from their own country by persecution", the Council of the Protestant Federation in France instructed "all Protestant Frenchmen" as follows:
1. To aid the Government - in determined resistance to any suggestion of violence, wherever it may come from and in whatever manner it expresses itself - to solve so complex a problem in a quiet atmosphere and with respect for human dignity. 2. To contribute as much as possible, by their gifts and by their co-ordinated initiative, for the relief of the terrible distress which they are witnessing and which makes its appeal to them. The Council draws their attention to the existence of a French Committee for Protestant Refugees, Aryans and non-Aryans, which is now functioning and to which financial contributions can be sent… [147]
The Protestant Churches of Switzerland are cantonal Churches, distinct and independent from one another. In most of the cantonal Churches, the legislative body is the Synod and the executive organ the Synodal Council. The Federation of the Protestant Churches of Switzerland at first consisted only of National Churches, but it soon admitted the Free Evangelical Churches, the Methodist Church and the "Evangelische Gemeinschaft". The Federation has 2,888,122 baptized members. At the beginning of April, 1933, the following Declaration, signed by 21 Protestant ministers, was addressed to "various Protestant Ecclesiastical groups in French-speaking Switzerland":
"Moved by the present situation of the German Jews, and unable to understand how the authorities, otherwise attentive to moral values, can ignore the right of freedom of conscience, and of work, as well as security to every human being, we, the undersigned, think that the time has come to draw the attention of Christians to the serious implications in an attitude which is the very negation of the evangelical spirit; a spirit which is synonymous with love, freedom and mutual assistance. We expect the Churches to raise their voices in order to claim for the Jews the same degree of justice, which it is their duty to demand for every oppressed minority." [148] <54>
On May 31, 1933, the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton
Vaud sent the following letter to the President of the Council of the
Federation of Protestant Churches of Switzerland:
"We beg to bring to your attention the fact that the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton of Vaud, at its annual meeting at Lausanne, unanimously resolved upon the following Declaration, which we now submit to use as you see fit. "Moved by the news which has reached us from Germany concerning the numerous and regrettable restraints imposed upon the freedom of conscience, and, in particular, concerning the ill-treatment of the Jewish population of that country; "and with the conviction that the Gospel of Jesus Christ constitutes an affirmation of freedom and love among the races of mankind; the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton of Vaud, assembled at Lausanne, unites itself with all protests raised in favour of freedom of conscience and respect for the Jews of Germany." [149]
In September, 1933, the Protestant Churches of Geneva published the following Declaration:
"Events shocking and hurtful to a sense of justice are mounting in Germany and have repercussions here. Men are persecuted for their opinions. Dismissed, boycotted, ostracized, they are suffering as in the days when neither freedom of thought nor of conscience were tolerated. The mere fact of belonging to the Jewish race, even if only by descent, frequently incurs implacable treatment. These actions have given rise to protests in numerous countries and in the most varied circles. Here too, our Christian conscience has been roused. It would be dangerous to consider ourselves better than others. Intolerance and injustice have their roots in our own soil. We must be on our guard. Several papers make appeals for violence. The seeds of discord are being sown among our people. Anti-Semitism, which until now has been foreign to us, now finds its advocates among us. Members of our Churches, also, forgetting that the same blood flows in all mankind, and that, before God our Father, we are all brothers, have been swayed by the passions of these times. Let us not permit a spirit incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ to take root in our country." The National Protestant Church of Geneva; the Free Evangelical Church of Geneva; Evangelical Christian Association; the Committee for Popular Evangelism; the Council of the Methodist Church. [150] <55>
It is striking that the declarations and resolutions issued in Switzerland, so many times mention the danger of anti-Semitic influences within the country itself, and sometimes within the Church. [151]
* * *
On November 14, 1938, the Church Council of Canton Zurich addressed the following public letter "To the Reformed People of Zurich":
"In indignation and horror we recently have witnessed, in the state neighbouring us to the north, that Jew baiting has erupted and, in its dimensions, surpassed the severest atrocities yet experienced. We feel in spirit united with all our brothers and sisters in the neighbouring country who, whatever their attitude toward Jewry may be, deeply deplore such injustice, yet they must keep silent on the subject. We must not be silent. We must consider it a Christian obligation to cry out against it, not only within our church walls but to the world at large. It is a terrible injustice to exterminate, by all conceivable means, a nation which possesses, as does every nation, the right to exist. It fills us with deep humiliation and shame to discover in a country living for centuries under the influence of the gospel and of Luther, that sentiments of passionate hatred can break out and boil over against a small racial and religious minority, and that all humane and Christian feelings be suffocated. It plainly shows us, to our horror, what human hearts are capable of when racial hatred and blind raving passion win the upper hand, drowning the voice of justice, mercy and goodness. Can we Swiss suppose that we are immune against such frenzy? But are not the same dark powers active within our own people, openly at times and sometimes secretly, confusing conscience; stirring passions; igniting racial hatred? It pains us that consideration for so many unemployed citizens in our own nation prevents us from offering a protecting asylum to the suffering refugees, who, like wild game, are chased from country to country. <56> At least let us do for them all that is in our power! When in the next few days a general collection is made for the benefit of these refugees, among whom are not a few who, although Jewish by birth, are of the Christian faith and thus a part of the Evangelical Church, let us open our hearts and hands and express loving-kindness towards these remorselessly persecuted people. Let us close our hearts to all feelings of unchristian racial and religious hatred. Neither hate, slander, oppression nor violence, but Jesus Christ's love alone is capable of bringing longed for peace to restless humanity. But above all, let us pray to the Almighty that He will protect all those who are persecuted, and that He will save our Swiss people from the disgrace of an anti-Jewish campaign and deliver us, and all nations, from the forces of violence and injustice, and bring His Kingdom of justice, love and peace." [152]
Again (as in 1933) the danger of anti-Semitic influences within Switzerland was mentioned. The letter also gave as an excuse for not admitting more refugees, that there were "so many unemployed citizens in our own nation". The same motive had led other Governments - as for instance the Dutch Government - to issue decrees restricting immigration.
The members of the Ministers Union of Geneva wrote a letter to the Chief Rabbi of the City of Geneva in which they expressed their deep sympathy with the persecuted Jews. This letter, together with the declaration of the Church Council of Zurich (see above) was read at a service, held in the synagogue on a Sunday and not, as usual, on a Saturday. This postponement was in order that the prayers of that day could be united with those of all the Christian Churches in Switzerland for the persecuted Jews. [153]
In December, 1938, the Synod of the Canton of Bern issued the following
Declaration:
"The Synod of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Canton Bern declares, that it views the merciless persecution of Jews and Fellow-Christians stemming from Jewry, as an expression of a spirit which has nothing in common with the spirit of Jesus Christ. It calls upon all members of our Church to intercede on behalf of the persecuted, especially our persecuted brothers; to stand up for them on every occasion; and to oppose any further attempt to poison the soul of our people with the spirit of racial hatred." [154]
* * * <57>
Leading Danish theologians - three professors and one lecturer of the Copenhagen University [155] and the Bishop of Copenhagen, Fuglsang-Damgaard - published a declaration on January 10, 1936, denouncing an anti-Semitic brochure, "The Christian Church according to the concept of the peoples of the North", based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Professor Frederik Torm related the history of this forgery in an informative article. The matter drew attention, even in Germany, where the "Volkische Beobachter" in its edition of January 14, 1936 reported the story as told by its correspondent in Copenhagen under the caption "Danish theologians grow nervous" and with the subtitle: "The Jewish question arises in Denmark". The report of the former German Envoy, Richthofen, dated January 13, 1936, shows the same attitude, considering the article of the theologians as an act of defence against "the ever increasing understanding of the Jewish question in Germany among the Danish public". [156]
In the autumn of 1938, Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard said in his sermon at the opening of a new church, Lundehuskirken, that it was with deep pain that the Christian community had heard about the persecution of the Jews in Germany, which had reached a culminating-point in those days. 149 pastors of Copenhagen supported these words by a public statement and pronounced their "deep sympathy with our Jewish countrymen on account of the sufferings which at this time befall their brethren and which must fill every Christian with horror". <58> Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard asked the pastors to pray for the suffering Jews in the services the following Sunday, and he himself declared at a service in Helligkors Church, that we must pray to God "to protect our people against the poisonous pestilence of anti-Semitism, hatred of the Jews and persecution of the Jews. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was David's Son after the flesh, and those who love Him cannot hate His people". [157]
The Swedish Ecumenical Council sent the following letter, dated April 3, 1933, to the German Evangelical Church Council in Berlin:
"The Swedish Ecumenical Council, a representation of different Swedish Church communities, sincerely regrets the existing conditions in Germany and the boycott of German goods abroad, and is deeply concerned by the anti-Semitic action in your country, such as has been expressed in official statements and actions. We hope and pray that, with God's help, it will be possible for the German Evangelical Churches actively to stress the genuinely Christian principles, which you upheld in your appeal before the latest elections. "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." As Christian brothers, we are anxious to be in communication with you in this matter and further hear your views. In sincere communion in the faith, for the Swedish Ecumenical Council: Arch-bishop Erling Eidem, Chairman. [158]
The Appeal of the German Evangelical Church Council to which this letter referred, was published on March 3, 1933, just before the elections for the Reichstag. Unfortunately, we do not know whether any reply was received by the Swedish Ecumenical Council.
In 1933, 64 prominent Protestant Church leaders also published an "Appeal to Swedish Christianity", warning against anti-Semitic influences in Sweden:
"Action against the Jews in Germany seems to work as a stimulant - and no small one - for the anti-Semitism which exists in certain Swedish circles. Many of us may have been prone to consider this movement in our country as insignificant, and not worth combating. But the matter is more serious than that. If sufficiently great spiritual strength is not mobilized against this fanatical and shortsighted nationalism, it is difficult to foresee the result. <59> The undersigned regard it as their duty to express the worry and anger with which this anti-Semitic movement has filled them, and to appeal to Swedish Christianity of all denominations to fight against racial hatred, stressing Christ's valuation of man and his brother-love. <59> Already from a general and cultural viewpoint, anti-Semitism is an expression of ingratitude and shortsightedness. No less in our country, citizens of Jewish descent, have contributed in all fields to such a degree that, if all trace of what they have done were erased from the Swedish civilization, to-day, it would be much poorer. But first, anti-Semitism must be condemned from a Christian-religious viewpoint. Here too one can, rightly, speak of a debt of gratitude. The prophets and psalms of Israel also belong to our holy heritage. And in spite of all wild racial hypotheses, Jesus Christ is a son of Israel and a perfecter of these prophets' work. However, it is not only, and not first and foremost, the gratitude for a spiritual inheritance which urges Christian people to take their stand against anti-Jewish activity. They would be denying their Master if they did not do so. For in Him all racial differences are overcome, in the divine love, which has taken form in Him, we are all each other's brothers, no matter to which nation or race we belong. Whosoever professes himself a follower of Christ, yet lets himself be seized by nationalistic presumption, of which anti-Semitism is one of the most repellant expressions, must realize that any action designed to attach a stamp of inferiority on members of the Jewish people or deprive them of full civil rights, is in absolute opposition to the spirit and teaching of Jesus. The gravity of the situation has impelled us to make public this declaration, which is also an appeal to Swedish Christianity to oppose unmitigatedly a propaganda which is becoming louder and more aggressive anti-Jewish, and the mentality of violence from which it stems. Time must not be lost. Freedom of speech is not yet stifled. The gospel of Truth and Love may still sound its voice." [159]
At a meeting of the Stockholm Pastors' Society, held in 1934, Professor Nygren of Lund opened the discussion on the subject: "What is the reason for the struggle within the German Church?" The Pastors' Society unanimously decided to publish in the press their agreement with the fundamental viewpoints expressed in Prof. Nygren's address. The Society's Resolution reads as follows:
"The furious struggle now taking place within the German Church is not on a personal question, a question of rights or a question of organization. Nor is it a struggle for or against the National-Socialistic State or for or against the liberalistic freedom ideal. <60> The struggle concerns Christianity itself, its existence or non-existence. What is happening in Germany to-day is nothing more or less than the appearance of a new religion, beside and in contrast to Christianity - a religion based on 'Blut und Boden', on racial idealism and racial egoism. This has to some extent thrown Christians and non-Christians into jail. From a deeper viewpoint, the difference between 'German Christians' and the heathen 'German Faith Movement', therefore, becomes surprisingly small. If we observe the deepest tendency, of which, in general, the followers of these movements are quite unconscious, it can even be said that, for the former group, it is a question of the new religion in Christian guise; for the latter, the same religion in Germanic guise. The extraordinary danger is that the present Church management has not the least understanding of the reason for the struggle. It believes that it is fighting for the sake of Christianity and does not realize that it has slipped into a new racial religion. True, it often stresses that the Bible and the Confession should be left 'unas- sailed', but the tone of the voice itself reveals that it is on something else that one subsists. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The real pathos first appears when one can talk of 'Blut und Boden', 'Blut und Rasse', 'Blut und Ehre'. The god one really worships is the idol of one's own people. But in the German Church there are men - and fortunately these are not few - who understand what is at stake; what this new religion has to offer the people, from a Christian viewpoint, is nothing less than idolatry. One creates a new god in one's own image, the image of 'the German Man'. The Christians who see this must, through their faithfulness to the Gospel, be forced out into the struggle. Because of this they find themselves in tragic conflict; for there is so much in the new state to which, in their hearts, they say 'yes', and with joy. But when they fight this new heathen spirit that has penetrated the Church and seized the power in it, they are stamped as enemies of the state by the uncomprehending Church management. The point has been reached, where those who do not want to give up their Christian faith are attacked by the German Church management: with external means of power, the secret state police, removals from office and suspensions. We, Evangelical Christians of a kindred people, have seen with grief and concern that the German Church management through such activities has tarnished the Christian name. With the deepest sympathy we follow the oppressed Christians' brave and joyfully self-sacrificing struggle, in defence of Evangelical Christianity, not only in Germany but also the world over." [160] <61> The Resolution contains points that to-day are obvious to us, but in those days they undoubtedly enlightened many ignorant people. Much that has been said by the Lutheran Church leaders of Sweden, already in the first years of Hitler's regime, shows a deep theological insight into the nature of anti-Semitism. Few Churches in other lands showed this insight at so early a date. This fact should prevent us from over-simplifying the answers to the question, as to how far certain of Luther's views about the Jewish people influenced the Lutheran Churches in the twentieth century.
* * *
The following statement, signed by Erling Eidem, Archbishop of Uppsala, and 25 other Church leaders was issued by the Swedish Ecumenical Council, in autumn 1938:
"A storm of violence and cruelty goes through the world. The Jewish people are severely hit by this. Their horrible fate must awake in Christian minds strong indignation, as well as deep sympathy for the victims. To belong to the Jewish race is becoming equivalent to being stateless within that portion of humanity which calls itself Christian. This brings shame upon the Christian name.
Anti-Semitic Propaganda in Sweden
"In our country, too, anti-Semitic propaganda is prosecuted, even though it may, in some respects, avoid publicity and, especially under the pressure of recent occurrences, has met with deserved resistance. More than others, Christians here must be on their guard. No racial differences exist in the Christian evaluation of man. Love of Christ forbids branding any person inferior. Persecution of the people of Israel on the one hand requests Christ's congregation to fight against violence and injustice, and preventive action on the other. The Swedish Ecumenical Council, representing the ecumenical world organizations as well as the larger Swedish Church communities, hereby begs to remind you of our Christian responsibility in this matter. We must not forget that we too, bear a measure of guilt for this evil power that has arisen through loveless ness and injustice in the world. We appeal to all who, in their capacity as pastor, congregation head or preacher, are responsible for the creation of public opinion in such circles as come under Christian influence, to resist the spirit of mercilessness and injustice in the anti-semitic propaganda, by all ways and means available in each community. It seems especially important to us to try to prevent its poison penetrating the minds of the Young. Not only religious instruction in the schools can give an opportunity for this, but also instruction in Sunday schools, confirmation classes and Bible classes. A few congregational evenings could be used to throw light upon the plight of the Jewish people and to stress our Christian responsibility towards them. The un-Christian element in all racial hatred could at times be stressed in the sermon. All discussion of politics naturally must be banned from such Christian instruction and preaching. <62>
Aid of Refugees
"Where the feeling of responsibility has been awakened, it must be transformed into action. This can be done by gifts to the relief organizations among the banished, which also have branches in our country. In co-operation with other organizations, the Swedish Ecumenical Council's Refugee Committee seeks to aid refugees both within and outside our country's borders, particularly Christians of non-Aryan descent. The money already collected is now almost spent, but the need for help is still very great. Gifts for this activity can be deposited under the name "Help for Refugees" on the Swedish Ecumenical Council's postal current account No. 80710, Stockholm. Recently, the Council's Refugee Committee, the Deacon Board's Social Committee and the Swedish Israel Mission have started other aid activities, such as accommodating children of Jewish refugees, preferably Jewish-Christian, in Swedish homes for a shorter or longer period, and trying to find places farmers' homes for about a year for Jewish-Christian youth, particularly male, who need re-education for later emigration to countries which have declared themselves willing to receive them. Information of such homes as well as financial contributions will be gratefully received by Pastor B. Pernow, Idungatan 4, Stockholm, postal current account No. 125545.
Intercession
"At this period, with the mentality of violence penetrating minds more and more, it is important not to neglect the possibilities we still have to make Christ's mind and Christ's thoughts heard regarding the relation between man and man, between people and people. Scarcely at any other point has this task seemed clearer and more demanding than as it concerns the Western peoples' conduct towards Israel. May Christ's love in our hearts light a flame of concern for a people who were the Lord's own, the people of the Prophets and the Apostles. May Christ's love make us burning and persistent in our intercession for those who suffer persecution, as well as, for those who persecute. May they receive the grace to repent. May Christ's love make us firm against all hatred, drive out all fear, and make our hands ready for service. Brethren, in the name of Christ we beg you to receive this appeal in a brotherly spirit." [161]
It is difficult to understand how "all discussions of politics" can be banned from Christian instruction and teaching, as the statement demands, whilst at the same time resisting "the spirit of mercilessness…". <63> In this same statement, support was requested for the Refugee Committee, which sought "to aid refugees… particularly Christians of non-Aryan descent". We have seen the same trend in Churches in other countries. However, the appeal of the Bishops of Sweden, also in 1938, pleaded for aid to Jewish children and youth in general. This "Appeal for Help to Jewish Refugees" was signed by Archbishop Eidem and 12 other Church leaders:
"With deep sorrow and sincere sympathy, we have witnessed the terrible sufferings to which the Jewish people, not least during recent months, have been exposed spiritually as well as physically. The question of the Jewish people has become a question for all mankind. No one can escape responsibility any longer. Our consciences shaken by the suffering of innocent people will not rest until peace and refuge has been provided for the Jewish people. Each one of us must be on his guard against contamination by the plague of racial hatred; we must not betray the Christian commandment of love to every suffering neighbour. May we willingly do our Samaritan service in aiding mercy. The duty and possibility nearest to us is to support Jewish refugees who have had to relinquish home and property. We must hurry to help provide a refuge and a new future for innocent children and youth. Various collections in this respect have already begun. We hereby wish to stress that collections for Jewish children and youth are being mediated by the Swedish Church's Deacon Board. Contributions should be sent to "Deacon Board, Help for Jewish children, Stockholm 7, Postal Cheque Account No. 155650'." [162]
The first anti-Jewish Law, restricting the economic activities of Jews, was enacted in 1938. The representatives of the Churches in the Hungarian Upper House, amongst whom was the Protestant Bishop Ravasz, voted for the passage of this law. [163] <64>
"The only amendment the representatives of the Churches wished to be introduced was that certain modifications should be included for the benefit of the baptized Jews. Apart from that, they took the view that once the Bill had become law 'it would be possible to avoid emphasis being laid on the Jewish question and thus to allay anti-Semitism'. This attitude turned out to be a fatal mistake. It was the stone that started the landslide, and it is all the more regrettable that the Christian Churches lent this Bill their support." [164]
Rabbi Fabian Hershkovits (former Chief Rabbi of Budapest, now living in Tel-
Aviv, Israel) had the following to say:
"Bishop Ravasz was certainly not an anti-Semite. After the war, in 1947, he was the President of the Council of Christians and Jews of which I also was a member. He and his friends intended, by supporting the anti-Jewish law in 1938, to guard the national Hungarian interest. He did not understand that Europe, after Hitler had come to power, had become a powder-magazine; one should not light a match in a powder-magazine; that was Bishop Ravasz's historical mistake." [165]
The fact remains that Protestant Bishops supported an anti-Semitic Law. If this was an error of judgment, it certainly was a fatal error.
In 1939, the Hungarian government introduced a bill for the enactment of the second anti-Jewish Law. The measures included drastic curtailments of personal rights. The representatives of the Churches "stood solidly against the passage of the bill" but ultimately "refrained from voting down the Teleki government," that is to say they did not vote against the passage of the Law but tried "to incorporate such provisions in the law as would insure the greatest possible benefits for particular Jewish categories, the first among these being the Jewish converts to Christianity". [166] Hilberg comments:
"In waging the struggle for the baptized Jews in the first place, the church had implicitly declined to take up the struggle for Jewry as a whole. In insisting that the definition exclude Christians, the church in effect stated the condition upon which it would accept a definition that set aside a group of people for destruction." [167] <65>
We hardly found any statement against anti-Semitism issued by one of the
Orthodox Church leaders in Eastern Europe, before the second world war.
Rumania was notorious for the strong anti-Semitic influences in that country.
The following Declaration, issued on April 15, 1933, by Mgr. Pimem,
Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, is the more striking:
"We now are in the Holy Week and for a time we must forget petty affairs and acts of men. Nevertheless I wish to state one thing, namely, that I do not approve of the actions and policies of the Nazis with respect to the Jews of Germany, just as I disapprove of the anti-Christian campaign carried out in Russia. I desire peace for the entire world and on the occasion of this Holy Feast I express my wishes for the health and progress of our people. We should follow but one course: the way of Christ, for only thus can we be led to salvation." [168]
Many leaders of the Churches in Great Britain publicly protested against the first anti-Jewish measures in Germany. Most of the protests were made by the leaders of the Church of England, though some made by other Churches are also recorded. The Church of England, however, certainly had the widest range of influence in England. I have not recorded all protests that were made. [169] <66>
Already in 1933 the protests were clear and unequivocal, though the Church leaders seemed to be afraid of offending the German Government. The Archbishop of Canterbury said in the House of Lords, on March 30, 1933, in reply to statements made by Lord Reading:
"I feel that it would be a decided omission on my part, were I not to state publicly, in the name of the worthiest citizens of our country, whom I represent here, that I entirely agree with the words just spoken by the Right Hon. Lord Reading, words which touched us all. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will, as I know it hopes to do, be able to assure us that it is doing its utmost to express to the Jewish community the sympathy of this country and of all Christian subjects, - not least of those amongst us who have a feeling of sincere friendship for the German nation." [170]
The Archbishop himself apparently belonged to "those amongst us who have a
feeling of sincere friendship for the German nation".
The Bishop of Ripon addressed the following Message to the International
League combating Anti-Semitism and Racialism, on May 1, 1933:
"Most gladly do I avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with you and the International League in your struggle against anti-Semitism, on the occasion of the distressing situation created in Germany by the new form of government. It seems almost incredible that such things should happen in the 20th century, and above all in a country like Germany. The leaders of this country, - of the Church as well as of the State, - have not left the German government in doubt as to the feelings aroused in us by its policy of cruelty and suicide." [171]
On May 5, 1933, the Archbishop of York issued the following Message:
"Racial persecution is an insult to civilization and culture. It is our duty to endeavour to understand the cause and the character of the Nazi revolution in Germany, which has gained the support of a large number of the best citizens of the country. But although it generally happens that understanding produces sympathy, the persecution of Jews, Pacifists and others, such as has so far disgraced the conquests of the Revolution, cannot but alienate all sympathies. It is highly important that the government and leaders of the German nation should realize how great the animosity is which these acts provoke among the best British citizens. <67> Whatever excuses may be made for deeds of violence committed in the course of a revolution, no condemnation can be too severe for the persecution and the organized terror, which undeniably are typical aspects of the recent revolution." [172]
No doubt the Nazi revolution in Germany had gained the support of a large number of citizens of that country. That the Archbishop believed that they belonged to the best citizens of Germany, is typical of the atmosphere that reigned in those days. Fortunately, however, "the best British citizens were provoked by the persecution".
On May 15, 1933, a Meeting of Protest was held in Birmingham.
The Bishop of Birmingham presented the following Resolution:
"This meeting of Christian citizens of Birmingham who are anxious to promote friendly international relations, expresses its profound conviction that the discriminating measures adopted against the Jewish race, both in Germany and elsewhere, are contrary to the spirit and the principles of Christianity. It urges Christian men and women everywhere to exert their influence in order to do away with racial and national prejudice." [173]
The resolution was adopted at the close of the Meeting.
On May 31, 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Anglican
Clergy at Westminster. The English Primate appealed to the German nation:
"to give up, without delay, the racial discrimination which is now being practised. The true strength of a nation and the respect owing to it by other nations lies in the impartial administration of justice to all those who live in its territory". [174]
On June 27, 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Protest, held at Queen's Hall, London:
"We all know that at this very time while we are gathered here in an atmosphere of peace and security, the members of the Jewish community in Germany are being expelled from all public employment, from the posts which they had obtained in virtue of their qualifications, in law, in medicine, and at the universities, and that they are even excluded from concert halls, where music was always considered to be the language common to all mankind. They are being progressively deprived - even when permission is given to practise their profession or their trade - of every chance of earning a living… <68> I think with particular indignation of what I have heard concerning the treatment inflicted on Jewish children, who are set apart in schools, separated from other children as though they were unclean. Think of the effect this must produce on such children in whom the feeling is inculcated from their tenderest years that they are not worthy to mix with other Germans! And then picture to yourselves the effect this is bound to have on non-Jewish German children, who are thus taught from their earliest days to despise and look down upon other children. When injustice prevails to such an extent, it is impossible here or in any part of the civilized world, that men for whom justice is a part of the heritage they desire to keep intact should remain silent. They must needs speak, were it only to ease their own conscience." [175]
The Archbishop showed a remarkable insight when he expressed his particular indignation about the separation of Jewish children in schools from other children. That was at a time when many Christians and Jews tended to underestimate the malevolent intentions of the rulers of the Third Reich.
Representatives of all religious creeds, responding to an appeal of the
United Council of Christian Churches in Ireland (now renamed the Irish
Council of Churches) voted for the following Resolution, on the occasion
of a public Meeting of Protest, held at Belfast, in May 1933:
"We have met here in order to express our deepest regret that millions of law-abiding citizens who are not guilty of any crime or of any criminal intentions, should have been accused, persecuted and placed beyond the pale of the law, for the sole reason that they belong to the race which was, after all, the source of our European religion, and to which the founder of Christianity belonged. The meeting is horrified at the thought of the sufferings endured and the consequences, which are bound to ensue for Europe and the whole world. The history of the human race, of these islands, and of Ireland herself presents countless examples of the disastrous effects that persecution has had for us, not to mention the repercussion elsewhere. We know the obstacles that intolerance placed in the way of our national development, the harm it has done, the wounds it has inflicted, the hatred it has caused to accumulate in the course of centuries; hatred by which the minds of men are poisoned long after the actual grievances have disappeared. For this reason we deplore this new seed of death, the dire results of which we foresee, not only for Germany, but also for the whole of Europe."[176] <69>
The Church of Scotland is by far the largest Church in Scotland. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is the final authority of that Church. It is convened annually in May and attended by about 700 ministers and 700 elders, delegated by the presbyteries of the Church. The following statement was issued by the General Assembly, in May, 1933:
"The General Assembly rejoice that, in this country, the longstanding traditions of friendliness and goodwill to the Jewish people continue to be maintained; they deplore the growth of anti-Semitism in many lands to-day, and, in particular, its recent intensified manifestations in Germany; and they respectfully appeal to the sister German Churches to secure, through their influence with their fellow countrymen and governing authorities, that, notwithstanding the inevitable unsettlement of revolutionary conditions, the suffering of the innocent shall cease, and justice and charity towards all shall prevail." [177]
The Church of Scotland apparently was optimistic about the "influence of the sister German Churches with their fellow-countrymen and governing authorities". We, who now live after the events, are not astonished that the General Assembly lamented, in 1937, that, "the protesting voice of the Christian Church has been so barren of results". [178] The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was the only ecclesiastical authority, which as far as I know, spoke out against anti-Semitism year after year. The contents of the statements show that it was not an automatic affair, for the changing character of the situation was reflected in these protests. In May, 1934, the following Statement was adopted:
"The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in light of the present world situation as concerns the Jewish race, place on record the following expression of their view and convictions. <70> Remembering the age-long sufferings of the Jewish people, their homelessness a nation which has lasted for centuries, the persecutions, injustices and hardships they have endured, from Governments, Churches and individuals; in view also of the present fresh outbreaks of anti-Semitic fanaticism manifested in many lands, the General Assembly offer to the Jewish people their heartfelt sympathy with them in their almost intolerable wrongs. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland desire to assure the entire Jewish world that ill-treatment of the Jews on account of their race or religion is to them abhorrent; that in their judgment it is a denial of the first principles laid down by the great Founder of the Christian Faith, who places love and kindness to all as fundamental laws of His Kingdom; and that it is their firm belief that any Church which claims to be animated by the spirit of Jesus Christ and which nevertheless acts with intolerance towards members of the Jewish race, is thereby denying the elementary doctrines of the Christian Faith. The General Assembly acknowledge with gratitude to God the great contributions to human knowledge which the Jewish race has made in many realms; in a special degree they express their debt to the Jewish people for the scrupulous care with which they preserved the early documents of Holy Scripture for the ultimate benefit of all nations, which for centuries have nourished the piety of myriads who thereby have learned of the grace of Almighty God. The General Assembly would, in conclusion, again express their sense of the profound significance of the fact that the One whom they rejoice to believe in as the divine Saviour of the world came, according to the flesh, of the Jewish race, and they feel that this thought imparts to the Hebrew nation a special and peculiar position in world history, rendering it a duty on the part of all who love the Lord Jesus Christ to love also the race from which He sprang." [179]
It was then moved and resolved that the Assembly send to the Chief Rabbi a message of sympathy. The statement issued in May, 1935, is as follows:
"The General Assembly renew their protest against the anti-Semitic spirit which still prevails in many countries, express their sympathy with the Jews in their sufferings, and urge their faithful people to a greater earnestness in commending the Gospel as the one sure basis of fellowship and peace among all men." [180]
Not all statements and protests issued over this period in Great Britain and Ireland can be recorded here, but we mention in conclusion two statements issued by Churches, not yet mentioned. <71>
In April 1933, the following Message was sent by Dr. Scott Midgett, President of the United Methodist Church, to a meeting at the White-chapel Art Gallery:
"All the different branches of the Christian Churches share the Jewish Communities' horror of all deeds of violence against citizens, and especially of such outbursts of violence against any race or class of society. I feel convinced that I am interpreting the feeling of the Methodist Church in stressing our hope that measures will instantly be taken in Germany in order to prevent a recurrence of explosions of this nature in the future." [181]
In 1934, the "Report to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
England" stated:
"There has unhappily appeared in various parts of the world, notably in Germany, a recondescense of that irrational and wholly unchristian spirit of anti-semitism, which from time to time has disgraced European civilisation. A number of its victims have arrived in our country, and the Archbishops of Great Britain have issued a moving appeal for their relief. But we must do something more. To quote the News Sheet issued by the International Committee for the Christian Approach to the Jews: "We must play the part of the Good Samaritan". But that is only one of our objectives. Wise Christian statesmanship demands that in addition to our relief activities, we must also endeavour to eliminate the causes, which create anti-semitism and its victims. Those who are in a position to know, maintain that the outbreak in Germany is sure to spread to other lands. Indeed it has already begun to do so. We know of attempts to foster the spirit in our own country. And there are so-called Christians who attempt to justify it. But note the fact that anti-semitism is essentially anti-Christian. No conscious anti-Semite can do homage to Christ, the Jew."
The Assembly adopted the following Resolution:
"The Assembly regrets the spirit of anti-semitism now prevalent in Germany and other parts of Europe, and urges its faithful people so to act towards all Jews as to allay the spread of this spirit." [182] <72>
* * *
On November 20, 1935, the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. George Bell) moved a resolution in the Church Assembly. [183] The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Lang) had to leave to officiate at the christening of His Majesty's grandson. He asked the Archbishop of York to take his place in the chair. Without a word of explanation, however, his absence might be misunderstood.
"Speaking simply for himself, he felt bound to say that he did most strongly protest against the persecution of the Jews… He was sure that the continuation of the present modes of persecution must seriously affect the good will with which the people of this country desired to regard the German nation."
The Bishop of Chichester then moved: "That this Assembly desires to express its sympathy with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in the sufferings which are being endured by many of their number in Germany, and trusts that Christian people in this and other countries will exert their influence to make it plain to the rulers of Germany that the continuance of their present policy will arouse widespread indignation and prove a grave obstacle to the promotion of confidence and good will between Germany and other nations".
He said he moved the resolution with great reluctance, as one who had a profound admiration for Germany, as one who had many friends in that country, and desired the closest co-operation and the firmest mutual understanding between Germany and Great Britain. He was compelled to move his resolution because, as a human being, he saw a wrong done to humanity in one great area of German life and action. As a friend of Germany he saw the hoped-for friendship between two kindred countries tumbling into ruin through the prosecution of a policy against a section of its population, which was unworthy of a great civilized nation. He appealed to the rulers of Germany to desist from a course which shocked Christian opinion in this country in a way to which the nearest analogy was the oppression of the Jews in Russia by the Tsarist Government exactly 30 years ago. The hardships suffered by baptized persons of Jewish origin made a peculiar claim upon their Christian sympathy and compassion. There were two points of attack: <73> the casting out of the Jews from all cultural and professional life, together with the precariousness of their position in business, and the defamation of the Jews throughout Germany. The Nuremberg laws passed last September were supposed to give protection and security within limits to the Jews, yet suffering of individuals increased and the personal attacks grew bolder. No doubt they saw in The Times not so many weeks back that prayer was asked in all German synagogues for protection for the Jews against slander, with the result that the Chief Rabbi suffered imprisonment for one day and other Rabbis suffered punishment. He was sure that great masses of German people themselves abhorred the policy of persecution. They, too, must feel as we felt, that it was a great scar across the fair fame of Germany.
The Bishop of Southwark (Dr. Parsons), in seconding the resolution, said they had hoped that the days of the Ghetto had passed for ever. Now the Jewish people in Germany apparently were being forced back into conditions which reminded them all too vividly of the Ghetto. Their whole position, if it could not be compared with that of slaves, could be compared with that of helots. An article in The Times had described the whole policy as a "cold pogrom".
Mr. S. Carlile Davis, the German Vice-Consul at Plymouth, in opposing the resolution, said that every member of the Assembly would agree that they should all express sympathy with those who suffered from persecution, envy, hatred, malice, or any uncharitableness… The Jewish question, so far as it affected Germany, was purely a race question, and it was nothing new in Germany. It was not for us to dictate to any people how they should handle a race question… The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Henson) submitted that they had in the resolution brought before them by the Bishop of Chichester one of those matters which required from them as a great representative Assembly of Christian men a clear pronouncement of their convictions. One thing which they ought to emphasize was the solidarity of civilization… The Jews were just as mixed a race as the Germans - they could hardly be more. This nonsense about race - as if there were some poison in the ancestry of Judaism which must be guarded against - was sheer hallucination and nonsense. We knew in this country that the Jews could be as prominent in good citizenship as any other section of His Majesty's subjects. We, who were the children of Christendom, could not exclude from our minds the vastness of the obligations under which we stood to the Jewish people. Our Divine Lord, according to the flesh, was a Jew. His Apostles were all Jews. The Sacred Book, which we used was a Jewish Book. It was preposterous, base and almost incredibly mean that we, the children of Christendom, should turn on the ancient children of God, to whom religiously, spiritually and morally we owed almost everything we value. <74> "The least we can do," Dr. Henson concluded, "is to make it clear from our hearts that we loathe and detest this attitude which is obtaining in Germany, and protest against the continuance of this brutal oppression of a small minority of Jewish citizens in Germany." (Loud and continued cheers.)… Mr. G.F. Lefroy (Exeter), in opposing the resolution, said that Parliament itself would not dream of passing it. He moved, as an amendment, that only the first portion of the resolution should be moved, confining it to the words "That the Assembly desires to express its sympathy with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in the sufferings which are being endured by many of their numbers in Germany".
On being put to the vote, Mr. Carlile Davis's motion for the previous question and Mr. Lefroy's amendment were rejected by very large majorities. The Bishop of Chichester's motion was then carried, with few dissentients. [184]
Some of the Bishop of Chichester's words mentioned above could create misunderstanding, for instance, that he "had a profound admiration for Germany". Dr. Bell's record regarding the fight against anti-Semitism (as well as in many other respects) is outstanding. [185] One should note the policy of deception practised by the Germans: "The Nuremberg laws passed last September were supposed to give protection and security within limits to the Jews…". [186] That seems incredible, and yet it provided a pretext for people who wanted to do nothing. In the discussion on the above mentioned resolution, one Mr. Lefroy, in opposing the resolution, said: "Parliament itself would not dream of passing it. Therefore, why should the Assembly pass it?" Apparently it escaped the attention of Mr. Lefroy that a Church Assembly is not a Parliament, and that a Church body often can and ought to say things publicly, even though a Parliament is not prepared to do so, or perhaps for that very reason. However, the Bishop of Durham's speech, in the same meeting of the Church Assembly, is an outstanding example of how a Christian leader could and should speak. <75> The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J.H. Hertz, wrote to the Bishop of Chichester:
"Your words will come as a ray of hope to hundreds of thousands whose annihilation seems to have been decided upon by the Nazi rulers." [187]
At a meeting of the London Diocesan Conference [188] held in Central Hall, Westminster, in 1936, the following resolution was submitted for discussion by permission of the Bishop of London:
"This Conference, while fully aware of the difficulties that must arise from the presence in certain districts of large populations of people of other religious beliefs and social habits, asserts that the Jew and the Christian are equal children of God, and therefore calls upon all Christians to stand firm against any and every attempt to arouse anti-Semitic feeling for political or any other needs." [189]
The Bishop of Chichester was very active in promoting help for Christians of Jewish origin. [190] This subject is, however, beyond the scope of this book. In the summer session of the Church Assembly, in June 1938, Dr. Bell pleaded that the needs of Jews and Christians alike should be remembered. "The Bishop of Chichester moved: That this Assembly records its deep distress at the sufferings endured by 'non-Aryan' Christians, as well as by members of the Jewish race, in Germany and Austria, and urges that not only should everything possible be done by Government aid to assist their emigration into other countries but also that Christians everywhere should express their fellowship with their suffering brethren by material gifts as well as by personal sympathy and by prayer."
He said he did not want to speak of political matters in a country with which they desired to be friends, nor to attack the leadership of the great German State. He asked the Assembly not to make any protest against a system, but to record its deep distress at the suffering of Christians and Jews… <76> What could members do? First of all they must not forget it, but let it be printed on their memory and never rest while the distress was unhealed. They must remember the needs of Jews and Christians alike. It was wrong to separate the Jews and leave the Jews to the Jews and the Christians to the Christians. They both made a deep appeal by their sufferings to all humanity and above all to the Christian Church.'… First of all they could pray for the sufferers; prayer from the heart availed and was a great bond of fellowship. Next they could feel deeply for and with them until something was done. Thirdly there was material help… He asked for their (the Assembly's) help and for the help of their constituents all over England and he asked for the awakening of conscience. They would not forget and he could not forget that their Master was a Jew, a non-Aryan. They thought in their hearts that if they saw their Master in sorrow they would wish to help him, but it was right to remember the parable that their Master uttered of judgment and what He said when He rebuked certain disciples: 'For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger and ye took me not in: naked and ye clothed me not: sick and in prison and ye visited me not.' When the disciples in defending themselves asked what he meant, the Master added: 'Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me'. He was convinced that their attitude in England and in the Church of England to the needs of those suffering non-Aryan Christians and members of the Jewish race was the test of their attitude to their Master himself. It was because of that that he felt so deeply and that he asked them to give their prayers and sympathy and their material help.
The motion was carried. [191]
The Bishop of Chichester followed this move with a plea for more vigorous
Government action in his maiden speech in the House of Lords, on July 27, 1938.
He began with a strong condemnation of the Nazi persecution:
"I cannot understand - and I know many Germans - how our own kinsmen of the German race can lower themselves to such a level of dishonour and cowardice as to attack defenceless people in the way that the National-Socialists have attacked the non-Aryans. <77>
He then pleaded with the Government to follow up the initiative of President Roosevelt by increasing its facilities for training younger refugees in Great Britain, by providing greater scope for settlement in the Colonies, and by persuading the Dominions to open their doors more widely. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assured him that the Government would do what it could. But Dr. Bell remarked a few weeks later in his Diocesan Gazette:
"It is almost as hard to understand the seeming apathy with which the fate of the Jews and the non-Aryan Christians is being regarded by the people of the British Empire… These non-Aryans can no longer be called 'refugees' for they have as yet no country of refuge. We emphasize the responsibility of the British Empire in this connection, because the British Colonies and the British Dominions cover the larger part of the whole available globe. It seems to us impossible, both on the grounds of charity and on the grounds of statesmanship, that the doors can remain forever shut." [192]
Resolutions adopted by the Presbyterian Church of England exposed the danger of anti-Semitism existing in England in those days. In 1937, the General Assembly stated:
"The Assembly notes with concern the attempts which have been made to create racial antipathy against the Jews, with whom the Assembly expresses its sympathy. The Assembly expresses its conviction, that in a nation professing Christianity, no discrimination on grounds of race must be recognised. The Assembly urges that the freedom accorded by law in this country to citizens of any faith to live in peace and pursue their lawful callings shall be specially safeguarded. The Assembly resolves to send a copy of this resolution to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and to the Home Secretary." [193]
In May, 1938, the General Assembly adopted the following Resolution:
"The Assembly urges its faithful people to encourage every effort to overcome the evil spirit of anti-Semitism which thing we hate." <78>
There was hesitancy in the minds of some about the word 'hate', when the Convener moved this resolution, but the Assembly overwhelmingly approved of it. [194]
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland certainly did not mince words.
It declared in 1936:
"The General Assembly learn with profound regret that the past year has brought no alleviation of the sufferings caused to the Jewish people by the inhuman political, social and economic persecutions prevalent in Central and Eastern Europe. They protest against the religious intolerance, the narrow nationalism and race-pride on which anti-semitic hatreds are based. They call on the Christian people of Scotland, in loyalty to the law of Christ and their own high traditions of liberty and toleration, to rid their minds of all narrow anti-Jewish prejudice, and to broaden out their obedience to the Gospel ever commanding peace and goodwill to all men. The General Assembly again commend to the liberality of their faithful people appeals made on behalf of refugee Jews from Germany and other lands, specially remembering the Christians of Jewish race who are involved in the terrors of persecution." [195]
In 1937, the General Assembly declared:
"The General Assembly renew in Christ's name their condemnation of the unabated brutality still being dealt to the Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and lament that the protesting voice of the Christian Church has been so barren of result. They deprecate the attempts in certain parts of England to create antipathy against the Jews." [196]
The statement adopted in May 1938, reads as follows:
"The General Assembly renew their protest against the virulence and cruelty of the attacks still being directed against helpless Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and they affirm that no Church can be truly Christian and anti-semitic at one and the same time." [197]
* * *
The first reaction to the horrors of the "Crystal Night" pogroms was a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "The Times":
"I believe that I speak for the Christian people of this country in giving immediate expression to the feelings of indignation with which we have read of the deeds of cruelty and destruction which were perpetrated last Thursday in Germany and Austria. <79> Whatever provocation may have been given by the deplorable act of a single irresponsible Jewish youth, reprisals on such a scale, so fierce, cruel and vindictive, cannot possibly be justified. A sinister significance is added to them by the fact that the police seem either to have acquiesced in them or to have been powerless to restrain them. it is most distasteful to write these words just when there is in this country a general desire to be on friendly terms with the German nation. But there are times when the mere instincts of humanity make silence impossible. Would that the rulers of the Reich could realize that such excesses of hatred and malice put upon the friendship which we are ready to offer them an almost intolerable strain. I trust that in our churches on Sunday and thereafter remembrance may be made in our prayers of those who have suffered this fresh onset of persecution and whose future seems to be so dark and hopeless." [198]
The Archbishop's letter expressed "feelings of indignation", but also reflected the spirit of appeasement: the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, only six weeks before.
On November 16, 1938, during the Autumn Session of the Church Assembly, the Bishop of Chichester pleaded that help should be given to Christian refugees of Jewish origin. In January 1939, he was to urge "to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans". Now the tendency still was to stress the help to Christians of Jewish origin, not to the Jews in general. There was one notable exception, in which Jews and Christians jointly took action, without asking themselves whether the persons to be helped were Jews or Christians. Lord Gorell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury to be joint Chairman (with Lord Samuel) of the "Movement for the Care of Children from Germany", in February 1938. This movement succeeded in bringing over 9,354 children from Germany to England. Roughly nine-tenths were Jewish, and one-tenth Christian children. <80> "Where a Jewish child was received in a Christian home - which occurred frequently - it was prescribed by the Movement, and accepted by the foster-parents, that there should be no attempt to proselytise. The nearest Rabbi, or Jewish teacher, was put in touch with the child, and if personal contact was not possible, instruction was arranged by correspondence. The last transports of the children from Germany reached England a few days after the outbreak of the war." [201]
A Joint Statement was issued by British Church leaders, in April 1939:
"In making the following statement, we, the undersigned, - the Archbishop of York; Dr. Jas. Black, Moderator of the Church of Scotland; the Bishop of Edinburgh; Dr. S.M. Berry, Congregational Union of England and Wales and Federal Council of Free Churches; the Rev. M.E. Aubrey, Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, - feel that we are giving expression to the convictions of a large number of Christians in Great Britain: 1. We believe that the following is an essential and basic principle of all true civilization: Religious freedom, freedom of opinion and action in accordance with religious beliefs, provided that social order is in no way endangered thereby; legal equality for all, independently of social position or race…" [202]
In November, 1938, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland wrote a letter to the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, who replied as follows:
London, 24th Nov. 1938/5699. Dear Dr. Black, "I am indeed touched by your letter of the 18th inst. conveying to me on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the deep horror of the suffering inflicted on the Jewish people throughout Europe. In the agony through which hundreds of thousands of my coreligionists are now passing, it is fortifying to read your strong repudiation of all persecution as unchristian, inhuman and pagan; and to learn that the love of God, love of fellow-man, and love of freedom rule with undiminished strength in little, but great Scotland. I should be glad if you would kindly convey to the General Assembly the deep felt thanks of my community for their kind expression of Christian sympathy with the suffering of Israel.
The General Assembly commented: <81>
"It is now the duty of the Church to contrive that the wave of sympathy shall not ebb, but, while it is on the flow, shall be turned into the only channel, which, as we believe, reaches the heart of the Jewish problem. The immediate duty, however, is to direct sympathy towards practical and generous action with regard to the gigantic Refugee problem which confronts the free peoples of the world…" [203]
The following statement was issued by the Conference of the Methodist Church in
Ireland, in June 1939:
"The Conference notes with grave concern the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe and America, and expresses its profound conviction that this tendency is directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It views with horror the treatment now being meted out to men, women and children in Germany on purely racial grounds, and regards with apprehension the possibility of the spread of such policy to other countries. It commands to the sacrificial sympathy of the Church, the efforts being made on behalf of non-Aryan Refugees both in Eire and in Northern Ireland, and suggests that they offer a most effective method of bearing Christian testimony against the terrible divisions of the present hour." [204]
Protestant Churches in America have protested against racial discrimination in general. We only record, however, the resolutions and statements, which expressly denounced anti-Semitism.
On March 22, 1933, American Christian clergymen and laymen appealed to the German people to put an end to the persecution of Jews. They urged preachers throughout the United States to rally their congregations on the following Sunday for a united stand against Hitlerism. The summons to the Churches was sponsored by the Interfaith Committee and signed by Bishop Manning (Episcopalian), Mr. Al Smith, the former Governor of New York State (a Roman Catholic), and others equally prominent. [205] <82>
On March 28, 1933, a mass meeting was held in New York, Madison Square Garden, attended by 20,000 persons, as a protest against anti-Semitic activities in Germany. 38,000 swarmed round the building to hear the voice of speakers brought to them through amplifiers. The meeting followed a day of fasting and prayer with similar protests being staged in 300 other cities. Former Governor Alfred Smith, Bishop William T. Manning, and Senator Robert F. Wagner were among the speakers. [206]
On May 26, 1933, a Manifesto signed by 1200 Protestant ministers from 42 States of the United States and Canada was published:
"We Christian ministers are greatly distressed at the situation of our Jewish brethren in Germany. In order to leave no room for doubt as to our feelings on this subject, we consider it an imperative duty to raise our voices in indignant and sorrowful protest against the pitiless persecution to which the Jews are subjected under Hitler's rule. We realize full well that there are religious and racial prejudices in America, against which we have repeatedly protested and for this very reason we all the more deeply deplore the retrogression which has supervened in Germany where so much had been achieved while we in America were still fighting for human rights. For many weeks we have waited, refusing to believe all the reports concerning a State policy against the Jews. But now that we possess the irrefutable testimony of facts, we can no longer remain silent. Hitler had long vowed implacable hatred against the Jews. One of the fundamental Nazi doctrines is that Jews are poisonous germs in German blood and must therefore be treated as a scourge. Hitler's followers now apply this doctrine. They systematically pursue a 'Cold Pogrom' of inconceivable cruelty against our Jewish brethren, dismissing them from important positions they had occupied, depriving them of civil and economic rights, and deliberately condemning those who survive to a life without legal protection, - as outcasts, threatening them with massacre should they make the slightest protest. We are convinced that the efforts made by Nazis to humiliate an entire section of the human family, are liable to cast the civilized world back into the clutches of mediaeval barbarism. We deplore the consequences which may ensue for the Jews and also for Christianity which tolerates this barbarous persecution, and, more particularly, for Germany herself. We are convinced that in thus protesting against Hitler's cruel anti-Semitism we are acting as sincere friends of the German nation." [207] <83>
Speaking of their "Jewish brethren in Germany", those 1200 Protestant ministers apparently had in mind the Jews of Germany in general, not just the Christians of Jewish origin.
* * *
The next statement to be recorded in this chapter was issued by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. This organization represented the great majority of American Protestants. The total membership of Churches affiliated with it was, in 1941-1942: 25,551.560. The Executive Committee of the Federal Council published the following statement in November 1935:
"At a recent meeting of protest against the treatment at present inflicted on Jews in Germany, the Assembly of the Church of England expressed the hope that other Christian bodies would join in this protest. We feel constrained to do so. We are members of churches which have numerous and close bonds of union with the German church. We recognise our indebtedness to the great German preachers and teachers of Christianity, who have done so much to enrich our common heritage from the days of Luther to the present day. After the last war we protested strongly against the limitations to which Germany was subjected by the Treaty of Versailles and made constant efforts for their suppression. For this very reason we consider it our duty to speak equally freely now that Germany is pursuing a policy, which threatens her with moral isolation. We protest against this policy because the treatment of the Jews is unworthy of a great nation. To treat a considerable part of the population as being essentially inferior for racial reasons only, and to impose restrictions on the normal life of persons whose families have lived in Germany for generations, and who have rendered eminent services in the realms of education, art, and government, is to violate the codes of honour and good faith which are the common property of civilized nations. But our reason for protesting goes far deeper. We protest against this policy because the philosophy on which it is based is a heathen philosophy. Founded on a religious interpretation of race, the actual treatment inflicted on the Jews raises far greater problems than any former persecutions of Jews and other minorities, which were founded on political and incidental considerations. It is an attempt of a tribal heathen movement, based on race, blood, and soil, to separate Christianity from its historical origin and a Christian nation from its religious past. All the different branches of the Christian Church are, therefore, in duty bound to protest, not only in the name of the human brotherhood, but also in the name of our Christian faith. [208] <84>
The meeting of protest mentioned at the beginning of this statement was held on November 20, 1935. [209] The response of the Federal Council came very promptly indeed. International contacts between Churches were a factor the importance of which can hardly be overestimated.
Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, the then General Secretary of the Federal Council, had had a personal interview with Hitler in the autumn of 1933. Before accepting Hitler's invitation to call, he was warned that no one was even permitted to mention the Jewish issue to him. Dr. Macfarland, however, had made it clear that he was not going there to discuss Tennyson or Browning and that he would have to be permitted to choose his own subjects. Word came that "His Excellency desired me to talk freely with him". Dr. Macfarland relates:
"I told Herr Hitler that, in my judgment, the German Evangelical Church could not and would not yield itself to his polito-social theory, including his so-called Aryan laws, and that if it did, it would not only cut itself off from the Christian churches of the world, but would cease to be Christian…" [209]
Dr. Macfarland followed up this conversation by correspondence. In one letter he wrote that the near complete hostility of the American people was deeply ethical in nature and could be modified only by two processes:
1. "A constructive measure of justice in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading Jews of high character, and, while still recognizing the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and non-Jews who live side by side… I also hope that, by a final settlement of the Jewish problem which will do full justice, this barrier between the German people and the peoples of the world may be removed." [210] <85>
Apparently Hitler did not underestimate the influence of the American Churches: he replied to Dr. Macfarland's letters, stating that he wished "to promote the unity of the Church", that he accepted one of these letters "in the same spirit in which it was written" and that he thanked Dr. Macfarland for his "candid and sympathetic appeal". [211] On June 2, 1937, however, Dr. Macfarland published an open letter to Hitler, from which we quote the following:
"You especially demarcated the church's "confession" as a sacred ground on which the State could not and would not intrude, and I handed you a memorandum calling attention to the fact that by that confession the church was supernatural, supernational and superracial and that the so-called 'Aryan paragraph' cut right across the confession; that if the church accepted it, it would make a breach between the church in Germany and the 'positive Christianity' for which you declared you stood. As previously mentioned, you replied to later correspondence that you accepted my appeal 'in the spirit in which it was given'. That appeal was for a constructive measure of justice in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading Jews of high character and, while still recognizing the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and non-Jews who live side by side'. And I added: 'I hope that this barrier between the German people and the peoples of the world may be removed'… What now are the results of my continued study and how do they appear in the light of your earnest assurances?… Instead of doing justice to the Jews, you have permitted them to be harassed and despoiled. Your treatment of them has been ruthless, without the slightest appearance of mercy, even reminding one of the infamous edict of Herod in stretching the hand of violence to the littlest child. Your attitude toward the little handful of Jews in Germany and your so-called Aryan and Nordic ideas have had no little effect in confusing members of the Evangelical Church, so that, in this way, you divided instead of fulfilling 'the desire you expressed to me of uniting the church. You undermined the most basic ideal of Christianity, on which unity alone could be secured… I have been reading a paper called Der Stuermer. Not only does it explicitly teach and urge hate-hate-hate, but does it in forms whose viciousness never would be believed by one who had not seen it. The language in this paper is too vile for repetition, and its falsehoods are obvious to any ordinarily informed person who knows Germany. The best that one can say of the illustrations is to hope that they emanate from a disordered, rather than a depraved mind…" [212] <86>
I think that, if Dr. Macfarland had been a citizen of my country (the Netherlands), legal proceedings might have been instituted against him in those days, for "public offence to the Head of a friendly State".
The Home Missions Council, early in December 1937, issued a special Christmas message concerning Jewish and Christian relations which it addressed to all Christians of North America. We quote the following from this message:
"As Christians of the United States and Canada we desire to express to those Jews who are the victims of injustice and abuse our sincere sympathy, and we emphatically declare that such conduct is utterly alien to the teaching and spirit of the faith we profess and an affront to all our ideals of civil liberty and justice." [213]
* * *
The Executive Committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America proposed to set aside November 20, 1938, as "the occasion when prayer will be sought in the United States for refugees, both Christian and Jewish". [214] The officials of both the Roman Catholic Church and Jewish Organizations, following the example set by the Federal Council, designated the same date for a period of prayer and intercession. The Governors of about a score of States issued statements or proclamations urging citizens to repair to their places of worship on that day for united prayer for the suffering. The day of prayer was widely observed in all parts of the country and in all the churches. [215] The Executive of the Federal Council had issued "an appeal to all church people to respond generously to the efforts for the relief of refugees as carried on by the American Committee for Christian German Refugees and also by the Catholic and Jewish organizations". [216]
When the first reports of the new measures of oppression and persecution of the Jews in Germany appeared in the press, the Federal Council's office invited outstanding Christians, both ministers and laymen, to express their views and give wide publicity to them. <87>
Among the lay voices, which were most widely heard across the nation was that
of Honourable Herbert Hoover, who, in a message telegraphed to the Federal
Council, gave expression to the sympathy of all thoughtful Christian people.
A statement of Dr. Edgar De Witt Jones of Detroit, President of the Federal
Council, was also quoted in all parts of the country. [217]
On the evening of November 13, 1938, the Federal Council of Churches sponsored a national broadcast over the Columbia Broadcasting System in which Christian sympathy was again expressed and carried to every part of the nation. There also was a national broadcast under the auspices of the National Conference of Jews and Christians, on November 20, 1938. [218]
On January 9, 1939, a petition on behalf of German refugee children was left for President Roosevelt at the White House by a deputation of clergymen. The petition was signed by leaders of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. It read as follows:
"The American people has made clear its reaction to the oppression of all minority groups, religious and racial, throughout Germany. It has been especially moved by the plight of the children. Every heart has been touched, and the nation has spoken out its sorrow and dismay through the voices of its statesmen, teachers and religious leaders. Americans have felt that protest, however vigorous and sympathy, however deep, are not enough, and that these must translate themselves into such action as shall justify faith. We have been stirred by the knowledge that Holland and England have opened their doors and their homes to many of these children. We conceive it to be our duty, in the name of the American tradition and the religious spirit common to our nation to urge the people, by its Congress and Executive, to express sympathy through special treatment of the young, robbed of country, homes and parents. A heartening token of the mood of America is to be found in the fact that thousands of Americans of all faiths have made known their eagerness to take these young children into their homes, without burden or obligation to the State. Working within and under the laws of Congress, through special enactment if necessary, the nation can offer sanctuary to a part of these children by united expression of its will to help. <88> To us it seems that the duty of Americans in dealing with the youthful victims of a regime which punishes innocent and tender children as if they were offenders, is to remember the admonition of Him who said, 'Suffer little children to come unto me'. And in that spirit we call on all Americans to join together without regard to race, religion or creed in offering refuge to children as a token of our sympathy and as a symbol of our faith in the ideals of human brotherhood." [220]
Senator Robert F. Wagner, attempting to implement the clergymen's proposal, introduced a resolution in the Senate. Known as the Child Refugee Bill, it proposed that a maximum of ten thousand children under the age of fourteen be admitted in 1939, and a similar number in 1940. Their entry would be considered apart from and in addition to the regular German quota. [221] The Executive of the Federal Council supported the Bill:
"In the extraordinary circumstances which have created the problem of Jewish and Christian refugees from Germany, we feel that it is not enough to call upon other nations to help or to voice our protests but some such practical step as the one here contemplated is imperative and will do much to facilitate a larger approach to the problem of which it is but one part." [222]
On July 1, 1939, the proposed Bill was modified: the twenty thousand childrens' visas would be issued against the German quota, not in excess of them. Senator Wagner, realizing that the twenty thousand children's visas might become twenty thousand death warrants for adults they would replace, withdrew his proposal. [223] <89>
In March 1939, the Federal Council urged the United States to continue to provide asylum for refugees of other countries in the face of any legislative proposals to suspend immigration or curtail existing quotas. Declaring that the Churches were deeply concerned with the refugee problem and that "as Christians we have responsibility for suffering human beings as children of our common Father wherever they may be", the Council said:
"We, therefore, urge our government to maintain its historic policy of friendliness to refugees. We oppose legislative proposals, which would suspend immigration at this time or curtail the established quotas."
In its objection to any change in the immigration policy the Council pointed out that refugees "would be consumers as well as producers" and added:
"However, even if they were not an economic asset as well as a liability, we would still have a Christian responsibility to them." [224]
In April 1939, the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church issued the following Resolution on behalf of aid to refugees:
"In view of the persecution of minorities now taking place in Europe, we, as Christians and members of the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and in keeping with the traditional spirit of our country, reaffirm our conviction that the United States should continue to show its spint of generosity and hospitality in opening its doors to afflicted people. We commend the program, as prepared by the Episcopal Committee on German Refugees, to the interest and support of all members of the Church, reminding ourselves of our Lord's admonition: 'in as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me'."
The program prepared by the Committee on German Refugees called for co-operation with local refugee committees in helping to obtain employment, in placing children in homes and in obtaining affidavits of support for individual immigrants. [225] To the best of my knowledge, there is no other country in which Churches and Church leaders in those days so unequivocally demanded asylum for the refugees.
So far we have recorded actions and statements on behalf of the refugees only.
The following statements also denounced anti-Semitism in Germany and/or in the
United States. <90>
The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. stated, at the end of 1938:
"… We are deeply shocked at the continuance of persecutions based on race in Germany, Austria, Rumania and other nations. We sympathize with our Jewish brethren in the United States, many of whose relatives are the innocent victims of fanatical hatred abroad. We commend the National Conference of Jews and Christians for all its labour to the end that race murders and race discriminations shall not happen here…" [226]
In its Bulletin (February, 1939) the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ published the following article:
The Christian Attitude towards Anti-Semitism
Every thoughtful Christian must gratefully acknowledge his spiritual indebtedness to the Hebrews. We Christians have inherited the ethical and religious insights of Israel. We hold them with a difference - at one point with a momentous difference - but we can never forget that the historic roots of our faith are in the Hebrew people. From Israel we inherit the Ten Commandments, which are still our basic moral standards. From Israel we inherit the priceless treasure of the Psalms, which are an essential part of Christian worship around the world. From Israel we inherit the vision of social justice which has come to us through Amos and Isaiah and Micah. From Israel we inherit even our own unique Christian classic, the New Testament, nearly all of which (if not all) was written by Jews. A Christian who faces the modem world must also be conscious of a present spiritual kinship with his Jewish neighbours to whom their religious heritage is still a vital force. That kinship is grounded in our common faith in the ultimate spiritual foundations of the universe. Over against those who adhere to a materialistic philosophy of life and a mechanistic conception of human destiny, we recognize ourselves as at one with the Jews in the first sublime affirmation of the Pentateuch: 'In the beginning God'. Over against current disillusionment and despair Christian and Hebrew stand together in their belief in the one Holy God Who is the Creator of all and whose righteous will gives meaning and direction to life. A Christian who knows anything of history must also speak a word of confession. For he cannot help recalling how grievously the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of men who called themselves Christians. The record of the treatment of Jews in Europe through long centuries is one which Christians of to-day view with penitence and sorrow. One has also regretfully to admit that the day of cruel treatment of the Jews by some who call themselves Christians is not yet a thing of the past. Even in our own country there are misguided groups which circulate statements that spread a poison of mistrust and hate which is antithetical to the true genius both of America and of the Christian religion. Anti-Semitism is inherently un-Christian, contrary to the plain teaching and spirit of our Lord, and it can be asserted with confidence that an intolerant attitude towards the Jews is opposed by the great body of American Christians… <91> But everything which has happened since shows that what started as a movement against the Jews turns out to be a movement against Christianity also… [227]
In May 1939, the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the U.S.A. stated:
"… We confess the sins of our country in this respect. We condemn the attacks on Jews and Christians and other minority groups throughout the world. We would be lacking in a sense of common morality and decency if we did not express our strong disapproval of such an outrageous assault by any government upon an innocent and defenceless people. We urge our government to continue its efforts to make generous arrangement for the settlement of refugees, so continuing our national tradition of being an asylum for the oppressed of all the nations." [228]
The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, attended by 200 pastors and delegates, adopted (June, 1939) the social welfare report which said in part:
"The failure of the Church to recognize the Jew has behind it a record of misunderstanding, intolerance and spiritual malpractice that has been unequaled in dealing with any other people. Even America is not free from the blight of anti-Jewish prejudice. Both Jew and Gentile are responsible for existing conditions and both must co-operate for their betterment. Christians must rebuke all anti-Semitism… Third, in reference to the refugee problem, a linking up of our efforts and agencies with all others in more adequately caring for those who are so greatly in need. Fourth, a wholehearted endorsement of the legislation permitting 10,000 children (refugees) to be received each year for two years." [229]
The World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches was constituted at Constance, in 1914, at the eve of the first world war. Its supreme body, the International Council, was composed of some 145 members appointed by the various National Councils. <92> In some countries, especially on the continent of Europe, the National Councils worked in close relation with ecclesiastical authorities; in most areas, however, they remained entirely independent agencies, based on the personal adhesion of their members. The Executive Council of the "World Alliance", at its meeting in Sofia, 1933, unanimously adopted the following Resolution:
"… We especially deplore the fact that the State measures against the Jews in Germany have had such an effect on public opinion that in some circles the Jewish race is considered a race of inferior status. We protest against the resolution of the Prussian General Synod and other Synods [230] which apply the Aryan paragraph of the State to the Church, putting serious disabilities upon ministers and church officers who by chance of birth are non-Aryans, which we believe to be a denial of the explicit teaching and spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." [231]
The International Council of the "World Alliance", at its meeting in Chamby
(August, 1935), adopted the following Resolution:
"In view of the pitiable situation of refugees and stateless persons in Europe, having regard to the policy of expulsion which is being pursued by the majority of the European States, to the inadequacy of the measures for providing refugees with valid identification papers and residence and labour permits, and recognising the fact that a turn for the better cannot be attained by legislation undertaken by individual States but only on the basis of international agreements, the World Alliance most warmly welcomes the initiative taken by the Norwegian Government which, in the spirit of Fritjof Nansen, has proposed to place the situation of the refugees upon the agenda of the next plenary assembly of the League of Nations. It expresses the hope that in this way it will be possible to secure for refugees and stateless persons a minimum of individual rights and, by the setting up of a central organisation for refugees, within the framework of the League of Nations, to provide a basis for the settlement of the problem. In order to make this resolution effective, the World Alliance resolves: a. to bring the text of this resolution of the Norwegian Government to the knowledge of the General Secretary of the League of Nations and of all States members of the League of Nations; b. to request the Churches and organisations affiliated to the World Alliance in the different countries to make representations to their governments in the spirit of the resolution before the next meeting of the League of Nations in order to obtain the support of these governments for the Norwegian initiative." [232] <93>
Another International Organization of Churches, more influential than the "World Alliance", was the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work, which had its first world conference in 1925, in Stockholm, and its second in 1937, in Oxford. Its purpose was "to stimulate Christian action in society". Its President, Dr. George Bell (Bishop of Chichester) wrote a letter to Dr. Kapler, President of the Federation of Protestant Churches in Germany, dated May 17, 1933:
"… We do not wish to enter into political questions, nor indeed is it our business to do so. At the same time it would not be fair to disguise from our friends in Germany that certain recent events, especially the action taken against the Jews, have caused and continue to cause us anxiety and distress; and we feel that we ought to share our concern with you here…" [233]
The annual meeting of Life and Work was held at Novi Sad, in Yugoslavia, on 9-12 September, 1933. A German delegation under the leadership of Dr. Heckel, who supported Hitler's policy, was present at the meeting. The minutes record that representatives of other Churches had expressed grave anxiety over the severe action taken against people of Jewish origin. [234] Bishop Bell proposed that, in addition to this, he should write a letter to the leaders of the German Church. This proposal was adopted unanimously. Only Dr. Heckel abstained from voting. Bishop Bell wrote this letter to the German Reich Bishop Mueller, on October 23, 1933. He referred to two features, which were gravely disturbing to the Christian conscience, namely, the adoption of the Aryan Paragraph by the Prussian Church Synod [235] and certain other Synods, and the forcible suppression of minority opinion. Mueller's reply of 8 December was intended to be reassuring. The enactment of the Aryan Paragraph had been stopped, and he hoped for an opportunity when they might discuss together the problems of race, the state, and international order. [236] The Executive Committee of the Ecumenical Council of Life and Work at Novi Sad issued the following "Appeal on Behalf of German Refugees" in November, 1933: <94>
"A new appeal is hereby addressed to Christians, at this Christmastide. It is an appeal to help those who are suffering because there is no place for them in Germany: Jews, Christians of Jewish origin and political refugees. They are dispersed in Palestine and in different lands of Europe. They are in a deplorable situation and a great number of them are destitute… The gifts of the Churches will constitute a welcome proof of that truly ecumenical and Christian spirit which, beyond all differences of race and class, regards every man as a brother." George Cicestr, President of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work; Germanos, Archbishop of Thyatira, Co-President; W.A. Brown, President of the Administrative Committee; Waldemar Ammundsen, Interim President of the European Section; Wilfred Monod, Vice President. [237]
* * *
The International Missionary Council was organized in 1921, to co-ordinate missionary work throughout the world. Its "Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews" met at Vienna, 28 June-2 July, 1937. A report of the Subcommittee on Anti-Semitism and the Church was submitted, and adopted in the following form:
"We desire to record our conviction that in contemporary anti-Semitism we face an extraordinary menace against which all Christians must be warned. All forms of hatred and persecution must be deplored by Christians, and their victims must be succoured; but there exists to-day a type of racial anti-Semitic propaganda inspired by hatred of everything springing from Jewish sources; and this creates more crucial issues for Christianity than ordinary outbursts of race feeling. Christian Churches must be warned that they cannot be silent in the presence of this propaganda, still less connive at or participate in the extension of its errors and falsehoods, without betraying Christ, undermining the basis of the Church, and incurring the most severe judgment of God. The Christian Church must let no doubt about this attitude prevail in the eyes of the world. Realizing that enmity to the Jews has now become a cloak for the forces of anti-Christ, and conceals hatred for Christ and His Gospel, the Christian Church must reject anti-Semitism with complete conviction. <95> To realize its true nature and to vindicate its right to the title of the 'Body of Christ', the Church must preach the Gospel and open its fellowship to men of all race, including the Jews. Our mission to the Jews cannot consistently be carried out without at the same time combating anti-Semitism among Christians, and giving more tangible evidence than has been given of our sympathy with Jews and Hebrew Christians in their present distress. Anti-Semitism can and should be combated systematically: 1. By suitable literature, capable of influencing specially wide classes, also by sustained treatment in Christian Reviews and newspapers. 2. By occasional conversations, discussions, and lectures, on the destiny and the hope of the people of Israel. 3. By sincere and friendly discussion between Jews and Christians. 4. By the realization among Christians of the treasures committed to them (Christianizing of Christians)." [238]
The same Committee submitted the following resolution to the Oxford
Conference, in 1937:
"The International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews desires to lay before the Oxford Conference on Church and Community and State the problem of Anti-Semitism. The fact of Anti-Semitism is proved, by the ample material in the possession of the Committee to be of growing importance and menace in the world. It constitutes one of the principal denials of modern life of the Christian doctrine of man. It is an attack upon the unity of the Una Sancta, it is even a denial of the person of Christ Himself. It has been largely instrumental in aggravating existing economic and social strains until they have become intolerable. The human misery created, maintained and at the same time concealed by the influence of Anti-Semitism is difficult to estimate. Graver, however, than the volume of human misery is the poisoning of the spirit, the drying up of sympathy and the warping of judgment caused by the influence of Anti-Semitism, especially among the young. Deepest of all is the denial which Anti-Semitism offers to the Unity of the Church, and to the meaning of the Person of Christ Himself. The Committee would further ask the Conference to consider the terrible fact that this problem is not, like many on the Conference will consider, that of an influence external to the Christian Church with which it must make its account, but also of an evil within the Church. Anti-Semitism antedates Christianity and it is not suggested that it is a purely Christian phenomenon, but it is aided by false Christian teaching and it results in the appalling situation, present in several countries where Christian Churches are reluctant, or frankly refuse, to receive a Jewish convert. <96> It is plain that where racial and physical conditions of church membership override the conversion of heart and will, the Christian religion has ceased to exist except in a vain form. But this devitalising influence is present within the Church, not only in one country but in many, and far more widely than is suspected. The Committee therefore invites the Oxford Conference to do two things: in the first place, realizing that the Conference can make its voice heard widely among the Churches of all lands it begs the Conference to speak out clearly on the dangers of Anti-Semitism to the Church itself and to recognize openly the total impossibility of a Church tainted with this form of racial absolutism bearing any valid witness to the word of God in the world. Secondly, it asks that in any provision that is made after the Conference for international Christian study of the great problems that confront the Church in the modem world, attention shall be given to this problem of Anti-Semitism. The International Committee which has already collected a certain amount of information on the subject would gladly co-operate in such a study." [239]
The Oxford Conference (July, 1937), organized by "Life and Work", was an event of major importance. [240] The 425 regular members of the Conference included 300 delegates officially appointed by the Churches, representing 120 communions in forty countries, and constituting a cross-section of Christendom, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church; only some personal observers from that Communion were present by invitation. Not less than 300 delegates came from the United States and the British Common-wealth. The Orthodox Churches and the Lesser Eastern Churches were represented by some two score dignitaries and scholars. This delegation represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Church in Exile, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church, and the Church of the Assyrians. <97> German Church leaders had taken a prominent part in the preparations for the Conference, but the German secret police had seized the passports of leading members of the Confessing Church, including those of Dibelius and Niemoeller, who had been chosen as delegates to Oxford. On July 1, 1937, before the Conference opened, Niemoeller was arrested. Other delegates of the Confessing Church who still retained their passports decided that, unless all the representatives of the Confessing Church were allowed to attend, none of them would come, thereby demonstrating their unity. [241]
The German authorities must have realized that the absence of the leaders of the Confessing Church would make a bad impression on world opinion, but apparently they were also aware that the position of Niemoeller and his friends would have been strengthened, if they had been able to attend the Conference.
The Oxford Conference sent a "Message to the Churches of Christ throughout the World". We quote the following:
"The Christian sees distinctions of race as part of God's purpose to enrich mankind with a diversity of gifts. Against racial pride or race-antagonism the Church must set its face implacably as rebellion against God. Especially in its own life and worship there can be no place for barriers because of race or colour. Similarly the Christian accepts national communities as part of God's purpose to enrich and diversify human life. Every man is called of God to serve his fellows in the community to which he belongs. But national egotism tending to the suppression of other nationalities or of minorities is, no less than individual egotism, a sin against the Creator of all peoples and races. The deification of nation, race, or class, or of political or cultural ideals, is idolatry, and can only lead to increasing division and disaster." [242]
We also quote the following from the Oxford Conference's "Longer Report on Church and Community":
"Each of the races of mankind has been blessed by God with distinctive and unique gifts. Each has made, and seems destined to continue to make, distinctive and unique contributions to the enrichment of mankind. All share alike in the love, the concern and the compassion of God. Therefore, for a Christian there can be no such a thing as despising another race or a member of another race. Moreover, when God chose to reveal Himself in human form, the Word became flesh in One of a race, then as now, widely despised… <98> Against racial pride, racial hatreds and persecutions, and the exploitation of other races in all their forms, the Church is called by God to set its face implacably and to utter its word unequivocally, both within and without its own borders. There is a special need at this time that the Church throughout the world should bring every resource at its command against the sin of anti-Semitism… The recrudescence of pitiless cruelty, hatred, and race-discrimination in the modern world (including most notably anti-Semitism) is one of the major signs of its social disintegration. To these must be brought not only the weak rebuke of words but the powerful rebuke of deeds. For the Church has been called into existence by God not only for itself but for the world; and only by going out of itself in the work of Christ can it find unity in itself." [243]
An immense effort was made, notably in the Anglo-Saxon world, to bring home the message of the Conference to the rank and file of the Churches. The message was referred to by Church leaders when the fight against anti-Semitism intensified as, for instance, by the 170 ministers in the city of New York, 1941, [244] and Rev. Bertrand in France, in his circular letter of June 11, 1942. [245] Many Church leaders who were present at the Oxford Conference were to denounce anti-Semitism vehemently and publicly, during the Second World War. We mention: Dr. Visser 't Hooft, the General Secretary; the Archbishop of York (Dr. Temple); the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Bell); Archbishop Eidem, of Sweden; Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard, of Denmark; Archbishop Stephan, of Bulgaria; Dr. Samuel Osusky, Czechoslovakia; the Rev. Marc Boegner, France; Prof. Emil Brunner, Switzerland; and Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, the United States.
Another statement to be recorded in this chapter was adopted by the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, on its meeting at Larvik (Norway), in August, 1938:
"The Council appeals to its members to do all they can to awaken public opinion in their own countries to the great evils involved in the systematic ostracism and persecution now being directed against the Jewish race and against thousands of Christians who have kinship with the Jews. Whilst acknowledging the weakness, hesitancy and failure of Christians in this matter, it is appalled by the growth of racial and religious intolerance throughout the world. <99> It holds it to be a total denial of faith in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men as revealed in Jesus Christ and it calls upon all Christians to unite their efforts so that in a distracted and divided world Christ may be made manifest 'Who is our peace. Who made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us'." [246]
* * *
In 1938, two great Ecumenical Movements - Faith and Order and Life and
Work - associated together in forming a Provisional Committee of the World
Council of Churches (in process of formation). The World Council of Churches
was officially constituted in Amsterdam, in 1948.
On November 16, 1938, Dr. Visser 't Hooft, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, H. L. Henriod, General Secretary of the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches and Adolf Keller, Director of Inter-Church Aid sent the following letter to the member Churches:
"At the moment when the terrible persecution of the Jewish population in Germany and in other Central European countries has come to a violent climax, it is our duty to remind ourselves of the stand which we have taken as an ecumenical movement against anti-Semitism in all its forms. The World Alliance at the meeting of its Executive in Sofia in 1933 and at its recent Assembly at Larvik in August 1938, and the Conference on Church, Community and State at Oxford in 1937 have unequivocally expressed the Christian attitude on this point and called upon the Churches to help those who suffer from racial persecution. We suggest that at this time all Churches should take immediate action based on these statements. The most practical action would seem to be: 1. Corporate prayers of intercession. 2. An approach to the Governments of the various countries requesting that they should act immediately. a. in order to allow a larger percentage of non-Aryan refugees to enter provisionally or definitely into the country concerned; b. to further without delay the plan proposed by the Evian Conference [247] for securing a permanent settlement of a large number of actual and potential non-Aryan refugees. 3. Undertake as a Church the responsibility of the maintenance of some non-Aryan and Christian families and particularly of at least one non-Aryan pastor or theological student. <100> We put ourselves at your disposal for further information on any of these projects." [248]
We know that Church leaders in the United States made the requested "approach to the Government". [249]
The International Missionary Council held a large international conference at Tambaram, Madras, in December, 1938. It reiterated the Vienna (1937) statement of the International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews on anti-Semitism [250], expressed "its deep concern about the increasingly tragic plight of the Jews", and urged "that this constitutes a claim of first importance on the Christian Church". It recommended:
1. That prayer should be regularly made in Christian Churches, and
particularly on Good Friday and the Jewish Day of Atonement, for all Jews
and non-Aryans who are suffering persecution.
2. That individuals, Churches and Christian Councils in countries suitable
for the reception of immigrants should use their influence, wherever
possible, to secure an open door for refugees.
3. That Christian people in all countries should make a special effort to
welcome and help such of their refugee brethren as arrive in their country.
4. That an appeal be made in all churches for help for recognized refugee
funds…" [251]
In January 1939, at the First ordinary session of the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches, the Bishop of Chichester proposed that the Council create a special department to deal with refugee problems.
"He felt that the time had come to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans. He meant not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also the others, albeit there being a special responsibility towards members of the Christian Church. Soon afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the first secretary of this new Department for Aid to Refugees." [252] <101>
1939
Sept. 1 Germany attacks Poland.
Sept. 3-4 Great Britain and France declare war upon Germany.
Sept. 17 Russia invades Poland.
Nov. 30 Russia attacks Finland.
1940
March 20 Finland accepts peace with Russia.
Apr. 9 Germany occupies Denmark and attacks Norway.
May 10 Germany attacks the Netherlands and Belgium.
May 14 Capitulation of the Netherlands.
May 28 Capitulation of Belgium.
May 20-June 4: Evacuation of the British expedition force at Dunkirk.
June 10 Italy attacks France.
June 24 France concludes armistice with the Axis.
Aug.-Nov. The "Battle of Britain": Hitler tries to subdue Great Britain by
air raids.
Oct. 28 Italy attacks Greece.
Dec. 7-11 Victory of Great Britain in North Africa.
1941
April Victory of Germany in North Africa.
April 6 Germany attacks Yugoslavia and Greece.
April 13 Belgrade occupied.
April 27 Athens occupied.
May 10 Rudolf Hess flies to Scotland.
June 22 Germany invades Russia.
Dec. 6 Russian counter offensive; Germany fails to take Moscow.
Dec. 7 Japan attacks Pearl Harbour.
Dec. 11 Hitler declares war upon the United States.
1942
Jan. 20 The Wannsee Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish
Question" in Europe.
June Rommel defeats Great Britain in North Africa and captures El
Alamein.
Aug. 23 Germany's sixth army reaches the Volga near Stalingrad.
Nov. 2 Montgomery breaks through at El Alamein.
Nov. 8 Allied forces land in Morocco and Algeria.
Nov. 11 Germany seizes the unoccupied zone of France.
Nov. 19 Russia launches its counter offensive near Stalingrad.
1943
Jan. 3 End of the Battle of Stalingrad.
April 19-May 16 Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
July 10 Allied forces land on Sicily.
Sept. 3 Allied forces land in Southern Italy.
Dec. The Soviet armies approach the Polish and Rumanian frontiers.
1944
June 6 The beginning of the Invasion.
July 20 Attempt on Hitler's life.
August Russia conquers Rumania.
Aug. 25 Liberation of Paris.
Sept. 3 Liberation of Brussels.
1945
Jan. 17 Russia captures Warsaw.
Feb. 13 Russia captures Budapest.
Apr. 30 Hitler commits suicide.
May 2 Capitulation of Berlin.
May 7 Unconditional surrender of Germany.
<106>
Deportations from Austria and the Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia) began in the winter of 1939/1940. On February 12, 1940, Jews were deported from Stettin. On July 31, 1941, Heydrich was charged by Goering with the preparation and execution of the "Final Solution". On October 14, 1941, the systematic deportation of the Jews from the Reich began. On January 20, 1942, the Wannsee-Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe" was held. From July, 1942, the selections for the gas chambers took place in concentration camps such as Auschwitz. On June 19, 1943, Goebbels declared Berlin to be free of Jews. An estimated number of 3,000 Jews, however, succeeded in surviving "illegally", until the end of the war.
It is, as has been explained before, not my intention to record the help rendered by individuals to Jews. There are, however, indications that organized help to Jews did not wholly stop with the closure of Rev. Grueber's office. [253] Mr. Krakauer relates how he and his wife were helped and hidden during the last years of the war. [254] Not less than 34 ministers of the CONFESSING Church were involved in the rescue of these two people. They all had them in their homes for some days or longer, as staying at the same place for too long a period was too dangerous. It appears that there existed a kind of organization of pastors who passed on persecuted Jewish people from one manse to another. The book also shows how difficult it was in those days, to help and hide people who had no identity cards and no ration cards. Mr. Krakauer stated: "On May 20, 1945, I had the opportunity to speak with Landesbischof D. Wurm, the highest prelate of the country (of Wurttemberg), and to thank him for the fact that by his attitude he had made it possible for his pastors to interest themselves actually on our behalf". [255] Some Church leaders did not speak out publicly, or, only spoke when it was too late; the reason may just have been that they were afraid to accept the personal risk involved. We know of Bishop Wurm's protests, which came late, even too late to do any good for the Jews in general. <107> I do not know very much about his "attitude" in the time before he took official action. The fact that Mr. Krakauer felt that he should thank the Bishop, throws an important sidelight on the dilemma which Church leaders sometimes had to face. If they spoke out publicly against the persecutions, they did not only risk their own freedom and life, but they also risked the lives of the persecuted Jews whom they secretly tried to save. Mr. Krakauer's story should certainly be read by anyone who is interested in the attitude of Protestants in Hitler's Germany toward the Jews.
No public statement whatsoever against anti-Semitism was issued by the CONFESSING Church in Germany, or by any of its leaders, from the end of 1938 until 1943. In April, 1943, a letter was sent by a group of Christian laymen to the Lutheran Bishop of Bavaria. The Bishop asked for at least two signatures to enable him to raise the matter officially, but no one was willing to sign. However, the letter had an indirect influence because Bishop Wurm of Wurttemberg read it, and then sent two letters to the German Government.
Letter of a Group of Christian Laymen:
"As Christians we no longer can tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent in regard to the persecution of the Jews. in Churches where the true Gospel is preached, all members are equally responsible for supporting such preaching. We are therefore aware that we also, are equally guilty for the Church's failure in this matter. The inclusion of the so-called 'privileged' Jews in this persecution is the next threat: the dissolving of marriages which are valid according to God's law, should cause the Church to protest, in faithfulness to the World of God, against this violation of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, thus, at last, doing what it should have done long ago. What moves us is the simple commandment to love one's neighbour, as expounded by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Here He explicitly precluded any limitation of our love only to members of our own faith, race or nation. At this time every 'non-Aryan' in Germany, whether Jew or Christian, 'has fallen among murderers'; we are challenged as to whether we will act towards him as did the priest and the Levite, or as the Good Samaritan?
The Duty of the Church <108>
No 'Jewish Question' can release us from this decision. Rather should the Church declare that the Jewish question is primarily an evangelical question and not a political one. The politically unusual, and unique existence and character of the Jews is, according to the Holy Scriptures, based on the fact that God has chosen this people as the instrument for His revelation. The Church, just as the first apostles after the crucifixion, must tirelessly testify to the Jews: 'Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities' (Acts of the Apostles 3, 26). This testimony of the Church will only seem worthy of belief to Israel, if the Church is also concerned about the Jews who 'have fallen among murderers'. The Church must especially resist 'Christian' anti-Semitism within its borders, which excuses the actions of the non-Christian world against the Jews, as well as, the inactivity of the Church in this matter, by saying that a 'deserved' curse lies upon Israel. Let us not forget the apostle's exhortation to us Gentile Christians: 'Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee' (Romans 11, 20, 21). The Church must testify to the State about the purpose of Israel in the plan of salvation, thus actively resisting every attempt, to 'solve' the Jewish question, according to a man-made political gospel, which brings about the annihilation of the Jews. This is an attempt to fight against God and his first commandment. The Church must confess that she, as the true Israel, is united with Jewry by indissoluble ties, both in her guilt and in her right to the promises of God. She must not try any more to remain in safety while Israel is attacked. Rather, she must testify that by the attack on Israel, the Church and her Lord Jesus are also being attacked.
God remains faithful to his Covenant.
The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals the kind of example which should be given by the Church, in regard to the Jewish question. The phenomenal history of the Jews, in which the prophecy has been fulfilled: 'they shall be a curse, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations' (Jeremiah 29, 18), proclaims to the whole world that the God who gave the first commandment, by his dealings with Israel has manifested to the nations his sovereignty. The Church must explain this phenomenon. She also must, by her faithful testimony, make certain that the authorities are not able to avoid the challenge by obliterating the phenomenon of the Jews. She must therefore proclaim the message of God, who brought both Israel and the Church 'out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage' (Exodus 20, 2). Notwithstanding all the unfaithfulness of those He has elected among both Jews and Gentiles, He remains faithful to his Covenant. The Church thus proclaims to the authorities that only by faith in Jesus Christ can they be delivered from their demonic political 'gospel', which they in their obsession wish to realize, being unrestrained by the law of God. The Church, therefore, must proclaim the commandments concerning our neighbour to the authorities in connection with their attitude to Israel, but also the first commandment concerning their attitude towards God. For the rulers can only exercise their powers rightly by upholding the law rightly, in obedience to the first commandment. <109>
A Public Protest Demanded
The protest of the Church against the persecution of the Jews in Germany thus becomes a specially important example of the witness she is charged to give against all violations of the ten commandments by any power. The Church must warn the State, in the name of God, not with political arguments, as has happened occasionally, that it must 'not oppress the stranger, the fatherless and the widow' (Jeremiah 7, 6). She must remind the State of its duty to maintain public justice in an orderly, legal system based on humane laws; of the commandment to execute punishment in righteousness; of its duty to protect the oppressed and to respect certain basic rights of its citizens, etc. This witness of the Church must be made publicly, either through preaching or by means of a special pronouncement of the Bishop in his function as Shepherd and Watchman. Only thus can the Church fulfil her duty towards all who, either in a legislative or in an executive capacity, participate in this persecution. Also the conscience of the stricken Jews and the Christian community, which is tempted to deny its faith, must be instructed. So far the Church in Germany cannot be said to have made such a witness, for nothing that she has said in public has done justice to her responsibility to preach the truth in this respect. [256]
It is significant that the authors of this letter claimed that as Christians they no longer could tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent regarding the persecution of the Jews; that all members of the Church are equally responsible for supporting such preaching (of the true Gospel) and that the protest of the Church must be made publicly. Yet, they themselves refused to sign their own letter.
On January 28 1943, Bishop D. Wurm of Wurttemberg sent a letter to a "Senior State Official" (Ministerial Director Dr. Dill, of the Ministry of Interior). We quote the following:
"… Apart from these matters, ecclesiastical in the limited sense of the word, I would like to raise another delicate and difficult, but unfortunately, unavoidable point. Wide circles, and not only those in the Confessing Church, are unhappy at the manner in which the war against other races and nations is conducted. <110> From soldiers on home leave we learn how Jews and Poles are systematically murdered in the occupied territories. Also those who objected to Jewish predominance in public life (even at a time when the entire press was in favour of the Jews), cannot assume that one nation is entitled to exterminate another through measures applied to individuals irrespective of their personal blame. The putting to death of people without any trial, solely on the basis of their belonging to a different nationality, or on account of their diseased health, clearly contradicts the divine commandments, and therefore also every concept of justice and humanity which is indispensable in a civilised nation. There can be no blessing on such an attitude. It leads one to consider the fact that from the time these measures were adopted, the German forces have not been as successful as they were at the beginning of the war. Many Germans see in these occurrences not only a disaster but also a sign of guilt, which will bring its own vengeance. Their moral burden would be lightened, if a courageous and noble-minded decision were taken by the Government, which would cleanse the besmirched shield of honour of the German nation. The Evangelical Church has not publicly protested before, to avoid embarrassing the German nation in the eyes of foreign countries. But now that new and great sacrifices are being demanded of the German people, it should also be granted relief from its moral burdens." [257]
On July 16, 1943, Bishop Wurm sent a letter to all the Members of the
Government, in which he pleaded for the "so-called privileged non-Aryans".
We quote the following:
"… In the name of God, and for the sake of the German nation, we urgently request that the responsible leaders of the Reich stop the persecution and the annihilation of so many men and women, which under German domination is being carried out without any judicial sentence. Now that non-Aryans under German domination have to a great extent been removed, it is much to be feared that individuals, the so-called privileged non-Aryans, who until now were spared, are now in danger of being treated likewise. In particular we emphatically protest against those measures which threaten to dissolve legal marriages and thus penalize the children born out of these marriages. These aims are, like other actions of annihilation taken against non-Aryans, in flat contradiction to God's commandment, and they violate the foundation of all Western existence and human values in general…" [258] <111> On December 20, 1943, another letter was sent by Bishop Wurm, to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers:
"… Not because of any philosemitic sympathies but solely from religious and ethical considerations, I must declare, in accordance with the opinion of all positive Christian circles in Germany, that we as Christians consider the policy of annihilation of the Jews as a terrible injustice, fatal to the German people. Killing without military necessity and without trial is contrary to God's commandments, even though it is ordered by the Goverment. Just as every conscious transgression of God's commandments, it will recoil sooner or later on its perpetrators. Our people in many respects is experiencing sufferings which it has to bear from the air-attacks of the enemy, as if in retribution for what was inflicted upon the Jews…" [259]
A Public Protest, issued not by one Church leader but by the CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union, was the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment":
14. "The sword is given to the State only that it may execute criminals and for the destruction of enemies in war-time. What it does beyond that, it does arbitrarily and to its own detriment. When life is taken for other reasons than those mentioned, men's confidence in one another is undermined and thus the unity of the people is destroyed. The divine world order knows no such terms as 'to expunge', 'to liquidate' or 'valueless life' with regard to human beings. To slay human beings simply because they are related to criminals, because they are old or mentally afflicted, or because they belong to a different race, is not the use of the sword sanctioned by the Scripture… 17. In our time, especially, elderly people are more than ever before dependent on our help. The same is the case with the incurably ill, the weak-minded and the mentally diseased. We must also not forget those who receive no support - or almost no support - from public funds. In such matters the Christian is not concerned with public opinion. His neighbour is always the one who is helpless and who especially needs him, and he makes no distinction between races, nations or religions. <112> God alone has authority over human life. All life is sacred to him, even that of the people of Israel. Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God, but neither as human beings nor as Christians are we called upon to pass sentence on their unbelief…" [260]
The publication of the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment" was an act of courage but one shudders to read the opinion that "Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God". It was only after the war that the Kirchentag (1961) declared: "Jews and Christians are insolubly linked with each other: …God hath not cast away his people, which He foreknew". [261] Such declarations were lacking at the time when they were most necessary.
Several leaders of the CONFESSING Church have severely criticized their Church, and themselves. Rev. Martin Niemoeller, who himself was imprisoned from 1937 until the end of the war, stated:
"Nobody wants to take the responsibility for the guilt. Nobody admits to guilt but instead points to his neighbour. Yet the guilt exists, there is no doubt about it. Even if there were no other guilt than that of 6,000,000 clay urns; the ashes of burnt Jews from all over Europe. This guilt weighs heavily on the German people, on the German name, and on all Christendom. These things happened in our world and in our name… I regard myself as guilty as any SS man." [262]
Rev. Grueber, who himself suffered in a concentration camp because of his help rendered to Jews, said:
"In a few meetings of the Confessing Church a call to protest was given. But protests were made by the few, in comparison with the millions who co-operated or kept silent, who, at best, played the ostrich or clenched their fists in their pockets." [263] <113> The following is the opinion of Dr. Freudenberg, who was the Director of the World Council of Churches' Secretariat for Refugees, during the war:
"The attitude of the Christians, also of the adherents of the Confessing Church, towards the national-socialist persecution of the Jews, shows great weakness and uncertainty. The anti-Semitic outcry of the environment made a greater impression than the word of Jesus Christ, the Son of David… But even the apparently feeble witness of the Church demanded great confessional courage in the situation of that time. One wrestled to give many a witness, and one suffered when the right word at the right time was not given… It certainly is not accidental that even the Confessing Church, though offering determined resistance against the introduction of the Arierparagraph within the Church, only very hesitatingly made its stand against the anti-Semitic laws and the persecution of the Jews in the State… The fact that the policy of the State towards the Jews ultimately is the policy of the Church and that persecution of the Jews is persecution of Christ, was not acknowledged in time, and when finally it was made, it was far from adequate. Moreover, this policy was effectively veiled by the national-socialist methods of camouflage. At the beginning of the regime one simply could not believe that the rulers relentlessly pursued a plan for the annihilation of the Jews and the elimination of the Christian Church from public life… If we want to evaluate the documents correctly, we must always consider Hitler's incomprehensible terrorization in the Reich. It may disappoint us that the matter was not raised more often and more forcibly. We should, however, bear in mind under which circumstances speaking or keeping silent took place. We should keep in mind that only now, after all the atrocities have become known, has it become customary to make a categorical condemnation of national-socialism. But this phenomenon was, in general, judged quite differently, that is to say, much more positively, not only by the Germans but everywhere in the world, at the time when (some of) these documents were issued." [264]
The Evangelical Church in Germany herself, after the war, pleaded guilty,
unequivocally and repeatedly. [265]
The verdict seems obvious: even the Protestant group in Germany which
resisted Hitler, totally failed when they should have stood up in the
defence of the Jews. After all this has been said, however, something
should be added.
1. The CONFESSING Church in Germany did speak out against anti-Semitism
in 1936, and, indirectly, also in 1935 and 1938, when already this meant
martyrdom. Churches in other lands, for instance in the Netherlands, did
not speak out in those days. Many Churches outside Germany denounced anti-
Semitism long before 1940, but it cost them little, if anything. <114>
2. The CONFESSING Church, when speaking on behalf of the Jews, spoke against
its own Government and seemingly against national interests. Church
leaders in countries occupied by the Germans also risked their lives when
denouncing German anti-Semitism, but they spoke against the national enemy.
Public declarations of Church leaders in Germany were used by foreign
propaganda media against the Third Reich. [266]
Fortunately, this served to open the eyes of many blind people outside
Germany, but it certainly made things even more difficult for Church
leaders in Germany: many of their compatriots regarded the issue of such
declarations as an act of high-treason.
3. Guenter Lewy, discussing the attitude of the Roman-Catholic Church in
Germany, states:
"The concern of the Gentile populations of these countries (France, the Netherlands and Belgium) for their Jewish fellow citizens was undoubtedly one of the key factors behind the bold public protests of the French, Dutch and Belgian bishops - just as the absence of such solicitude in Germany goes a long way toward explaining the apathy of their German counterparts." [267]
This is also applicable to the leaders of the CONFESSING Church. <115>
Only 1,700 Jews were living in Norway. In October 1940, the Jews were barred from certain professions. In June 1942, registration was ordered and in October confiscation of Jewish property was decreed. The Jews received identity cards stamped with the letter J; at the same time, arrests of Jews began. On October 25, 1942, all male Jews of sixteen and over were arrested and interned. On November 25, the women and children were seized. 770 Jews, including 100 refugees from Central Europe, were deported by boat to Stettin and thence to Auschwitz. The majority of Norwegian Jews (930) were smuggled to Sweden. [268]
The Constitution of Norway proclaims: "The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State". The majority of Government ministers must be members of the Church of Norway. Quisling had received the title of Minister-president on February 1, 1942. The Bishops of the Church of Norway decided unanimously, on February 24, 1942, to "cease administrative co-operation with a State which practices violence against the Church", although maintaining the right to exercise the spiritual vocation given them by ordination at the Lord's altar. On April 9, 1942, the Quisling authorities imprisoned Bishop Berggrav and four other Church leaders. Later on Bishop Berggrav returned from the concentration camp in which he was held, but remained under house arrest. <116> On November 11, 1942, the (Lutheran) Bishops of Norway sent a letter of Protest to the Minister President Quisling. This Protest was also signed by the Baptists, the Methodist Church, the Norwegian Mission Association, the Norwegian Mission Alliance, the Sunday School Union and the Salvation Army. Following is the text of the Protest:
"The Minister President's law, announced October 27, 1942, regarding the confiscation of property belonging to Jews have been received by our people with great sorrow, and was deepened by the decree that all Jewish men over 15 years of age were to be arrested. When now we appeal to the Minister President, it is not to defend whatever wrongs Jews may have committed; if they have committed crimes they should be tried, judged and punished according to Norwegian law, just as all other citizens. But those who have committed no crime should enjoy the protection of our country's justice. For 91 years Jews have had a legal right to reside and to earn a livelihood in our country. Now they are being deprived of their property without warning; men were being arrested and thus prevented from providing for their property- less wives and children. This not only conflicts with the Christian commandment to 'love thy neighbour', but with the most elemental of legal rights. Jews have not been charged with transgression of the country's laws, much less convicted of such transgressions by judicial procedure. Nevertheless, they are being punished as severely as the worst criminals are punished. They are being punished because of their racial background, wholly and solely because they are Jews. This disaffirmation by the authorities of the Jews' worth as human beings is in sharp conflict with the Word of God which from cover to cover proclaims all racial groups to be of one blood. See particularly Acts 17, 26. There are few references where God's Word speaks more plainly than here. God does not differentiate among people. Romans 2, 11. There is neither Jew nor Greek. Galatians 3, 28. There is no difference. Romans 3, 22. Above else: When God through incarnation became man, He allowed Himself to be born in a Jewish home of a Jewish mother. Thus, according to God's Word, all people have, in the first instance, the same human worth and thereby the same human rights. Our state authorities are by law obliged to respect this basic view. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that the Evangelical Lutheran religion will remain the religion of the State. That is to say, the State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession. When now we appeal to the authorities in this matter we do so because of the deepest dictates of conscience. To remain silent about this legalized injustice against the Jews, would render ourselves co-guilty in this injustice. If we are to be true to God's Word and to the Church's Confession we must speak out. <117> Regarding worldly authority, our Confession states that it has nothing to do with the soul but that it shall 'protect the bodies and corporal things against obvious injustice, and keep the people in check in order to maintain civic peace and order'. (Augustana, Article 28). This corresponds with God's Word which says the authority is of God and established by him, not as a terror to good works, but to the evil. Romans 13, 3. If the worldly authority becomes a terror to good works, that is, to the one who does not transgress against the country's laws, then it is the Church's God-given duty as the conscience of the State to object. The Church, namely, has God's call and full authority to proclaim God's law and God's gospel. Therefore it cannot remain silent when God's commandments are being trampled underfoot. One of Christianity's basic values now is being violated: the commandments of God which are fundamental to all society, namely law and justice. One cannot dismiss the Church with a charge that it is mixing into politics. The apostles courageously spoke to the authorities of their day and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men'. Acts 5, 29. Luther says: 'The Church does not interfere in worldly matters when it warns the authority to be obedient to the highest authority, which is God'. By the right of our calling we therefore warn our people to desist from injustice, violence and hatred. He who lives in hatred and encourages evil invokes God's judgment upon himself. The Minister President has on several occasions emphasized that Nasjonal Samling, according to its program, will safeguard the basic values of Christianity. To-day one of these values is in danger. If it is to be protected, it must be protected soon. We have mentioned it before, but re-emphasize it now in closing: This appeal of ours has nothing to do with politics. Before worldly authority we maintain that obedience in all temporal matters which God's Word demands." [269]
The close relationship between Church and State in Norway is reflected in the protest: "The State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession".
Important is the reference to Luther; the attitude of the Lutheran Churches in Germany has been explained by recalling Luther's conception of the two dominions through which God rules this world: the spiritual one, or the Church, and the secular one, or the "worldly authorities". The people, according to Luther, have not the right to resist the authorities; only princes have. <118>
The Lutheran Church of Norway, however, quoted the Confession (Augustana) and Luther, in order to stress that it was "the Church's God-given duty as the conscience of the State to object" (to the anti-Semitic measures).
The letter of Protest won response throughout the country. It was read in the churches on the 6th and 13th December, 1942. It was also noted outside the borders of the country. The Swedish newspapers quoted it in full. The Swedish Lutheran Bishops referred to it in a pastoral letter which they issued at the beginning of December. [270] In radio London the Protest was quoted in full. "Breaking the wall of silence" did not help much, if at all, the Jews of Norway; but it warned people in Sweden and Denmark, so that they were on their guard when the Germans tried to apply their 'final solution' to the Jewish community in Denmark.
Naturally enough, the attitude taken up by the Christians earned them fresh attacks from the Quisling followers. On December 30, 1942, the Trondheim paper Adresseavisen concluded an editorial on the 'detrimental Jewish influence' in Norway with these words:
"… But now all this is forgotten. On Boxing day the Norwegian clergy read a new pastoral letter from the pulpits, glorifying the Jews and their activities, sighing and lamenting because the chosen race of Israel is not allowed to pursue its activities among the Norwegian people as before, but must be held responsible for its actions." [271]
Nevertheless, in a New Year's message for 1943, which was read from the pulpits throughout the country, the Provisional Church Council boldly declared that it would continue to fight Nazism to the end. The Council called upon the congregations to pray for imprisoned clergymen and persecuted Jews. It added:
"The appeal which the Norwegian Church and the Christian people recently sent to the Minister President on account of the atrocious treatment of the Jews, has not yet been answered. In this case we have clearly seen what may happen when God's words concerning the worth of man and love are being trampled underfoot." [272] <119>
a. The Preliminary Phase
On May 14, 1940, the Dutch army surrendered to the Germans. Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissioner to the Netherlands; Rauter was Chief of Police and Security; General Christiansen was head of the military administration. The political situation in the Netherlands was better than in occupied Poland and Bohemia, but worse than that in most of the other occupied countries, such as Denmark. The Queen and the Cabinet were in exile. The German rulers in the Netherlands were ruthless and efficient. In October, 1940, the first anti-Jewish decrees were promulgated. In November, Jews were dismissed from public posts. On January 10, 1941, the decree ordering registration of the Jews was signed. On February 9, 1941, the first raid on the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam was made. On February 25, 1941, a general protest-strike was declared in Amsterdam which paralyzed transport and industry, spreading to other districts. It was suppressed by force within three days. In May, 1941, the Jews were banned from parks and places of public amusement. In July, 1941, identity cards of Jews were stamped with the letter J. Between January and April of 1942, thousands of Jews were deported to labour camps. After May, 1942, the Jews had to wear the yellow star.' [273] There are people who believe that the record of Dutch resistance against National-Socialism is outstanding and that the majority of the population was engaged in rescue activities on behalf of the Jews. To those who believe this, the reading of Dr. J. Presser's book "Destruction" must be a shattering experience.
On June 20, 1940, the Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH [274] invited seven other Protestant Churches to a consultation. <120>
The Churches invited were: The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, the
Christian Reformed Church, the Re-united Reformed Churches, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church, the Re-united Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Brotherhood
of Remonstrants and the Society of Mennonites. Representatives of these
Churches convened for the first time on June 25, 1940. A "Council of
Churches" was established, and later on, became known as the "Inter-
Church Consultation". [275] Most of the public protests were issued by
this Council.
Particularly at the beginning, the attitude of several members of the "Council of Churches" showed a lack of determination. One of the factors that led the Council, as well as the Churches themselves, to a more determined attitude, was the influence of the "Circle of Lunteren". This group, consisting of ministers belonging to different Churches but mainly to the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, had followed the plight of the Confessing Church in Germany with deep sympathy; many of them were influenced by the clear stand and the teachings of Prof. Karl Barth. [276] The "Circle of Lunteren" secretly met for the first time in the village of Lunteren, on August 22, 1940. A letter was sent to the Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, urging the Church to give clear advice to the local churches and to the nation at large, especially regarding increasing anti-Semitic propaganda. [276] The reply of the Synodal Committee, however, was both reserved and evasive. [277]
The "Circle of Lunteren" also published clandestine brochures; 50,000 copies of the brochure "Almost too late" were distributed. It was written by Rev. J. Koopmans. He spoke of the danger of following new Messiahs, instead of the Messiah who came "not from our race, but from the much hated Jewish race". <121> He especially mentioned the fact that people in official posts were commanded to sign a document stating that they were "Aryan", and that the vast majority of those concerned had signed it, perhaps not even realizing its implications for the Jews. [278] Rev. Koopmans pointed out that it was a grave mistake to sign the document, and since many people had already signed it, indeed it was "almost too late". Therefore quick action should be taken if it would not be too late altogether. Everyone should explicitly declare that he would not take part in the expulsion of the Jews from public life. The pamphlet closed with the words:
"Dutchmen, it is almost too late, but still not too late! It is still not too late to return to the Christian faith and to a clear conscience. It is still not too late to stand up for our Jewish compatriots, for the sake of mercy and on the grounds of Holy Scripture. It is still not too late to show the Germans that their wickedness has not overcome everything, but that there are people who are determined not to be robbed in this way of their Christian faith and their clear conscience." [279]
Someone was caught distributing this brochure; he was sentenced by a
German judge to one and a half year imprisonment. [280]
Another clandestine pamphlet was published by the "Circle of Lunteren":
"What we believe and what we do not believe". It was written in the summer
of 1941 and widely distributed. We quote the following:
"Therefore we believe that he who stands up against Israel, stands up against the God of Israel… Therefore we believe anti-Semitism to be something much more serious than an inhuman racial theory. We believe it to be one of the most stubborn and most deadly forms of rebellion against the holy and merciful God whose name we confess." [281] <122> On October 24, 1940, the Protestant Churches sent a letter to the Reich Commissioner for occupied Holland, protesting against the discriminatory regulations against Jewish officials. The letter reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, representing the following Protestant Churches in questions regarding the relations between the Church and the civil authority: The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH; the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands; the Christian Reformed Church; the Re-united Reformed Church; the Brotherhood of Remonstrants; the Society of Mennonites, feel impelled to appeal to your Excellency in view of the regulations recently issued forbidding the appointment or promotion in the Netherlands of officials or other persons of Jewish blood. In our view the spirit of these regulations, which bear in a special way upon important spiritual questions, is contradictory to Christian mercy. Moreover, these regulations also effect members of the Church itself insofar as they have adopted the Christian faith in recent generations and who have been received as perfect equals into the Churches, as is expressly demanded by the Holy Scripture (Rom. 10, 12; Gal. 3, 28). Finally, the Churches are deeply concerned since this affects the people from whom came the Saviour of the world, and for whom all Christians intercede that they may recognize in Him their Lord and King. For these reasons we urgently appeal to your Excellency to induce the authorities to abolish the said regulations. Moreover, we refer to your Excellency's solemn promise to respect our national character and to refrain from enforcing on us any ideology alien to us." [283]
As the Boards of both the Lutheran Churches refused to associate their Churches with this protest, it was only submitted on behalf of six of the eight Protestant Churches. The text was made public in an abbreviated form on Sunday, October 27, in most of the churches. However, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church did not make the protest public to their congregations. Therefore Prof. H. H. Kuyper, who was the representative of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, was sharply criticized and some of the other members of the Council refused to co-operate with him further. He then resigned on account of his "deafness", and another was appointed in his place. [284] <123> On January 10, 1941, the decree ordering registration of the Jews was signed by Seyss-Inquart. On February 9, 1941, a general protest-strike was declared in Amsterdam which paralyzed transport and industry, spreading to other districts. It was suppressed by force in three days.
The next protest of the Churches was a letter, dated March 5, 1941, and sent to the Assembly of General Secretaries (an Assembly which, in the absence of the Ministers of State, represented the supreme Dutch authority in the Netherlands). The Evangelical Lutheran Church also signed this protest; thus seven Protestant Churches participated in this action. Here follows the text:
"The Churches are deeply distressed about the development of events, which is becoming increasingly clear. The proclamation of the Word of God entrusted to the Church charges us with the express duty to make its stand for right and justice, truth and love. It must raise its voice when these values are threatened or attacked in public life. The fact that these values are being seriously threatened cannot be denied by anyone who observes the present situation of our nation. Clear symptoms of this state of affairs which not only weighs as a heavy burden on the conscience of our fellow citizens but is also, according to the deep conviction of the Church, contrary to the Word of God, are incidents in the public street and the treatment to which the Jewish part of the Dutch population is being increasingly subjected. There is growing insecurity in the administration of justice and a continual attack on the freedom indispensable to the fulfilment of Christian duties. For this reason the Churches deem it their duty to request the Assembly most urgently to employ all means at its disposal to ensure that also at this time, justice, truth and mercy may be guiding principles of Government action. The Churches humbly consider it their bounden duty to influence the lives of the people as to inculcate in them these spiritual values. We trust that you will be prepared to pass on the word of the Churches as expressed in this document in any way you deem expedient to those who, in the present period of occupation, bear the ultimate responsibility for the course of events in our country. We fully realize the extremely difficult task which faces the Assembly at this juncture, and we pray God that He may give it His light and His help." [285] <124> The Churches intended to inform all the congregations of the nature and contents of this letter by a short announcement from the pulpits. The necessary circulars had been prepared in time for the reading of the declaration on Sunday, March 23, 1941. But on March 20, the secretary of the Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH and the Chairman of the "Council of Churches" were arrested. The authorities were sure that the reading of the declaration would become the signal for an insurrection and that the Churches would be responsible for a disturbance of public order. When it was shown that this was a misunderstanding, the two representatives of the Churches were released. To show that the Churches had not intended political action, the pastors who could still be contacted were asked not to read the letter from the pulpit. Thus it was only read in those towns and villages which did not receive the counter-order until too late. [286]
On March 23, 1941, a Pastoral Letter of the General Synod of the Reformed
Churches in the Netherlands was read from the pulpits. We cite the following:
"In our time the notion is advanced with ever increasing emphasis that it is not personal relationship to God's Name but belonging to a certain people or race which determines the meaning of a person's life and which divides mankind into distinct divisions. You will always be able to give the right answer to this doctrine (which has already been accepted by many) if you are faithful to the Holy Scripture. In repudiation of this doctrine the Church should not present its own ideas but only convey the powerful Word of God. You have already shared the anxiety which has filled the hearts of so many of our compatriots in recent months. This is a matter of course because, as the Church of Christ well knows from the Gospels, it was in the course of the history of the Jewish people that Christ was born. Therefore the fact of belonging to a special race must never limit our love towards our neighbour, nor the mercy that we owe him." [287]
On January 5, 1942, delegates of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches together applied to the General Secretary of the Ministry of Justice for an interview with the Reich Commissioner, Seyss-Inquart. <125>
This was the first time in Dutch history that the Protestant and Catholic Churches acted together and signed a document of protest. Moreover, this was a unique proceeding in occupied Europe and considerably increased the impact of the protests. The National-Socialist daily "Volk en Vaderland" commented:
"What God has been unable to achieve for centuries, the Jewish star has achieved. Churches which were never able to unite for the greater glory of God, now conduct a united action." [288]
An interview was arranged for February 17, 1942. Two delegates of the Protestant Churches and one from the Roman Catholic Church submitted a translation into German of the Memorandum to the Reich Commissioner which had previously been given to the General Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, who had already passed on a copy to Seyss-Inquart. In handing over the document the delegates declared that they were speaking in the name of the entire Christian Church of the Netherlands. We quote the following:
"Then the treatment of people of Jewish origin must be mentioned. At the moment the Churches do not offer judgment on anti-Semitism which, incidentally, they reject utterly on Christian grounds; nor do they wish to initiate a discussion on the political measures taken against the Jews in general. They wish to confine themselves to the fact that a large number of Jews were arrested in the course of the year 1941 and deported, and that since then an alarmingly large number of official announcements of death among these deportees has been received. The Churches would be neglecting their elementary duty if they did not insist that the authorities should put an end to these measures. This is a duty of Christian mercy." [289]
Prof. Aalders, one of the spokesmen, then gave an oral explanation of the
Memorandum. In his reply the Reich Commissioner said:
"… In our treatment of the Jews there can be no talk of mercy; only, at best, of justice. The Jewish problem will be solved by the Germans and no distinction will be made between Jews and Jews…" [290] <126>
The results of the interview were negative. Shortly afterwards, Prof. Aalders was arrested. The Churches intended to inform all the congregations of the interview from their pulpits. The German security service, however, threatened heavy punishment, if this intention were carried out. The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH protested against this in a letter sent to Seyss-Inquart, dated March 17, 1942. [291] Moreover, a short message was read from the pulpits on April 19, 1942:
"… The Church has protested against the lawlessness and cruelty to which those of Jewish faith in our nation are being subjected and against the attempt to enforce a national-socialist philosophy of life which stands in direct contradiction to the Gospel…" [292]
A full report was sent to all local Church councils, at the same time.
A decree, which initially did not seem so dangerous, actually resulted from the desire to isolate the Jews from other Dutchmen in order to exterminate them more easily. It was the regulation to place a notice "Forbidden to Jews" on public gardens, public baths and cinemas. At the beginning of 1942 it was ordered that such a notice must be placed on all public buildings. The Churches refused to obey this order:
"It is absolutely forbidden to place the notice on any church building or on premises used by the Church. On a building with Christian purposes the notice in question cannot be permitted as a matter of principle, because it would be a denial of the Gospel."
In some church buildings concerts were held, which required placing the notice. But the advice of the leaders of the Church was, that in such cases the concerts must be cancelled. The advice to sports clubs which were compelled to display the notice was: "For reasons of principle there is no other way but to stop the activities". [293] Many ministers of religion were fined or imprisoned because of their refusal to display this notice. <127>
b. Mass Deportation
Mass deportations of Jews began in June, 1942. The Jews were assembled in Westerbork camp; trains to the extermination camps in Poland left every week. The last large-scale deportations were in the spring and summer of 1943. In January, 1941, there were 160,000 Jews in the Netherlands, of whom 138,000 were Dutch citizens, and 22,000 foreign Jews. At least 104,000 of them were murdered.
After the systematic rounding up of Jews had started in Amsterdam, the representative of the Remonstrant Fraternity proposed to the Council of Churches, to turn the "New Church", in the centre of Amsterdam, into a house of refuge for persecuted Jews, and that attired in their robes of office the ministers of the different Churches should occupy the entrances of the church and stand or fall with the Jews in the church.
The proposal was not accepted. The majority of the Council believed that it would be a sublime but useless gesture which might well cause a bloodbath and at the very least an acceleration of deportations. [294] The Council decided, however, to send a telegram of protest to Seyss-Inquart, to General Christiansen, and to the two German General-Commissioners Rauter and Schmidt. The telegram read as follows:
"Dismayed by the measures that have been taken against the Jews in the Netherlands by excluding them from participation in the normal life of the community, the undersigned Churches have now learnt, with horror, of the new measures whereby men, women and children, as well as whole families, are being deported to Germany or countries now subservient to it. The suffering which this brings to tens of thousands, the recognition that these measures offend the deepest moral sense of the Dutch people, the opposition to God's laws of justice and mercy, all this forces us to address to you the most urgent plea not to implement these measures. Moreover, as far as Christians of Jewish origin are concerned this plea is strengthened by the fact that they have been debarred by this decree from participation in the life of the church." [295] <128>
Thereupon the Germans offered a concession. They declared their readiness not to deport Christians of Jewish origin. On the other hand, they made it clear that the sending of the telegram of protest had better not be made public during church services. This was accepted by the General Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH. The Synod considered that "among decent people one party does not publish any document if the other party objects". Another important argument was the fear that all that had been gained in favour of the Christians of Jewish origin might be lost. [296] None of the other Protestant Churches followed the example of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, nor did the Catholic Bishops. [297] The Germans took their revenge: all Roman Catholics of Jewish origin (amongst whom was the philosopher Edith Stein) were deported, on July 26, 1942, and perished, while most of the Protestants of Jewish origin survived. On September 24, 1942, Rauter wrote to Himmler:
"… Since my last report the Catholics among the Christian Jews have been deported because the five Bishops, with Archbishop de Jong of Utrecht at their head, did not abide by our original agreements. The Protestant Jews are still here, and attempts to break through the united front presented by the Catholic and Protestant Churches have indeed been successful. Archbishop de Jong declared at a Conference of Bishops that he would never again form a united front with the Calvinists and other Protestants. The storm of protest raised by the Churches when the evacuation began has thus been greatly undermined and has now subsided…" [298] <129>
Rev. H.C. Touw, the historian of the resistance of the DUTCH REFORMED
CHURCH, asked the questions:
"Did the Synod take the right decision? Or did it succumb to a satanic temptation? Was it unfaithful to its Lord in order to save the lives of its own members?" [299]
The question of choosing between "quiet diplomacy" and public protest now seems to be easy: negotiations with the devil are senseless. We should not forget, however, that Church leaders who issued a public protest not only took considerable personal risks, but also took upon themselves the responsibility for endangering the freedom and life of others. Noteworthy is the opinion of a group of Christians of Jewish origin who addressed themselves to the Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:
"Be assured that - if the proclamation of the Word of God (concerning the persecution of Jews) needs to be more clearly emphasized at this time - those among us who truly belong to the Lord are willing to be deported to Poland, confidently trusting in the lord." [300]
In the summer of 1942, regular contact was established between Protestants in Holland and Dr. Visser 't Hooft, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva. Couriers brought copies of protests of the Churches (and much other information) in microfilm to Geneva, Dr. Visser 't Hooft sent the microfilms to the Dutch Government in London.
The Churches expressed themselves again in a protest which was sent to
Seyss-Inquart on February 17, 1943, and which was read from the pulpits in
all the churches.
We quote from this protest the following:
"The Churches would be culpable if they failed to point out to the authorities the sins they committed in the execution of their authority, and if they failed to warn them of God's judgment. The Churches have already drawn your attention to the increasing lawlessness, the persecution unto death of Jewish compatriots… <130> But it is also the duty of the Churches to preach this Word of God: 'We ought to obey God rather than men'. This commandment is the touchstone in all conflicts of conscience, also in those that arise out of the recently taken steps. Because of God's justice, no one may participate in unjust actions since thereby he would become equally guilty of injustice." [301]
It was important that this protest was read out in all the local churches for it frequently happened that Dutch police agents were ordered to arrest Jews and others. The Churches thus warned the faithful that "no one may participate in unjust actions". [302]
c. The "privileged categories"; the "other God"
In spring 1943, after nearly all Jewish families had been deported, the occupying authorities confronted Jews in mixed marriage with the alternative of being deported or sterilized. We quote below the protest of the Churches. It was sent on May 19, 1943, and signed by the delegates of the nine Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches, while the Bishop of the Old Catholic Church sent a letter of adherence to the protest, a month later.
"Following on the many happenings in the years of occupation which have forced the Christian Churches of the Netherlands to complain to your Excellency - especially in the matter of Jewish citizens of our county - something so frightful is now being perpetrated that we cannot but address a word to your Excellency in the name of our Lord. We have already protested about several acts committed by the occupation authorities, which are in absolute contradiction to the spiritual principles of our people - a people and its Government which, from the very beginning, have at least endeavoured to live under God's Word. In the last few weeks the sterilisation of so-called mixed married has begun. But God who created heaven and earth and whose commandments are for all men, to whom even your Excellency will have to give account one day, has said to mankind: 'Be fruitful and multiply' (Gen. 1, 28). Sterilisation is a physical and spiritual mutilation directly at variance with God's commandment that we shall not dishonour, hate, wound, or kill our neighbours. <131> Sterilisation constitutes a violation of the divine commandment as well as of human rights. It is the latest consequence of an anti-Christian racial doctrine which destroys nations, and of a boundless self-exaltation. It represents a view of the world and of life which undermines true Christian human life, rendering it ultimately impossible. At the present time your Excellency is de facto the highest political authority in the Netherlands; you have been entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order in this country - entrusted not only by the leader of the German Reich but also by the inscrutable will of the God whom the Church proclaims here on earth. The commandments of this God and Judge of all the earth apply to you as much as to anybody else and all the more in view of your high position. It is for this reason that the Christian Churches of the Netherlands say to your Excellency in the name of God and of His Word: It is your Excellency's duty to stop this shameful practice of sterilisation. We have no illusion. We are well aware of the fact that we can hardly expect your Excellency to listen to the voice of the Church, which is the voice of the Gospel, which is God's voice. But things that cannot be expected of men, may be hoped for in the Christian faith. The living God has the power to incline even the heart of your Excellency to repentance and obedience. For that we pray God, both for the benefit of your Excellency and of our suffering people." [303]
This time again no official reply was received from Seyss-Inquart. However, he communicated by a verbal message that all cases which had occurred up till then, were dealt with on a voluntary basis and furthermore, that he had transferred the matter to General-Commissioner Rauter to deal with. Thus the Churches were advised to send any further protest to Rauter. The Churches turned again to Seyss-Inquart in their letter of June 24, 1943, in which was written, amongst other things:
"The Churches must, irrespective of the question of who is charged with a particular matter, consider your Excellency as ultimately responsible for everything that has happened, and is happening, in our country during the years of occupation." [304]
The letters had no practical effect. Many hundreds of Jews of mixed marriages were forced to undergo sterilisation; some, by using bribery or appealing to patriotic physicians, were able to arrange sham operations or get certificates of exemption. [305] <132> German racial policy encouraged the partners of "mixed marriages" to divorce the "non-Aryan" spouses. By a nominal formality, a partner could part from the one to whom he was legally married. The reaction of the Churches to this is laid down in their letter to Seyss- Inquart of October 14, 1943, which ran as follows:
"Time and again the Christian Churches in the Netherlands have approached your Excellency in matters concerning the Jews of our country, who long have been settled in the Netherlands, and who have been integrated into the life of our people. Your Excellency decided not to listen to the urgent words of warning from the Churches. Most of our Jewish compatriots who, until now enjoyed a limited liberty, have been deported. For them as well as for the very small group which yet remains, we appeal urgently to your Excellency, to prevent deportation and allow them privileged treatment in the Netherlands. Further, the Churches are seriously alarmed by indications that the German administration is again paying particular attention to the so-called mixed- marriages, with the aim of bringing about divorce, at least in a number of these marriages. This aim may, as happened in the case of sterilisation, be made to appear more harmless by a pretension that each divorce is a voluntary one. As before, the Churches beg emphatically to stress to your Excellency that this way of dissolution of marriage may not be followed. The Lord Jesus says, and He does not say that to His Church alone, but to the whole world, and thus also to your Excellency: 'What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder' (Matthew 19, 6). Therefore the Churches urgently appeal to your Excellency to let these small groups which are at present under consideration for the clauses of exemption, share also in the possibility recently opened for some of them, i.e., to be exempted from the restrictions that are in force for Jews. Commotion and indignation cannot diminish if actions are continued which injure the Dutch people in their deepest religious and moral convictions." [306]
In the autumn of 1943 a pastoral letter was sent to parochial church councillors of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, to give them the necessary basis for their opposition in the struggle against national-socialist ideology. After sections on "Another God" and "Another Morality", there follows the section on "Anti-Semitism". We quote the following from this section: <133> "This 'other god' and this 'other morality' is clearly recognizable in deliberate anti-Semitism. That the people of Israel should be hated and persecuted with fanatical passion and systematically annihilated with malice aforethought, is a phenomenon which has never before appeared in history in this form; for in the last resort there are no strategic, economic or cultural reasons to be adduced for this; the basis of anti-Semitism lies deeper, and this the Church should clearly perceive. The boundless and unrestrained hatred of the Jews comes from natural aversion to the 'Jewish God' and the 'Jewish Bible'. This outrage, this blasphemy, spread as it has in many written tracts and his been made into the spiritual nourishment of millions (of course under a regime where the state and the state alone is responsible, and intends to make itself responsible for the guidance of the people, and where public utterances and printed statements can thus never be attributed to the whim of private persons or groups as is the case under a democratic regime), must be an absolutely clear indication to the Christian Church that Faith, itself, is being attacked in its deepest foundations. The Church must not overlook the fact that in this respect, too, its members urgently need guidance based on the Scriptures. There are still members of the Church who, while detesting the systematic annihilation of our Jewish fellow-men and fellow-citizens, yet justify their aversion to the Jews by adducing the judgment of God." [307]
d. Some Comments and Evaluations
It is to the honour of the Churches in the Netherlands, that they already protested against one of the first steps taken against the Jews, in October, 1940. It is regrettable that sometimes the Churches chose to ask for "mercy" on behalf of the Jews instead of demanding the maintenance of justice. It is even more regrettable that the Churches never publicly exhorted their members, to actively help and hide Jews. Much in the declarations and protests issued, however, shows a deep Biblical insight, in contrast to protests of Churches in other countries in which the national-socialist terminology often was used, or national reasons were stressed rather than the Biblical viewpoint. There have been many comments on the attitude of the Churches in the Netherlands, and we quote some of them below. <134> Dr. W.A. Visser 't Hooft, general Secretary of the World Council of Churches:
"These documents must be read carefully. They are precious, for those who composed them and also those who read them from the pulpit were in great danger; they risked much when giving their witness." [308]
Rev. H.C. Touw, the historian of the resistance of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:
"The Church's struggle on behalf of the Jews was a struggle of mixed failure and success. Nevertheless this struggle was the most moving, the most dramatic, and the most persistent part of the resistance of the Dutch Church." "Just as too many kept silent in the pulpits, certainly too few took persecuted persons into their houses. Many felt that the Synod had failed to give sufficient guidance in this respect. It did not issue any exhortations, nor did it find any way by which to quicken the conscience of the people. This must be considered a great, collective guilt. Here there is no reason whatsoever for Christian self-glorification, but there is every reason to be ashamed." [309]
H. Wielek: "In April 1942, important declarations showing dignity and courage were proclaimed from the pulpits of the churches. The activity of the Church did not slacken. The pastors evinced personal courage; even without Synodal exhortation they understood how to act. Their sermons did not lack clarity, particularly in regard to the persecution of the Jews and their persecutors. Many pastors had to pay for their courageous attitude by a term in a concentration camp." [310]
W. Warmbrunn: "The attempt of the churches to caution the Germans in their actions, especially with respect to the persecutions of the Jews, could not be effective, since the course of action in major matters of this kind was determined by the Reich leadership." [311] "It appears to this writer that groups that excelled in effective resistance were voluntary organizations independent of state control that were conveyers of religious or ethical norms. The moral implications of Christian doctrine motivated the resistance of the Churches." [312]
Rev. J.J. Buskes: "Why did I let myself be seduced? Yes, indeed, seduced into making compromises. Why did I not say: 'Thus speaks the Lord'? <135> It is a painful matter also for others of whom it is said (as of myself) that they have behaved excellently. For it depends on the standard by which one judges." [313]
Message of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH to the Church in Germany, March 9, 1946:
"…We publicly confess before God and the world, that in this struggle we have not been sufficiently faithful, nor willing to accept suffering gladly and courageously." [314]
The armistice was signed on June 22, 1940. It was stipulated that 3/5 of the French territory would be occupied by the Germans. In the unoccupied zone a nominally independent regime was established. Marshall Petain became President; Laval was Vice-president until April, 1942, when he was succeeded by Admiral Darlan. Delegate for the occupied zone was Ambassador Brinon. In November, 1942, the Germans occupied Vichy France. Thus we have inserted this chapter under "Occupied Countries", not under "Satellite Countries". It should be noted, however, that the Vichy Government maintained diplomatic relations with the outside world and that it had at least a certain freedom of action in its own territory, until November, 1942. Laval was in a position to bargain for the French Jews by sacrificing the foreign Jews in France. [315]
a. The Preliminary Phase <136>
At the end of 1939 the Jewish population of France had reached a total of about 270,000. After May, 1940, more than 40,000 Jews streamed into France from Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. [316] The number of Jews deported from France is estimated to be approximately 80,000 persons. [317] According to Tenenbaum, the number was 100,000 out of a total pre-war Jewish population of some 350,000. "This relatively favourable result in comparison with the other countries is due primarily to the determined attitude of the French people with regard to their Jewish neighbours." [318] Chief Rabbi Kaplan shows us the other side of the picture:
"I do not forget, when recalling these dreadful crimes, that priests, pastors, men and women of all confessions and philosophical doctrines and of all classes, exposed themselves to the greatest dangers in order to come to the rescue of the persecuted Jews. Here I wish to mention particularly, the energetic and courageous protests issued by the eminent leaders of French Catholicism and Protestantism. Nonetheless the undeniable fact remains, that Christian ethical education - inculcated over a long succession of generations - has not prevented the majority of the people of a nation claiming to be Christian, from becoming more or less responsible for the abominable Hitlerite persecution." [319]
Many factors played their part. It was easier to go into hiding in France than, for instance, in the Netherlands. The attitude of the Italians who held part of occupied France was an important factor: they either found excuses for their non-cooperation with the Germans or just refused. France was the first country to be liberated: the invasion started on June 6, 1944.
On September 27, 1940, the decree for compulsory registration of Jews was promulgated in the occupied zone, including the marking of Jewish stores with the star of David. A few days later - October 4, 1940 - the Vichy French Council of Ministers decreed the Statute des Juifs which disfranchised the Jews in all France. On March 29, 1941, a "Department for Jewish Affairs" was created by the Vichy Government. In May, 1941, 3,600 Polish Jews were rounded up in Paris. In August, there was another raid. The victims were placed in three camps (Drancy, Pithiviers and Beaune la Rolande). On June 2, 1941, Jewish registration was made compulsory in both zones. On November 29, 1941, the Vichy regime decreed that all Jewish organizations were to be dissolved. <137> The Protestants in France are a small minority, numbering altogether not more than 800,000 souls. France is, to my knowledge, the only country where a small minority group of Protestants publicly protested against the persecutions. Poliakov stated one of the reasons:
"It must also be remembered that the French Protestants are themselves a minority and have known centuries of persecution - such trials, when they are surmounted, sharpen one's sensitivity to injustice." [320]
Another positive factor was the fact that the President of the Protestant Federation of France, Rev. Marc Boegner, was also one of the three Vice- chairmen of the Provisional Council of the World Council of Churches. He had many international contacts. This fact gave an additional impact to the protests. Rev. Boegner did not only speak in the name of the French Protestants, but also informed Marshal Petain "of the deep emotion felt in Swiss, Swedish and United States Churches". [321]
Rev. Boegner relates that he first stayed in Vichy at the end of July, 1940. A "very highly placed personality" told him: "The Jews have done so much damage to the country that they need collective punishment". He himself realized then "where we are going to be dragged and what would be the responsibility of the Churches". [322]
The establishment of the Department for Jewish Affairs, in March, 1941, aggravated the situation. German pressure on the Vichy Government became stronger. Rev. Boegner spoke of this to Admiral Darlan, who tried to calm him by saying that "it primarily was a matter of saving the French Jews". A high police officer sought to persuade him that this was a government matter which was no business of the Churches. [323] <138>
In Lyon, where the National Council of the Reformed Church had convened before the end of 1940, Rev. Bertrand informed Rev. Boegner that the Council of the Protestant Federation wanted a written protest without delay. It was agreed, however, that Rev. Boegner should continue with his oral interventions for some time longer. But when the National Council of the Reformed Church reconvened in March, 1941, it was unanimously resolved that the position of the Reformed Church should be set down in writing without delay. It was on these instruction that Rev. Boegner wrote two letters. The first was sent to the Chief Rabbi of France, on March 26, 1941:
"The National Council of the Reformed Church of France has just convened for the first time since the law of October 3rd, 1940, came into force. It has instructed me to express to you the grief we all feel at the introduction of racial legislation in our country, and at the trials and innumerable injustices which it has brought upon the French Jews. There are some among us who have thought that the State has been faced with a great problem as a result of the extensive immigration of a large number of foreigners - Jews and non-Jews - and by hasty and unjustifiable naturalisations, but they have always expressed the conviction that this problem should be handled with the respect due to human beings; with strict adherence to State undertakings; and in accordance with the demands of justice which France has always championed. They are all the more distressed because of the rigorous enforcement of a law which, applying exclusively to Jews, makes no distinction between Jews who have been Frenchmen for many generations, in many cases for centuries, and between those who received their citizenship only yesterday. Our Church which has in the past known all the sufferings of persecution, harbours feelings of warmest sympathy for your communities whose freedom of worship in certain places has already been restricted and whose faithful members have so suddenly been afflicted with misfortune. It has already taken steps - which it will not fail to pursue vigorously - for the necessary repeal of the law." [324]
This letter shows hesitation: it considers the "extensive immigration of a large number of foreigners" as a problem and creates the impression that the French Protestants cared less for the Jews who had "received their citizenship only yesterday" than for the Jews who had been Frenchmen for many generations. <139>
The same applies to the letter sent to Admiral Darlan, also on March 26, 1941:
"We have just convened at Nimes, for the first time since the enforcement of the Law of October 3rd, 1940, concerning the status of the Jews. On the eve of our meeting we learned from a notice in the press, of your intention to set up an office for Jewish Affairs. We consider it our duty to inform you in the name of the Reformed Church of France, comprising the vast majority of French Protestants, of our feeling on this painful question. We in no way disregard the seriousness of the problem which the State has to face in view of the recent, large immigration of a great number of foreigners, many of them of Jewish origin; and in view of hasty unjustifiable naturalisations. We are convinced that this problem ought, and can be, resolved with due respect to individual people and due care for the justice, of which France has always desired to be a champion. We also know that under the present circumstances strong pressure is undoubtedly being exerted on the government of France in order to force its decision to pass anti-Jewish laws. We are nonetheless deeply distressed, as Frenchmen and as Christians, by a law which introduces the principle of racial discrimination into our legislation, the strict enforcement of which entails severe trials and tragic injustices for the French Jews. Especially, do we protest against the principle of racial discrimination, because it has caused the State to break its formal undertakings on behalf of men and women, the vast majority of whom have served it loyally and disinterestedly. We are assured that the Law of October 3rd, 1940, is not a law of religious persecution. But if freedom of worship really remains untouched, for Jews as for Catholics and Protestants, why then is it, in fact, already being barred or threatened in certain places? The fact is, that a religious minority is being wronged. Our Church which has known all the sufferings of persecution, will fail in its primary mission if it does not raise its voice on behalf of this minority. We know that by setting up an office for Jewish Affairs, you sincerely wish to do whatever is in your power, to avoid even greater hardship from befalling the French Jews. We believe we may give you our assurance that the Christian denominations will give their unreserved approval to your effort, the difficulty of which they are well aware of. At the same time, however, we would ask you most earnestly to take even further measures, and as from now, to amend the law imposed on the French Jews, so that, on the one hand, further injustices may be prevented, and on the other hand, the disastrous impression made on a large part of the civilised world by the law of last October, may be removed. The defeat suffered in the war, the painful consequences of which we are now experiencing, constitutes a further reason why France should seek to safeguard those values which, in the moral sphere, have gained it the respect and affection of Christian nations." [325] <140>
Admiral Darlan did not reply to this letter in writing. He told Rev.
Boegner that he wanted to discuss the matter with him. Rev. Boegner relates:
"In May (1941) I had a long meeting with him. He informed me that a new draft law was being studied, certain provisions of which would seem very severe to us, but there were others which would attenuate their effect. His sole care was to save those Jews who had been established in France for several generations. Regarding the others, who had recently immigrated, his one wish was that they should leave the country." [326]
On May 29, 1942, it was decreed that every Jew who had reached the age of six must wear the yellow star. The Council of the Protestant Federation, under the chairmanship of Rev. Bertrand (in the occupied zone) decided to express the feelings of the Churches in the occupied zone directly to the Chief of State, Marshal Petain. Their letter read as follows:
"The Council of the Protestant Federation of France, assembled in Paris, takes the liberty of addressing itself with respectful confidence to the French Chief of State to express to him the painful impression made upon its affiliated Churches by the new measures taken by the Occupation Authorities with respect to the Jews. The decree of May 29th, compelling our compatriots of the Jewish race to wear a distinctive badge, has in fact deeply moved thousands of Protestants in the occupied zone. Our President, Rev. Marc Boegner, has already had the honour of informing you, as well as Admiral Darlan of the Fleet, who is Vice President of the Council of Ministers, of the unanimous desire of the Protestants of France that the solution of the Jewish question, the importance of which none of us can fail to recognize, shall be found in a spirit of justice and understanding. Yet at present we are faced with a measure which far from contributing to the proper solution of this problem, seems to aggravate it further. Socially and economically unworkable, it is designed to inflict uncalled for humiliation on Frenchmen, many of whom have shed their blood fighting under our Rag, by pretending to set them apart form the rest of the nation. It exposes six year old children to mischievous behaviour, easily liable to occur in the disturbed atmosphere prevailing among the population. Finally, it compels converts to Catholicism or Protestantism to wear before other men, the visible sign of being Jewish, whereas, before God, they have the honour to be acknowledged as Christians. <141> The Churches of Christ also cannot keep silent in view of the undeserved suffering imposed on Frenchmen, and sometimes on Christians, which ignores their dignity as men and as believers. The Council of the Protestant Federation has therefore instructed me to convey to you our feelings of distress. It hopes that you may consider it as a sign of confidence and respect that it submits this expression of pain and distress to the heart of a great soldier who is the Chief of State of France." [327]
The letter was handed over to Marshal Petain by Rev. Boegner. The subsequent conversation left him with the same impression as that on his previous meeting with the Chief of State: deep emotion, complete impotence. In a circular letter dated June 11, 1942, Rev. Bertrand informed the pastors in the occupied zone that the Council of the Federation had instructed him to write to Marshal Petain. After having quoted part of his letter to Marshal Petain, he reminded his colleagues that "the spiritual value of such interventions depends on careful avoidance of any allusion to political events or worldly ideologies, and on strict adherence to the sphere of thought and of Christian action alone". Rev. Bertrand added:
"In particular the Ecumenical (Oxford) Conference of 1937 affirms that 'all men are by birthright children of God.' 'Therefore, for a Christian there can be no such thing as despising another race or a member of another race.' 'All races share alike in the concern of God.' 'The sin of man asserts itself in racial pride, racial hatred and persecutions, and in the exploitation of other races. The Church is called upon by God to express itself unequivocally on this subject." [328]
Perhaps more important than the protests sent to the French Government,
was a Message issued by the National Synod of the Reformed Church of
France, in May, 1942, which was read out publicly in all the local churches.
This Message included the following passage:
"The Church has been commanded by God to resist the attack of every doctrine and every ideology, every threat and every promise which seeks to assail the message of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. <142> It must proclaim absolute sovereignty of God, who creates His own people For Himself by calling to Him men of every race, nation and language, in spite of the rights and privileges to which men may deem themselves to have a claim. It knows that all men were created equal, equal in perdition and equal in salvation, and that God's justice demands that every man shall be respected." [329]
b. Mass Deportations
On July 16, 1942, mass raids struck the stateless Jews living in Paris.
In two days 12,884 of them, including 4,051 children, were rounded up by
the French police. [330]
Thereupon, the President of the Protestant Federation in the occupied zone,
Rev. Bertrand, sent the following letter to Mr. de Brinon, General delegate
of the French Government to the Occupation authorities:
"When the German authorities made it incumbent upon the Jews living in the occupied zone to wear a distinctive badge, the Council of the Protestant Federation of France submitted a letter to the French Chief of State which was well received by him and of which I enclose a copy. One would have thought that now the anti-Jewish laws have reached their climax with this humiliating measure designed to place the Jews apart from the rest of the nation and to single them out for the kind of malevolence, systematically meted out to them since the beginning of the occupation. However, the month of July has seen an increase of personal violence on a scale never before attained; and we have noted among the general population of Paris a feeling of distress and disapproval which the present generation undoubtedly will never forget. The Churches of Jesus Christ to whom God has entrusted the message of peace, love, and mutual respect among men, cannot keep silent in view of events which for many years have threatened any possibility of a normal relationship between two great nations. Because Frenchmen at present have no means of making their opinions and feelings known, it should not be inferred that they are indifferent onlookers at the extermination of a whole race, and at the undeserved martyrdom of its women and children. The men who profess to be working towards closer relations between the conqueror and the nations over which he exercises his authority, surely should be able to make the occupying forces understand that declarations of good will during these years cannot efface the effect of the cruelties we have witnessed. <143> A Christian Church would be failing in its vocation were it to let the seeds of hatred be sown in this fashion without raising its voice in the name of Him who gave His life to shatter all barriers between men. I leave it to Your Excellency to judge whether the appeal I have made to you to-day should be brought to the notice of the occupying authorities, and whether the voices of Christians, who are solely concerned with seeking to alleviate suffering and hatred, ought to be ignored, rather than those of men who know no other response to violence than that of hatred. Before concluding this letter I wish expressly to state that the message to Marshal Petain was the only subject of the deliberations of the Council of the Protestant Federation, which has just ended its sessions and it is collectively responsible for it. With regard to the present letter, I take upon myself full responsibility for it, not only before the Church and the French nation but also - eventually - before the German authorities." [331]
Rev. Boegner relates: "Events succeeded one another precipitately. After the occupied zone came the turn of the so-called 'free zone'. We saw a new wave of horror unleashed in camp, town and village. Our chaplains, together with the 'Cimade' [332] and the parish pastors, in the face of tremendous suffering, accomplished a task of Christian love which was a powerful testimony to Jesus Christ. I supported their efforts to the best of my ability. But renewed appeals became necessary. I thought that at this tragic juncture the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches should at least unite in making their appeals. I spoke of this to Cardinal Gerlier on August 13th. It was agreed that each of us should write an urgent letter to Marshal Petain. Mine was sent on August 20th." [333] The letter read as follows:
"When you did me the honour of receiving me on June 27th, I placed in your hands a letter whereby the Council of the Protestant Federation of France entrusted to your soldier's heart the pain and agitation caused in the Protestant Churches by measures taken in the occupied zone against the Jews, and those Christians whom the law has marked as Jews. <144> To-day it is my regrettable duty to write to you in the name of the same Council in order to express the unspeakable sorrow felt in our Church, in face of new measures ordered by the French Government and directed against the foreign Jews (baptised and unbaptised), and the ways and means of their execution. No Frenchman can remain unmoved in view of the events occurring since August 2nd, in concentration and internment camps. As is known, the reply is that France is only returning to Germany those Jews whom the latter had sent in autumn 1940. In truth, however, man and women who for political and religious reasons fled to France, and who know the terrible fate awaiting them, are now being deported or facing immediate deportation to Germany. Christianity has hitherto inspired nations, and especially France, with respect for the hallowed right of sanctuary. The Christian Churches, irrespective of their different confessions, would be disloyal to their original calling if they did not raise a protest against the abandonment of this principle. I am forced to add that in several places these 'deliveries' have occurred under such inhuman conditions that they shock the most hardened consciences, and brought tears to the eyes of witnesses: herded together in goods trucks, without the slightest hygienic precautions, foreigners intended for deportation were treated like cattle. The Quakers, who were doing the utmost possible for those who suffer in our country, were refused permission to feed the deportees at Lyons. The Israelite Consistorium was not allowed to give them foodstuffs. Respect for the human personality which you intend to maintain in the Constitution and which you want to grant to France has often been trodden underfoot. Here, also, the Churches see themselves obliged to protest against such a grave misunderstanding of undeniable duties. The Council of the Protestant Federation appeals to your high authority to order the introduction of absolutely different methods in the treatment of foreigners of the Jewish race, whether baptized or not, whose deportation has been admitted. The tenacious fidelity of France, especially during the tragic days which it has lived through in the past two years, towards its traditions of human generosity and noble-mindedness, remains one of the main grounds of respect which certain nations still have for us. As Vice President of the World Council of Churches which includes all great Christian Churches, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, I am compelled to inform you of the deep emotion felt in Swiss, Swedish, and American Churches, in face of the events now occurring in France, and with which the entire world is acquainted. I beg you to dictate the indispensable measures in order that France may not inflict upon herself a moral defeat of unfathomable weight." [334]
Some days later, the letter was broadcast over the American and British radio, and subsequently reproduced in the foreign press. <145> The deportations continued. By September 1, 1942, the Vichy authorities had handed over 5,000 Jews to the Germans and another 7,100 had been arrested. [335] On August 27, 1942, Rev. Boegner sent the following letter to the Chief of the Government, Laval:
"Authorized to speak on behalf of the Protestant Churches of the entire world, many of which have already asked for my intervention, and aware of the events of the past few days, I beg to urge you to give me your assurance that in no event shall foreigners be convicted in their own countries for political reasons, and those who have sought refuge in France, for similar reasons, be expelled to the occupied zone." [336]
He then had an interview with Laval, who said that foreign Jews must be handed over to the Germans in order to save the French Jews. "Would you agree that we save their children?", asked Rev. Boegner "The children must remain with their parents", was the reply. Laval then asked: "What would you do with the children?" Rev. Boegner. answered: "French families will adopt them". Laval retorted: "NO, not one must remain in France". Rev. Boegner than had an interview with the Charge d'Affaires of the United States, who promised him to cable to Washington, to be authorized to tell Laval that the United States would accept the children of deported parents. [337]
As the Council of the Federation of Protestant Churches in France could not be convened, Rev. Boegner then urgently called a gathering of the National Council of the Reformed Church. It addressed to the faithful the following Message, dated September 22, 1942, which was read from nearly all the pulpits: <146>
"The National Council of the Reformed Church of France, being convened for the first time since the application of measures against the Jews, among whom are many Christians, was informed of the demarches which its President had made, in writing and verbally, to the highest State authorities in the name of the Federation of French Protestants. The Council associated itself fully with the President. Without ignoring or belittling the extreme complexity of the situation with which the authorities of our country are faced and more than ever determined to exercise loyally - among the people - the spiritual vocation to which God has called her; although composed of people faithful to the old principle of abstaining from any intrusion into the sphere of politics, the Reformed Church of France cannot keep silent in face of the suffering of thousands of human beings who have received asylum on our soil. A Christian Church would lose its soul and the very reason for its existence, were it not to maintain - for the safeguard of the whole nation in the midst of which God has placed it - the Divine law above human contingencies. That Divine law does not permit families created by God to be broken up, children to be separated from their mothers, the right of human beings to asylum and pity to be disregarded; nor respect for human rights to be trodden upon, nor defenceless beings to be delivered to a tragic fate. Whatever the problems may be which are beyond the scope of the Church and which the Church is not called upon to resolve, it is its duty to assert that they shall not be resolved by means which contravene the law of God. The Gospel commands us to consider all men, without exception, as our brothers, for whom our Saviour has died on the cross… How can the Church ever forget that it was among the people from whom the Jews are physically descended, that the Saviour of the world was born? And how can it be anything but profoundly grieved - as a Church which must affirm the unity of the body of Christ - by measures which also effect non-Aryan Christians, who are members of our Protestant parishes? In the face of these painful facts the Church feels compelled to make heard the cry of its Christian conscience, and to implore, in the name of God, those who exercise authority in the world, not to aid to the natural horrors of war - in itself a violation of Christ's commandments - still worse violations which will in the most fearful manner hinder reconciliation between the nations, in a repentant and peaceful world, submissive to God. It calls upon the faithful to incline toward the distressed and the suffering with the compassion of the good Samaritan, and to intercede ceaselessly with God on their behalf, for He alone can deliver us from evil by the grace He has revealed in Jesus Christ." [338] <147>
Everybody knowing the parable of the Good Samaritan [339] must have fully understood that the last sentence of this message was a call to practical and effective acts of rescue, on behalf of those who had fallen "among thieves" and murderers.
No public protests were issued by the French Protestant Churches after that of September 22, 1942. On November 11, 1942, the Germans seized unoccupied France. The demarcation line had disappeared. The deportations continued.
c. Practical Help
It is difficult to assess the practical results of public messages such as the one mentioned above. They certainly made more impact than protests sent by Churches to the authorities. S. Lattes is of the following opinion:
"Also, as might have been expected, when the first anti-Semitic measures were taken by the Germans and the Vichy government, many authoritative voices, Catholic and Protestant, were raised in demonstration of their sympathy towards the Jews… These written manifestos had hardly any practical effect, but they were a display of true courage and by their distribution exercised a deep influence on the conscience of the French. They also afforded moral encouragement to the Jewish victims." [340]
L. Poliakov gives the following account of the results of the public appeal, made by Rev. Boegner in the name of his Church, and he also gives an interesting analysis of what moved the ordinary Protestant to help the Jews:
"A picturesque little town of 2,000, Chambon-sur-Lignon lies at the foot of Mont-Lisieux, in the centre of a little plateau almost exclusively inhabited by Huguenots. The word Huguenot immediately calls to mind the thousands of victims of persecution who, escaping from France in the 17th century, settled in Prussia, the Netherlands and the United States. One section, however, instead of leaving their country, fled to the savage region of Velay. Protected by practically impassable ravines, they hid in the woods, and remained faithful to their religion. Only in the 19th century were they able to resume their religious worship openly. This period of persecution has made them deeply pious, melancholic and austere; they are suspicious of any authority but unquestioningly follow their pastors. It is here that they have preserved almost intact the customs and virtues of the past centuries. <148> immediately after the terrible raids of July 1942, Pastor Boegner, President of the Federation of Protestant Churches of France, issued an appeal to all this followers, asking them to do everything in their power to help the Jews. The appeal was heeded. Nearly every Sunday the pastors of Chambon, Mazet and Fay-Le-Froid, exhorted their congregations to renewed efforts. The country-people never tried to evade their responsibility. The persecutions which their own grand-parents had suffered were still alive in their memory. They provided food and lodging for the persecuted; in certain small hamlets in the area there was not a single farm which did not give shelter to a Jewish family… On the evening, at the hotel May, I witnessed a spectacle typical of the whole region of Chambon: a social worker arrived with several children whose parents had either been deported or were in hiding in Marseille. They huddled together in fear, in a corner of the room. A couple of country people first came in. 'We should like a little girl of eight or ten,' explained the woman. Little Miriam is called. 'Would you like to go with this uncle and auntie?' Intimidated, the little girl does not answer, but she was muffled up in blankets and carried into the sledge; and so she left for a home where, until the end of the war, she would live a simple, healthy life with temporary foster parents. And as if by sleight of hand, all the other children were taken care of in the same way." [341]
Perhaps France was the only occupied country where an official Protestant organization rendered direct and practical help to the persecuted Jews. The Cimade [342] was a Protestant Youth organization which sent teams of young Protestants into the camps, in order to render relief to the internees. Miss Madeleine Barot, general secretary of the Cimade, states: "All racialism is inadmissable from the Christian point of view. It was necessary to give tangible signs of this conviction, to alert public opinion, to protest to the responsible authorities, to mobilize the forces of <149> Protestantism, and, above all things, to help those who suffered most." [343] The first relief team was installed in the camp of Curs. It was partly justified to the police by the presence of a number of baptized internees, who were registered as Protestants. "Our work was labelled as 'Protestant assistance', which was of a great help, though we ourselves did not even consider for one moment restricting our help to the Protestants." [344] Thanks to the financial support of the Ecumenical Committee for Aid to Refugees, Geneva, the number of rations to be distributed in Gurs could be increased. [345] In 1941, teams were also placed in the caps at Rivesaltes, Brens, le Recebedou, and Nexon. In the spring of 1942, the Cimade opened four houses (at Chambon-sur-Lignon, Tarascon, le Tarn and Marseilles) for the accommodation of old or sick people and women with little children, who were permitted to leave the concentration camp if an authorized organization took charge of them. The Swedish Church and the World Council of Churches rendered financial aid. [346]
The leaders of the Cimade permanently kept in touch with the Rev. Marc Boegner so that he, when he intervened with the Vichy Government, could make proposals which corresponded with the actual situation in the camps. [347]
After mass deportations had begun, the members of the Cimade became more and more involved in "illegal" activities. The Secretariat of the Cimade at Nimes provided false identity cards. "We set up a record by once producing fifty identity cards in one night." [348] Several members of the Cimade were active as guides, bringing refugees through the mountains to safety in Switzerland. "According to my estimations, we helped to evacuate about four hundred persons, from August, 1942, until December, 1943." [349] After the Swiss Government had ordered that refugees who had illegally entered into Switzerland be returned to France [350] the Rev. M. Boegner obtained in Berne the agreement that non-Aryans coming from France for whom he had given personal guarantee, would be admitted. [351] <150>
On April 5, 1941, Yugoslavia concluded a treaty of friendship with Moscow, and within hours Belgrade was bombed by the German air force. Yugoslavia was dismembered by the Nazis. The north-eastern part, the Backa basin, with 20,000 Jews, came under Hungarian annexation. Old Serbia, where 12,000 Jews lived, came under German occupation. In Croatia, with 21,000 Jews, a puppet regime was established. The Bulgarian-annexed territory of Yugoslavia (Serbian Macedonia) contained between 7,000 to 8,000 Jews. Before the war, Yugoslavia harboured some 70,000 Jews. Fifty-five thousand of them were murdered. [352]
The greatest non-Roman Catholic Church in Yugoslavia is the Serbian Orthodox Church. Much smaller Churches are: the Reformed Christian Church of Yugoslavia and the Slovak Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Yugoslavia. None of these Churches replied to my circular letter. The persecution of Orthodox Serbs matched the persecution of Jews, both in cruelty and fanaticism. [353] I hardly found any material about the attitude of the Churches in Yugoslavia; only the following quotations can be mentioned:
"High Orthodox and Catholic circles were unanimous in condemning anti- Jewish propaganda. Early in 1940, the Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo, while visiting a synagogue near Belgrade, deplored religious persecution, and the official Catholic organ die Donau condemned racialism. In October, the Patriarch of Sarajevo expressed to representatives of the Jewish community his sympathy for their sufferings." [354] "At the end of May (1943), some Jews who were still living in Zagreb under the protection of the Archbishop, were seized one night and deported, before the churchman could intervene to save them." [355] <151> "Contrary to what we know about the attitude of the Catholic and Protestant Churches on the Jewish question, we have only meagre knowledge of the aid and comfort rendered by the Orthodox Churches in Nazi-subjugated Europe. [356] Nazi persecution of the Orthodox faith was not checked by the minor hesitation the Nazis showed in their dealings with the other Christian denominations. A few enlightening examples of a deeply humane attitude in some of the conquered countries rend the mist surrounding the tragedy into which these unhappy lands were thrust. Thus it is known that the heads of the Yugoslavian Orthodox Church bravely protested against the atrocities perpetrated on the Jews and exhorted priests and people to abstain from participating in the outrage of Nazis and Ustasa (Croation Fascists) alike." [357]
a. Salonika
Greece was overrun by the Germans on April 6, 1941; the armistice was signed on April 23, 1941. There were three separate occupation zones: Italy was assigned the territory comprising "old Greece", with Athens as capital, and the Ionian islands; Bulgaria occupied Western Thrace and Greek Eastern Macedonia; Germany had a narrow belt of Eastern Thrace bordering on Turkey, along with the Salonika harbour and the island of Crete. A puppet government, seated in Athens, functioned in both Italian and German zones. About 13,000 Jews lived in the Italian zone, but the number of Jewish inhabitants in German dominated territory was over 55,000. In March, 1943, the Jews of Salonika were put in a concentration camp. From the middle of March, through May, deportation trains rolled from Salonika to Auschwitz. About 46,000 Jews were deported. [358]
Friedman is of the opinion that "the Greek Orthodox Church, always a power in the political life of the country, used its considerable influence to oppose anti-Jewish laws, and, later, to help rescue the victims. The humblest papas of remote villages as well as the highest dignitaries of the Church enlisted in the crusade to help Jews". [359] <152>
It is doubtful, however, whether any Church in any country had a "considerable influence" with the German occupying forces. The Church did not, and probably could not, prevent the extermination of the great majority of the Jews of Greece.
At the end of February, 1943, two lawyers turned to Genadius, Bishop of Salonika, and submitted to him a Memorandum concerning the danger threatening the Jews. Bishop Genadius immediately went to Dr. Merten, who was in charge of all civilian affairs in Salonika, and protested, in the name of his Christian faith, against the preparations for the transports. Replying hypocritically, Dr. Merten stated: "I expected this step of yours, but all your efforts are in vain, for the orders are official and no intervention can change them". [360] Mr. Moissis, a Jewish lawyer in Athens, commented:
"The attitude of Genadios, Bishop of Salonika, was excellent. He submitted a vehement protest to the military commander of the Macedonian capital who had issued the order of deportation, in March, 1943, in which Bishop Genadios characterized the order as inhuman and anti-Christian. During the deportations, he secretly received Chief Rabbi Koretz and other representatives of the Jewish community, and it was at his residence that the meeting took place of Rabbi Koretz and the Greek Prime Minister, John Rallis, who had come to Salonika especially, and solely, in order to save the Jewish population." [361]
As soon as the measures against the Jews started, desperate appeals were addressed to Damaskinos, Archbishop of Athens and Primate of all Greece, by the Jews of Salonika, begging him to mediate with the representatives of the Reich in order to prevent their extermination. [362] Greek delegations went to see the Archbishop asking him to intervene. Archbishop Damaskinos, who shared the feelings of his followers, asked to see Altenburg, the representative of the Reich. He expressed to him the anguish of the Greek people at his inhuman and anti-Christian measure, and asked for his intervention to stop persecution. <153> Altenburg replied that the Jewish question was of capital importance to National Socialism; that it was dealt with by the central administration and that, consequently, he, personally, could do nothing on behalf of the Jews of Greece. Actually, he shared the opinion that this measure should be taken, and should be applied to Jews throughout Greece. In spite of all protests, Jews of Greek nationality should be forced to go to Poland, while those of other nationalities should be returned to their countries of origin. The Archbishop asked: "Why should Jews of Greece, who are of Spanish nationality, go to Spain, and those of Italian nationality to Italy, whereas, Jews of Greek nationality should be sent to Poland rather than be allowed to stay in Greece?" Annoyed by this question, Altenburg refused to answer, except to say that Jews of Greek nationality were sent to Poland 'to work'. "If they are sent to Poland 'to work', 'the Archbishop asked, why are women, children and aged people also sent?" "Because it is cruel to separate the families; if they are united they will have a better life", the representative of the Reich replied. Another strong appeal to the German representative, based on the claims of a humane and Christian civilization, was made by the Archbishop. Altenburg vaguely replied that he would try to ease the strictness of the measure.
The extermination of the Jews of Salonika, however, continued unabated; the anguish of the Greeks increased. Greek organizations from all the towns sent appeals to the Archbishop of Athens who received an incessant stream of protestations and appeals from the Jewish organizations of Larissa, Chalkis, Volos and Verria, declaring their solidarity with the Jews of Salonika. The Archbishop decided again, to convey this general concern to the German authorities. He invited the representatives of the chief intellectual Institutions and of the scientific and professional organizations in the Archbishopric, to join with him. Under the auspices of the Church, they addressed a strong protest to the Greek Prime Minister, and to the representative of the Reich. The memorandum sent to the Prime Minister was as follows: <154>
Athens, March 23, 1943.
Mr. Constantine Logotheropoulos,
Prime Minister,
In Town.
The Greek people have recently learned, with great surprise and grief, that the German military occupation forces in Salonika have begun the gradual expulsion of Jews living in Greece, and that the first groups of displaced Jews are already en route to Poland. The grief of the Greek people is even deeper because: 1. According to the spirit of the armistice terms all Greek citizens were to be treated equally by the occupation forces, irrespective of religion and race. 2. Greek Jews not only have been valuable contributors to the financial progress of the country, they generally have been loyal and have shown full understanding of their duties as Greek citizens. They have shared in the common sacrifices on behalf of their Greek mother country, being among the first to join in the struggle of the Greek nation to defend its historical rights. 3. The well-known loyalty of the Jews living in Greece already rules out any claim that they participated in actions likely to endanger the security of the Military Forces of Occupation. 4. In the conscience of the Nation, the children of our common Mother Greece are regarded as being an integral part of the Nation, entitled to enjoy all the privileges of the national community, independently of any religious or dogmatic differences. 5. Our holy religion repudiates any racial or religious distinctions, supremacy or inferiority, stating that 'there is neither Jew nor Greek' (Gal. 3, 28), and condemns every tendency to create distinctions on grounds of racial or religious differences. 6. The sharing of a common fate, both in days of glory and in periods of national disaster, has produced unbreakable bonds between all Greek citizens of every race. We are well aware of the deep opposition between the new Germany and the Jews, nor do we intend do defend or criticize international Jewry and its activities in the sphere of the political and financial problems of the world. We are only interested in, and concerned with, the lives of 60,000 fellow-citizens. We deeply appreciate their noble feelings, brotherly disposition, progressiveness, economic activities, and, above all, their incontestable love for their country during the long periods we have lived together. As a proof of this last statement, we point to the great number of Greek- Jewish sacrifices offered, without complaint or hesitation, on the altar of duty for our common homeland. We are sure that the Government and the people of Greece are agreed on this matter. We are confident that you have already taken the necessary steps to plead with the Occupation Forces, to defer this painful measure of the expulsion of Jews living in Greece. We are hopeful that you already have pointed out to the highest authorities that such treatment of the Greek Jews - cruel in comparison with what happened to the Jews of other nationalities - makes this measure even more unjust, and thus morally inadmissible. <155> If they pretend that these measures are taken for security reasons, an adequate solution should be possible. Preventive measures could be taken, such as the confinement of the males only (except aged men and children) in a place in the country, under the supervision of the Occupation Forces. Thus, security will be protected even against imaginary dangers, and the Jews of Greece will not suffer the adversities of the expulsion. The Greek people will be ready, if asked, to give their full guarantee for a measure taken on behalf of their brothers in distress. We hope the Occupation Forces will understand the senselessness of the persecution of Greek Jews, who are considered the most peaceful, loyal and productive elements in our country. If, however, the Germans insist, against every hope, on their policy of expulsion, we think that the Government, as the holder of the remaining political power in our country, should take a firm stand against these actions. It should be made clear that full responsibility for this injustice will lie with the foreigners. Let no one forget that all acts committed during this difficult period, even those committed against our will and beyond our power, will one day be examined by our Nation; it will ascertain the responsibility of everyone. On that day of National judgment, the moral responsibility of those in authority, who have failed to express by some courageous gesture the unanimous anguish and protest of the Nation against all actions which are derogatory to our unity and pride, such as the expulsion of the Jews, will weigh heavily. [363]
Yours Truly, Damaskinos, Archbishop of Athens and Primate of all Greece.
The memorandum was signed by the president of the Greek Academy; the rectors of the University and the Polytechnic Institute; the chairman of the Association of writers, painters and artists; lawyers, surgeons, industrialists, and chambers of commerce.
It should be noted that the memorandum mentions six reasons why the Jews should not be deported; only one of them is strictly religious; four reasons stress that the Jews were loyal citizens of Greece and that they belonged to the nation. <156> The Archbishop and his friends did not intend "to defend or criticize international Jewry and its activities in the sphere of the political and financial problems of the world". It is not clear whether they really meant this or tried to appeal to the mind of the addressee. At all events, the remark is regrettable.
Another memorandum was sent to the Representative of the Reich.
It read as follows:
Athens, March 24, 1943.
To His Excellency the Representative of the Reich for Greece,
Mr. Guenther Altenburg,
In Town.
Excellency, The undersigned are not seeking at present to interfere in any way in the questions of general tactics of the German forces in our country or elsewhere, but simply to submit certain views, regarding a question which is keeping the entire Greek population in suspense and anxiety; we are sure that you will examine these views in a spirit of benevolence and understanding. They concern the persecution of the Greek Jews of Salonika, who have long been legally under the jurisdiction of our country. Not only have they never given occasion for complaint, but on the contrary, they have always offered proof of earnest and sincere collaboration. In critical times, their acts of self-sacrifice and self-abnegation were apparent. We must add that the above mentioned Jews have never acted against our interests, even in the smallest matters; on the contrary, they have always felt a sense of responsibility towards the Greek majority. Most of them belong to the poorer classes. It should be noted that Greek Jews have quite a different mentality to that of the Jews living in Germany and have no knowledge whatsoever of the language of Poland where they are being sent to live. in addition to the above facts, we wish to add that during the long course of our history, ever since the era of Alexander the Great and his descendants, and through all the centuries of Greek Orthodoxy down to the present time, our relations with the Jewish people have always been harmonious. We believe therefore that, in your high office as ruler of our country during the present war, you will not hesitate to accept our present request and decide, even if provisionally, to suspend the expulsion of Greek Jews from Greece until the Jewish question can be examined in the light of a special and detailed investigation. Our present request is based upon the recent historical fact, that during the surrender of Salonika and, later, that of the whole of Greece, among the clauses of the protocol, the following is included: 'The Occupation forces promise to protect the life, the honour and the properties of the population'. Certainly this clause implies, that no persecution would be made against Greek subjects, on the account of religion and race, and that consequently the theory relating to racial or religious discrimination would not be applied in Greece. <157> This was further confirmed later by a clear declaration made by General Tsolakoglou, to whom the Occupation Forces had entrusted the Presidency of this country, and who stated explicitly: "There is no Jewish question in Greece and there never will be." "All Greeks occupied in peaceful work may rest assured that their honour, life and property are under protection of the Occupation Forces and of the Government. Excellency, some days ago the Berlin radio transmitted an article of a German reporter, which was a real hymn to the traditional quality of hospitality of the Greek people in all occasions, even in the cases of supposed enemies. What must be the anguish of these people, who have been infused by thousand years of Christianity and its message of love of one's neighbour, when they see their brothers tom away from their homeland. Especially, when, for many years they have embraced it with unlimited confidence and a spirit of irreproachable solidarity towards us. Excellency, in the name of the lofty ideas of the Greek spirit, and of the culture of your country, both of which have so powerfully influenced the whole world, we beg that the expulsion of our Jewish fellow-citizens be halted as soon as possible. We assure you that the whole Greek nation will sincerely appreciate a gesture of such historic importance.
Damaskinos.
Archbishop of Athens and
Primate of All Greece.
(This Memorandum was also signed by the leading citizens who had signed the Memorandum sent to the Prime Minister).
There are some dubious remarks in this Memorandum: "It should be noted that Greek Jews have quite a different mentality to that of the Jews living in Germany", and "In the name of the lofty ideas of the Greek spirit and of the culture of your country (Germany)". That does not alter the fact that much in the Memorandum is to be lauded.
Archbishop Damaskinos did not cease his activities. He again saw Altenburg asking for his intervention. Following the formation of the new Government of John Rallis, he briefed the new Prime Minister and asked him to discuss fully the question with the commander-in-chief of East-Europe, Marshal Loehr. At the same time he took the following steps: <158>
a. He requested the President of the International Red Cross in Greece to ask the Governments of the European countries, to interest themselves on behalf of the Jews of Greece, considering that their expulsion to Poland would mean total extermination. b. He negotiated with the International Red Cross to supply food for the kitchen established for the Jews of Salonika who had been put into a concentration camp. He then asked the Greek Government to furnish the necessary technical means. In fact, the kitchen started operating immediately. The Ministry of Social Welfare undertook its organization and the International Red Cross provided large supplies of food. c. He undertook, secretly, to send to Salonika the contribution of the Jews of Athens to the Jews of Salonika. Their contributions were sent by the Archbishop to Genadios, the Bishop of Salonika. Thus far the biographer of Archbishop Damaskinos.
Comments on the attitude of Church leaders and lower clergy are favourable:
"Monks, regardless of the great dangers or considerations of religion or faith, hid persecuted families and rendered secret but effective help to multitudes of unfortunate people, who could no longer subsist without employment, and thus had to leave their hiding place and give themselves up to the Germans." [364] "The heads of the Orthodox Church in Greece defied the Nazi edicts and exhorted their faithful followers to shun anti-Semitic slogans and outrages. It is reported that in May 1943 alone, six hundred Greek priests were arrested and lodged in concentration camps because they refused to obey a Nazi order to preach anti-Jewish sermons. Much help and Jewish rescue work go to the credit of the Greek Orthodox clergy." [365]
What happened in Salonika enables us to realize that the attitude of Church leaders frequently had a very limited influence on the population, even in Greece. Dr. Nathan Eck, the editor of the revised edition in Hebrew of the book of Michael Molho and Joseph Nehama, has the following to say about the situation in Salonika:
"… The attitude of the non-Jewish population in Salonica to their Jewish neighbours was not very friendly. <159> Many of them were former residents of Turkey who, in 1922, were transferred to Greece on an exchange basis, and their economic and social status was similar to that of the Jews. As a result of their feelings of hatred and competition, it was not easy to find anyone among the non-Jews who would agree to endanger his life and the life of his family in order to hide Jews in his home… The authors Molho-Nehama are wary of casting aspersions and blame on the general non-Jewish population but remain satisfied with mere hints. Here and there, there is a short remark which outweighs a host of express statements. For example, the following remark: 'It is likely that local factors (in Salonica) were active in the implementation of the deportations in order to get rid of competitors who proved a burden to them in their commercial life' (Part II, p. 11). Indeed, as the authors point out, only seventy Jews, most of them married to non-Jews, succeeded in finding hiding places in Salonica…" [366]
Another comment:
"The great bulk of the population, while not indifferent, played the role of an interested if shocked spectator. However, this situation began to change after Archbishop Theophilos Damaskinos, who later became a regent, intervened forcefully on behalf of the Jews threatened with deportation. The Archbishop's vigorous protest about the action contemplated against the small Jewish population of Greece created a stir throughout the country." [367]
The attitude of the non-Jewish population in Salonika, where most of the Jews were living, was lamentable. Such information should prevent us from accepting stereotypes such as "the Greek - or the Dutch, or the French - population has done everything to save the Jews".
b Athens and Southern Greece
Following the Italian armistice, the Germans took over the administration of Athens and other parts of Southern Greece. General Stroop, the "Conqueror of the Warsaw Ghetto", arrived in Athens on September 10, 1943, and took over the function of Higher SS leader. <160>
On October 3, 1943, the Jews were ordered to register. The seizure of the
Jews on the Greek mainland was to be completed in three days, from March
23-25. Jews living on the Greek islands were deported in June and Jule, 1944.
More than sixty thousand Jews out of the 79,950 who had been living in
Greece, were deported. [368]
The following is quoted from "The Destruction of Greek Jewry, 1941-1944":
"… On Tuesday, September 21, 1943, Athens' Chief Rabbi, Elia Barzilai, was ordered to submit to the German authorities a list containing the names and addresses of all Jews living in Athens… A delegation led by Rabbi Barzilai paid a visit to the Archbishop who declared that, to his deep regret, he did not see how he could do anything on behalf of the Jews, despite his willingness to help them. The only alternative left was to go into hiding, or disappear, the Archbishop said. When the Rabbi requested permission for the Jews to hide in the churches, the Archbishop replied: 'Willingly, but it is a mistake to think that there you will be safe. They will not hesitate to seize you. However, I could, with the help of the English, arrange a transfer to the Middle-East for those Jews who are prepared to go…'" [369]
At the instigation of Archbishop Damaskinos, priests preached in the churches that Jews should be aided. He also intervened with the German authorities so that children younger than 14, as well as, persons married to parties of the Greek Orthodox faith, should be exempted from the strict anti-Jewish regulations. [370]
According to Moissis, the fact that more than 10,000 Jews saved themselves was largely due to the efforts of the Orthodox Church under Archbishop Damaskinos. A few days proceeding the German attempt to corral the Jewish population, the Church issued a circular to all priests, parishes and convents, exhorting them to lend succour and safety to the victims of Nazi barbarism. [371] <161>
I have not succeeded in retrieving a copy of this circular, nor was Mr.
Moissis able to give any additional information. He confirmed to me that
Archbishop Damaskinos had done much for the rescue of the Jews:
"Archbishop Damaskinos knew my place of refuge, in the neighbourhood of Athens, and sent me provisions every month. He did the same for other Jews …whose hiding place he knew." [372]
It seems unlikely that a circular letter was issued: a copy might easily have fallen into the hands of the persecutors. In those days one did not put such a message in writing but it was passed on orally.
a. The Time of Moderation
Germany occupied Denmark on April 9, 1940. The position of Denmark under the German occupation was unique in many respects: the King had remained; the Danish Government continued to function until August, 1943; the Germans were interested in keeping things as quiet as possible and granted to Denmark a certain independence in internal affairs, and the attempt to deport and exterminate the Jews of Denmark started relatively late: September, 1943. A total of 7,700 Jews were living in Denmark, a number of them refugees from Germany and elsewhere. <162>
In December 1941, participants in a conference of Danish pastors [373] considered the possibility of presenting a petition to Parliament demanding that all members of Parliament should vote against any racial legislation. But the proposal was withdrawn as it was considered undesirable to focus to much public attention on the question. [374] The same question was discussed at another conference of pastors which met in the provincial town of Askov. One of the participants wrote to Rabbi Friediger:
"… For us it is not just a question of the Jews and their rights; for the Danes this first of all must be the question of the right of a small nation to exist, particularly as this is also a question of our whole national attitude and the basis of democracy: equality and human dignity." [375]
Frederik Torm, a professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, brought about a common decision of the theological faculty and of the students, declaring that, should persecution of the Jews begin, they would voice their opposition vigorously and publicly. This internal decision was put into practice, in October, 1943. [376]
The Church Press in Denmark could publicly denounce anti-Semitism at a time when the Press in other countries had long since been completely silenced. The Rev. Johannes Nordentoft, in one of his articles, called for an active war against the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi press. He pointed out that "those who remain silent or disapprove by merely shrugging their shoulders become accomplices". [377] An article in the Church gazette of Sonderbourg, edited by Dean Halfdan Hoegsbro, stated: <163>
"Hatred of the Jews is prompted by the demand for a scapegoat… We will not lend our support to the introduction of anti-Jewish laws; Jew hatred is an infectious disease, to which the innate sense of justice of the Danish people will not permit them to succumb. It is a disease that we shall cast out from our midst. Shame upon us if we ever allow ourselves to fall victim to it." [378]
The Skydebjerg-Aavup Church Gazette, comparing the anti-Jewish drive to that of medieval times, wrote:
"Our Danish minds will not let themselves become infected by this disease… Anti-Jewish legislation is tantamount to lawlessness, and if we forsake justice, then we will be submitted to a degradation worse than war and suppression." [379]
In January, 1943, the Bishop of Copenhagen, Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard, publicly warned against racial hatred. [380] The pro-Nazi press frequently attacked "the Church's dogged opposition to attempts to initiate anti-Jewish restrictions". [381]
The first occasion on which the Danish Bishops approached the authorities en bloc to protest on behalf of the Church of Denmark, was when they addressed a protest to the Minister of Justice containing the following paragraph:
"… We draw to your attention the feeling of protest which is spreading in the Church of Denmark. This feeling of protest is due, above all, to the way in which justice is administered in these days. Men are being arrested without the public being given any information about how the arrested persons are treated in prison. Anti-Semitic propaganda is being artificially incited. At the same time pastors receive warnings from the Government that they must not comment on the persecution of the Jews…" [382] <164>
b. The Deportation Attempt; the Protest
In the summer of 1943, disturbances occurred in several provincial towns. The Germans took reprisals and the people reacted to this by proclaiming strikes. A German ultimatum was rejected by the Danish Government. Thereupon martial law was proclaimed on August 29, 1943. Dr. Werner Best, the German envoy in Copenhagen, received full powers as Reich pleni- potentiary. The Danish Government had resigned. The day to day affairs of its ministries remained in the hands of the permanent Department directors; the director of the Danish Foreign Ministry, Nils Svenningsen, became the chief spokesman of the administration. The Germans now planned the deportation of the Jews in one night, October 1-2. On September 28, however, a German in Copenhagen, Duckwitz, revealed this to Danish friends of his, H.C. Hansen and H. Hedtoft, who warned Henriques, the president of the Jewish community. On the morning of September 29, the Jewish congregations which met in their synagogues for the services of the Jewish New Year were warned. The raids took place as planned. In the night of October 1-2, 202 Jews were captured in Copenhagen and 82 elsewhere in Denmark. About 200 others were arrested later on, most of them caught in flight. The great majority, however, succeeded in hiding themselves. The Swedish Government had publicly expressed its willingness to admit the Danish Jews into Sweden. 7,220 Jews were secretly moved to the beaches and then ferried by Danish fisherman to safety. [383]
At the end of August, 1943, the Bishop of Copenhagen, Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard, asked for an interview with the Director of the Foreign Ministry, who declared that the Jewish question had not been raised. Nobody had been arrested because of race or religion. When the Director had asked Dr. Best about this matter, he had answered: "The question has not been broached at all". [384] <165> Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard reported this in a letter to the pastors of his diocese, dated September 4, 1943, adding that later developments would be followed attentively. "From our experience with the German habit of breaking promises, it was not thought wise to take Dr. Best's words too seriously. Unfortunately however, his words perhaps did set our minds too much at rest." [385] The Churches, however, made necessary preparation in case persecution of the Jews would begin. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard convened with pastors belonging to the unofficial Pastors' Organisation P.U.F. [386] and asked them to prepare a draft for a public protest, to be read out from the pulpits. It was ready a short time later. The Bishop suggested some changes but there was hardly time to make them as events developed rapidly. On September 17, 1943, some Jewish houses in Copenhagen were raided. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard thus had another interview with the director of the Foreign Ministry, Svenningsen. In a letter to the Bishops, dated September 23, he informed them that:
"… the raid did not indicate that they (the Germans) would raise the Jewish question, but that it was connected with a suspicion of certain persons. Thereafter I asked the Director of the Department to inform the German authorities that their raising of the Jewish question would be met by a joint protest by the Church and the Bishops. The Director promised to inform the Germans of this…"
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard relates:
"The Jewish community was in a very difficult situation. The chief-rabbi, Dr. Friediger was interned in the camp of Horsercad, just as the time of the great feasts of the year was approaching. We did what we could to obtain his release, so that at least he could lead the services during the feasts. At the beginning of the fateful week (during the night of the first October) I paid a visit to the chairman of the Jewish community organisation, the advocate of the Supreme Court, C.B. Henriques. <166> I shall never forget it. I came to express our heartfelt fellowship with his community and to say that we were remembering the Jews in our prayers, not the least in those days when they celebrated their great feasts, and also in order to assure him that we would do what we could to help the interned to get their liberty again…" [387] "On 29th September, about 10 o'clock, the chairman of the Jewish community organisation, Advocate Henriques, came to me and told me that it was almost sure that the Jewish question would now be raised. There existed an order from Hitler himself to raise it. The ships for the deportation were said to be in the harbour. I went at once to the Department of Religious Affairs and asked for an interview with the Director of the Department who, however, at that time did not know anything about such imminent action. Immediately after this I went to the Department of Foreign Affairs and obtained an interview with the Director. He told me that, according to information he had received from different sources, there could be no doubt that the situation was very serious. A meeting of the Directors of the Departments was to be held on the question at two o'clock…I returned to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, in order to tell Mr. Thomsen, the Director of the Department, how serious the situation was, asking him to present a protest to the meeting and to inform the German authorities also about the contents of the protest." [388]
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard then returned to his residence. The protest was written in the presence of his assistants in the office. He signed it on behalf of the Bishops.
"We were conscious that this was a decisive moment. We expected at the time, that the signature would cost me both my office and my freedom. The protest was sent by a messenger to the Director of the Department to whom personally it was handed. I went to the Dean in order to arrange with him the things to be done if I should be arrested." [389]
All the Bishops received the protest by express letter, with a request for their immediate support and with the appendix:
"In case persecution of the Jews should begin, this Protest must be read in the churches, and I propose that the pastors commence the reading with the following sentence: 'On the 29th September of this year the Bishops sent to the leading German authorities, through the Directors of the Departments, a letter with the following contents:…'" <167>
On Saturday, October 2, 1943, theological students despatched the Protest to all the manses in Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard's diocese. On that same evening, the Bishop again was advised by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to consider the consequences. "But there was nothing to reconsider. The matter had to be completed." [390]
The Protest
"Wherever persecutions are undertaken for racial or religious reasons against the Jews, it is the duty of the Christian Church to raise a protest against it for the following reasons: 1. Because we shall never be able to forget that the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ, was born in Bethlehem, of the Virgin Mary into Israel, the people of His possession, according to the promise of God. The history of the Jewish people up to the birth of Christ includes the preparation for the salvation which God has prepared in Christ for all men. This is also expressed in the fact that the Old Testament is a part of our Bible. 2. Because a persecution of the Jews is irreconcilable with the humanitarian concept of love of neighbours which follows from the message which the Church of Jesus Christ is commissioned to proclaim. With Christ there is no respect of persons, and He has taught us that every man is precious in the eyes of God. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.' (Gal. 3, 28). 3. Because it contradicts the sense of justice, inherent during centuries in our Danish civilisation and which lives in the Danish people. In accordance with the above principles, all Danish citizens have equal rights and duties before the law and freedom of religion assured to them by the constitution. We understand by freedom of religion the right to exercise our faith in God according to vocation and conscience, in such a way that race and religion can never be in themselves a reason for depriving a man of his rights, freedom or property. Despite different religious views we shall therefore struggle to ensure the continued guarantee to our Jewish brothers and sisters of the same freedom which we ourselves treasure more than life. The leaders of the Danish Church are conscious of our responsibility to be law-abiding citizens; we do not needlessly revolt against those who exercise the functions of authority over us; but at the same time, we are obliged by our conscience to maintain the law and to protest against any violation of human rights. Therefore, we desire to declare unambiguously our allegiance to the word that we must obey God rather than man."
On Behalf of the Bishops:
Fuglsang-Damgaard. [391]
<168>
What strikes us is that the Public Protest stressed the special relationship existing between Christians and Jews, while the second point of the protest states that "every man is precious in the eyes of God". The text mentioned (which also was quoted by many other Churches in different lands) seems more applicable to the position of members of the Church who are of Jewish origin ("There is neither Jew nor Greek,… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus"). However, Christians of Jewish origin were not mentioned in the Protest at all. This in itself was certainly fortunate, for reasons discussed in ch. 4. Finally, the letter of Protest states that "we must obey God rather than man". It must have been clear to every church goer that, in fact, the Bishops were summoning him to active resistance against the German measures.
In one of the churches in Copenhagen the Bishop began his sermon on that particular Sunday by telling what had happened and unequivocally expressing his own view. Finally, when the protest was read out to the congregation as a Pastoral Letter of the Church leaders, all those who were present stood up in order to express their approval. [392] A Danish Lutheran pastor informed me that whenever the Danish Bishops issue a public declaration, the faithful consider two questions: 1 Is what the Bishops say right? 2 What gave them the right to speak on my behalf? When, therefore, the congregation stood up when Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard read out the protest, this can be seen as expressing the congregation's opinion that he had rightly spoken on their behalf. No Bishop nor pastor, to the best of my knowledge, directly suffered or was even arrested because of the public protest.
In conclusion of this paragraph we record Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard's comment on the situation after the Church had given its testimony:
"The protest had been made and it was not repeated. A repetition would have meant a weakening of it. Furthermore, it would not have been of any use. That was clear to everyone who knew the situation. What had now to be done was to bring help to those compatriots who were deported, persecuted or in hiding. <169> The whole Danish population understood this and all circles in our country came together to render this help. This was a time when there was no rest by day or by night; when it happened that a man in the street would come and give one 10,000 kroner; when a code-language developed in order to keep the mutual contact alive; when one felt an unspeakable happiness and gratitude whenever somebody was saved." [393]
c. After the Rescue Operation
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard and other Church leaders also contributed to the sending of gift parcels to the Jews who had been deported. On November 29, 1943, the Bishops jointly addressed Dr. Best through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to gain his support for this work. The appeal read as follows:
"It is with deep sorrow and disappointment that we perceive through developing circumstances, that our appeal to the German authorities over the Jewish question has not born fruit. But our interest in, and deep sympathy with, our deported countrymen is undiminished, and as there now seems to be a possibility that we can send support and aid in the form of food from this country, we wish to suggest to the Danish Church communities that they should send help to the interned Jews, in the form of gift parcels, through the Red Cross. In our relationship with the community, we know that the Christian conscience of our people and their conception of justice has suffered a painful wound, and how deep a need they feel to help. We would therefore be grateful to the Director of the Department of Foreign Affairs if he would inform Dr. Best of our attitude and point out to him that support from competent German representatives towards a good solution of this question would be met with deep satisfaction within Church circles, the members of whom would, through this Christian and humane activity, find a way to express their deep concern over this matter." [394]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Red Cross and the pastors of Copenhagen acted unanimously in this large-scale assistance to the Danish Jews in Theresienstadt, an action which was successful beyond all expectation. Of the 475 Jews who were deported to Theresienstadt, all returned with the exception of 53 who had died. <170>
In December, 1943, Bishop Malmstrom prayed for the Jews in a broadcast religious service. Thereupon the German authorities demanded the right to make a preliminary censorship of broadcast services. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard then sent a statement through the Foreign Ministry to the German authorities, in which he stated that if censorship was introduced, neither the Sunday services nor the morning devotions would continue to be broadcast, and that the reason for this measure would be made public from all pulpits. A week later, the Bishop was informed by the German authorities that "the incident was due to a misunderstanding". [395]
In February, 1944, the Bishops sent a letter to their congregations in which they requested prayer "for God's ancient chosen people, trusting that God will help where we see no way to do so." [396] <171>
The crucial question, whether the Church was influenced by general public opinion or whether it was the other way round, has been discussed in ch. 2.
On the eve of the German invasion of Czechoslovakia, on March 14, 1939, Slovakia declared its independence, and on March 23, the agreement of German protection was signed. Following the first Vienna award on November 2, 1938, parts of former Slovakian territory with about 40,000 Jews were annexed by Hungary, together with parts of Sub Carpathian Ruthenia. After the occupation of all of Carpatho-Ruthenia containing 100,000 Jews, by Hungary, about 90,000 Jews remained in "independent" Slovakia. A Catholic priest (Dr. Josef Tiso) was head of the Slovakian State. On April 18, 1939, the first anti-Jewish decree was enacted. A special Department for Jewish Affairs was opened in the Ministry of Interior. It co-operated with the Hlinka Guard.
The Council of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Pastors' Union decided, in its session of November 21, 1939, to send a Memorandum to the President and the Government of Slovakia, regarding the Hlinka Youth organization and the Hlinka Guard. We quote the following:
"We, as Evangelical Christians and as citizens, cannot agree with the following facts: the annulment of individual rights and freedom of certain people; the taking of steps against the Jews without legal basis, by means of violence, for instance, that the men of the Hlinka Guard, during the night, dragged Jews - women, mothers and children - out of their beds and transported them to concentration camps; illegally imposing of fines etc.; transgressions which are performed though they are contrary to the law and to Christian ethics." [397] <172>
The first deportation train left Slovakia on March 26, 1942. In August 1942, the Jewish population had been reduced to 25,000. On August 23, 1944, a rebellion broke out which was ruthlessly quelled. In the autumn of 1944, 13,500 of the remainder of Slovakian Jewry were deported. In the whole of Slovakia there remained not more than about 4,000 to 5,000 Jews. [398]
The Convent of (Lutheran) Bishops, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Vladimir Cobrda and Dr. Samuel Stefan Osusky, decided to issue a Pastoral letter about the "Jewish Question", on May 20, 1942. We quote the following:
"… The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church neither can nor wishes to interfere in the executive power of the competent government departments, whose duty it is to solve the problems. The Church, however, is convinced that it is possible and thus also necessary to solve this problem in a just, humane and Christian way, according to the Christian principles which are based on the eternal laws of God and the teaching of Christ. According to this teaching, all men are endowed with the right to live, to earn a honourable livelihood, and the right to family-life. It also protects the honour of the Jews as human beings, so that not one of them should feel deprived because of his national, religious or racial attachments. The racial law however, which some people champion, is contrary to the Christian faith, which accepts the biblical message that God is the Creator of all things and of all mankind, 'from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name' (Ephesians 3, 14). 'He is the head, and on him the whole body depends. Bonded and knit together by every constituent joint, the whole frame grows through the due activity of each part, and builds itself up in love' (Ephesians 4, 16). To our sorrow we have been compelled to witness deeds which cannot be justified. They are contrary to human feelings, to justice and to the law of God; they are in no way related to love. Such things could not happen, if all would honour the declaration broadcast by the Ministry of Interior, that no harm would be done to the Jews, that they would be treated in a humane and Christian way, and that they should just have to work as the other citizens. <173> The Church cannot reconcile itself to these deeds which we have witnessed in many places. The Church cannot but express its sorrow about them and reject them. If members of the Evangelical Church participated in these deeds, they must be severely condemned for this…" [399]
"The Times" of August 11, 1942, commented on this pastoral letter as follows:
"The Slovak Lutheran Church, under the leadership of the Bishops Dr. Cobrda and Dr. Osusky, has taken the lead in the fight against Nazism in Slovakia. From the pulpits of all Protestant Churches in Slovakia a pastoral letter was read on May 31. In this the bishops condemned an 'immature political ideology' modelled on Nazi and Fascist lines and emphasized loyalty to the Gospel of Christ. They also condemned the anti-Jewish policy and defended the right of the Church, to baptize proselytes from Judaism on religious grounds. The pastoral letter, the first of its kind in this part of Europe, has caused a profound sensation in central and south-eastern Europe (particularly in Hungary, where a substantial Protestant congregation exists). Nazi circles in Slovakia are particularly aggrieved since the bishops in question are considered as leading authorities in Church matters, even outside Slovakia… Roughly one sixth of the Slovak population are Protestants."
We have discussed the matter of the so-called "mercy-baptisms" in chapter 5. Suffice it here to mention that pastors in Slovakia were in peril of their life if they dared to baptize Jews, during the second world war.
In June, 1940, the Russians took back Bess Arabia and occupied Northern Bucovina. In August, Hungary carved out for itself Northern Transylvania and the Bulgarians occupied Southern Dobrudja. On September 5, General Ion Antonescu took over the government as Conducator of Rumania, and on October 7, 1940, German troops arrived in Rumania. At the beginning of 1941, the Fascist Iron Guard tried to overthrow General Antonescu. The revolt was crushed, but members of the Iron Guard had murdered hundreds of Jews in Bucharest. <174> In June, 1941, Germany invaded Russia; Rumania reconquered Bucovina and Bess Arabia. On July 29, 1941, Rumanian soldiers murdered at least 4,000 Jews in Jassy. The Rumanians deported an estimated 185,000 Jews from Dorohoi, Bucovina and Bess Arabia to Transnistria, in the Soviet Ukraine. By May, 1942, about two-thirds of these Jews had died. [400]
Strong anti-Semitic influences were manifest in the Rumanian Orthodox Church. On August 18, 1937, Patriarch Miron Cristea had issued a statement calling upon the Rumanian nation "to fight the Jewish parasites". [401]
Chief Rabbi Dr. Safran relates his frantic efforts to try to avert the deportation of the Jews in the districts of Dorohoi, Bucovina and Bessarabia. It was decided that he should approach the head of the Orthodox Church, the old Patriarch Nicodemus.
"… During the dramatic conversation I had with the Patriarch, who was rather indifferent at the beginning pretending that it was all the affair of the government, he changed his attitude in view of my growing emotion which I was unable to hide from him. I spoke of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge, and ended by throwing myself at the feet of his pontifical seat. Deeply moved, the Patriarch lifted me up and promised to do his best. On taking my leave of him I sensed that he intended to ask for the support of the Queen-mother." [402]
Chief Rabbi Safran immediately took steps to get in touch with King Michael and the Queen-mother Helena to prepare them for a possible appeal from the Patriarch Nicodemus.
"The Patriarch, on his part, first sought unsuccessfully, to intervene with Antonescu; and then addressed himself to the King and the Queen-mother. <175> The Queen-mother suggested that Baron Manfred von Killinger, the German ambassador, should be invited to the palace for a meal during which a last appeal should be attempted. In the course of this dinner the Queen-mother spoke fervently on behalf of the innocent victims, but he, in the presence of the King and the Patriarch, responded with an obstinate, brutal refusal."
These interventions of the Queen-mother and the Patriarch (who unfortunately was to disappoint Dr. Safran later on) nevertheless helped to make it possible for the rest of the Jewish population of Czernovitz to stay in the Bucovinian capital. [403]
Chief Rabbi Safran then heard of the arrival of the Metropolitan of the
Bucovina, Tot Simedrea, in Bucharest, whose anti-Semitic feelings were known.
Nevertheless Dr. Safran called on him.
"Contrary to my expectations, Mgr. Simedrea revealed an understanding attitude. He told me of the feelings aroused in him by the sight of the Jews of Czernovitz being deported to the ghetto, during which he had seen a Rumanian soldier carrying a sick old Jewish women on his shoulders. He also had heard the heart-rendering cries of Jewish mental patients who formed part of this tragic convoy. The Metropolitan effectively intervened with the Government of Bucharest and on his return to Czernovitz exerted pressure on the Governor-General of the Bucovina. These, together with other similar appeals, brought to an end the deportation of Jews from the capital of this province." [404]
In the summer of 1942, pressure was exerted on Antonescu by the Germans, to order the deportation of all Jews of Rumania. The Germans obtained the consent of the Rumanian Government for this. Trains were already prepared for the deportation. Then a delegation of the Jewish communities of South Transylvania informed Dr. Safran that all technical steps for the operation had just been taken in their province. Appeals to the authorities had been in vain. Dr. Safran relates:
"One sole course remained to be tried - an appeal to Metropolitan Balan, head of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania, well-known both for his anti-Semitism and for the great influence he had with leading figures in the government, and with Marshal Antonescu in particular. <176> Following a brief consultation we gave up the original idea of my proceeding to Sibiu, for fear of arousing the attention of the Gestapo and the Centre for Jewish Affairs. I accordingly adopted a most daring course. Using the services of an intermediary, I begged the Metropolitan to come to Bucharest."
In the meantime, Metropolitan Balan had come to the capital and informed Dr.
Safran by telephone that he would be waiting for him at the house of General
Vaitoianu with whom he was staying.
"Our meeting took place in an extremely tense atmosphere. I assumed an accusing tone which could only have been inspired by despair. [405] The Metropolitan walked up and down the room without saying a word. Finally he took up the telephone and called Marshal Antonescu with whom he asked for an urgent interview. The Marshal was reported to be busy, but they agreed to have lunch together. In the meantime I communicated to Mgr. Balan the news that for several weeks the authorities in Bucharest had been deporting not only Jews, condemned without trial, of not having reported for compulsory labour, but also their parents and children. The Metropolitan immediately telephoned the Vice-Premier, Minister Michael Antonescu, and told him what he just had learned. The Minister promised to look into the matter. As a result, after a few days there were no more deportations from Bucharest. I accompanied the Metropolitan to his car which was to take him to the Dictator, pleading with him to use all the means in his power to obtain a favourable decision. My prayers followed him after he had left… Three hours later the sonorous voice of the Metropolitan told me over the telephone that the Marshal had given in. The Jews of South Transylvania had been saved." [406]
There are other countries in which Church leaders courageously and whole heartedly stood up for the Jews and yet their interventions seldom had any result at all. In Rumania, however, the intervention of the Orthodox leaders seems to have been quite successful. It is typical of Rumania that no public protests were issued. Church leaders personally intervened. These interventions took place only after Chief Rabbi Safran had implored the Orthodox leaders to come to the rescue of the Jews. <177> It is difficult to ascertain what exactly moved these apparently reluctant saviours to take action. The change of heart with Patriarch Nicodemus seems to have come after Dr. Safran had spoken "of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge". Metropolitan Simedrea told Dr. Safran "of the feelings aroused in him by the sight of the Jews of Czernovitz being deported to the ghetto ". According to a report of Matatias Carp, there was in 1940 a Jewish population in Rumania of approximately 760,000, of whom 400,000 were massacred. "Among the victims, 250,000 lie on the conscience of the Rumanian Fascist Government directly. [407]
There are two other non-Roman Catholic Churches of some importance in Rumania.
The Reformed Church of Rumania is the Church of the Hungarian national minority.
I have not been able to find any particulars about the attitude of this Church
regarding anti-Semitism.
The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of the Augsburg Confession is mainly the
Church of the German immigrants.
In spring 1942, the National Consistory of this Church decided, on a motion of Bishop Staedel, that their Church would join the "Institute for Research into the Jewish influence upon German Church life", founded in Eisenach (Germany). A study group was formed, which, in close contact with the Eisenach Institute, sought "to make the results of its scientific work fruitful for the life and future form of the Lutheran Church in Rumania". At the first conference of the study group, at the beginning of March, 1942, the following statement by Bishop Staedel was accepted as the guiding principle for the work as a whole:
"We are deeply convinced that at this time of national revival, we are making it extremely difficult for a German to come to Jesus Christ if we present him with a continuous and detailed treatment of the Old Testament. In the two hours every week, which are meant to be devoted to bringing the message of the Saviour to the German in his national character and community, we have absolutely no room for the national and messianic history of the Israelite-Jewish people. <178> Therefore we advocate the elimination of the Old Testament so far as possible from the religious life of the Germans, and thus from the Lutheran religious instruction." [408]
A statement made by the leader of the "scientific work" of the study group described the motives underlying its work as follows:
"The decisive impulse has come to us from outside, from the political life of the German people. In the national-socialist revolution, however, this nation has confessed to a year-long guilt, for having failed to guard its God-given torch of the Nordic Aryan vision of life, allowing it to flicker and die out under the influence of foreign, especially Jewish, intrigues. Now this light will once again burn for the nation in all its purity. What wonder then that people are now coming to the Church, demanding of it the same confession of guilt, even more insistently because the Church has taken the Bible of the Jews into its own canon of Scripture. Thus it has consciously held open at least an aperture through which an essentially foreign spirit could infiltrate into our national life. [409]
Bishop D. Friedrich Mueller, the present head of this Church, replied to my circular letter and stated:
"As soon as the alliance (between Germany and Rumania) came into force, the fascist government of Rumania promulgated a law by which a 'German community in Rumania' was constituted. Par. 4 of this law granted to the leader of this community the right, to issue decrees compulsory upon the Rumanian citizens of German descent. Thus supported, the 'leader of the community' succeeded in compelling Dr. Victor Glondys, the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rumania, to resign, whereupon he appointed his political associate, Wilhelm Staedel, as the head of the Church. Even Staedel did not give in to him completely but tried to follow the policy of the 'German Christians'. [410] In a admonition to my congregation I made a stand against both attempts. This led to several actions of persecution… By secret consultations we could win about 80 per cent of our pastors for resistance and a clear Christian preaching, based on the Old as well as the New Testament… I do not know of any case in which members of my Church co-operated in the persecution of the Jews. Unfortunately there are no documentary proofs of this, because of the atmosphere of the time. During the fascist dictatorship in Rumania censorship existed, which prevented publication of statements on behalf of the Jews. <179> I could not, for instance, publish my warning mentioned above nor send it by mail. Copies of it had to be passed on from hand to hand. Similarly, as a precaution, I had to destroy my archives during the persecution. I myself no longer have a copy." [411]
I requested Dr. Safran to comment on this letter. He replied:
"Concerning the attitude of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rumania towards my co-religionists in distress during the period of Nazi oppression, I must tell you that we did not receive any help or comfort from this Church in our terrible suffering, not even a token of human compassion.
In 1942, in order to request his intervention on our behalf, I intended to go to the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Rumanian Church, Mgr. Balan, whose residence was in Sibiu, where also was the Centre of the Evangelical Church. I was warned, however, that the members of this Church living in Sibiu were capable of betraying me to the Gestapo - with which they maintained direct relations - in order to prevent me from approaching Mgr. Balan." [412]
The letter from Bishop Mueller seems to suggest that there existed a kind of "Confessing Church" in Rumania. If this name is correct for the group mentioned by him, it should be added that the existence of this "Confessing Church in Rumania" was not, contrary to what can be said about the Confessing Church in Germany, a very manifest phenomenon. Apparently its existence was not manifest to Dr. Safran. Bishop Staedel "tried to follow the policy of the German Christians". He certainly matched them in anti-Semitic heresies.
a. The Preliminary Phase
Bulgaria was part ally, part satellite of Germany.
In September, 1940, it acquired southern Dobrudja from Roumania.
In March, 1941, the German army was admitted to Bulgaria. The Germans took
Macedonia from Yugoslavia, Thrace from Greece, and handed them over to
Bulgaria. <180>
The number of Jews in Bulgaria at the end of 1939 amounted to 50,000.
Approximately 15,000 more were added to the Bulgarian power sphere in the
newly won territories. [413]
The "Law for the Protection of the Nation'; containing provisions for the definition, expropriation and concentration of the Jews, was adopted by a majority of the Parliament at the end of December 1, 1940, and promulgated on January 21, 1941. In August, 1942, wearing the yellow star was made compulsory for the entire Jewish population. At the same time Belev was appointed as Bulgarian Commissioner for Jewish Affairs.
On November 15, 1940, the "Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church" sent a letter
of Protest to the Prime Minister (Filov), with a copy to the Speaker of the
Parliament. The letter was signed by the Deputy Chairman of the Holy Synod,
Metropolitan Neophyte. It read as follows:
"The Bulgarian Church has always kept a faithful and watchful eye on the destiny of the Bulgarian people throughout its existence. She has always had an unbroken link with its destiny, and shared in its wishes and longings, its joy and sorrow, its pain, its misfortunes and ideals. This concern of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church for the Bulgarian people was strongest in days of trial and danger. In such days she did everything in her power to prevent the nation from making big mistakes, as it was capable of doing, and to protect it from the dangers and calamities that threatened it. And whenever the warning voice of the national Church was heeded our people was kept from major disasters. On the other hand, when it ignored the warning voice of the Church, our people underwent danger and suffering. The Bulgarian Church follows with great satisfaction the efforts of our people and those of the Bulgarian authorities to protect the people and the fatherland from dangers that lie in wait for them from different quarters. Therefore, now too, the national Church is very glad to note that the Government is preparing a 'Law for the Protection of the Nation', to protect our people and everything Bulgarian from such dangers. The Church considers it her duty, however, precisely for the benefit of the nation, to draw the attention of the competent authorities to several defects in the proposed law, which could have bad consequences, and which also touch the Church as a divine institution, whose duty it is to watch over all her spiritual children and cause the will of God to rule in the cause of righteousness and mercy among human beings and the nations… <181> Let no account be taken of laws against the Jews as a national minority, but let purposeful steps be taken against all the real dangers to the spiritual, cultural, economical, public and political life of the Bulgarian people, from whatever direction these dangers come." [414]
It is typical of this letter that most of its contents could also have been written by any anti-fascist political, party, instead of by a Church.
Early in 1941, it became known that the "Law for the Protection of the Nation" was going to be ratified. Metropolitan Stephan then called for a plenary session of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church, which passed a resolution agreeing to send a letter of protest to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which it was pointed out that:
"… The principle of racialism which is the basic idea on which the above mentioned law is founded, has no justification from the point of view of the teachings of Jesus… The principle of racialism which encourages persecution and denies the rights of people, merely because of their race, in this case the Jewish race, has no justification, and therefore one cannot base the 'Law for the Protection of the Nation' on the principle of racialism. One cannot turn the 'Law for the Protection of the Nation' into a means of oppression and persecution of the Jewish minority in the land." [415]
On September 9, 1942, the Metropolitan of Sofia, Stephan, preached a sermon,
probably in preparation of the "Feast of the Exaltation of the Honourable and
Life-giving Cross". This feast of the Orthodox Church falls on September 14.
The Metropolitan declared that:
"… God had punished the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus in that He had expelled them from their country and had not given them a country of their own. And thus, God had determined the destiny of the Jews. <182> However, men had no right to exercise cruelty towards the Jews and to persecute them. Especially Christians ought to see their brothers in Jews who had accepted the Christian religion and to support them in every possible way. He stressed several times in his sermon that truly it is in God's hands to punish twice and three times, but it is forbidden for Christians to do such a thing." [416]
Apparently there existed a brand of "theological" anti-Semitism in the Church of Bulgaria. Fortunately, it is difficult to state that "God had punished the Jews … and had not given them a country of their own", since, in 1948, the State of Israel came into being. Perhaps we may consider it an encouraging fact that people who held such views of "theological" anti-Semitism, nevertheless have such an excellent record when practical help to the persecuted was proved necessary. This consideration, however, should not be used to exempt Church leaders from their duty to educate the faithful in a more Biblical and thus more humane spirit than that of Metropolitan Stephan's sermon, in 1942.
b. The Attempt to Deport the Jews
In January, 1943, Eichmann's representative Dannecker arrived in Bulgaria. On February 22, 1943, he concluded a written agreement with the Bulgarian Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, Belev, which provided for the deportation of 8,000 Jews from Macedonia, 6,000 from Thrace and 6,000 from Old Bulgaria. In March, deportations from the occupied Greek and Yugoslavian territories started. 11,363 Jews were deported from these regions. [417]
There were personal interventions by Church leaders, and an official Protest from the Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was issued, on behalf of the Bulgarian Jews who were threatened with deportation. <183>
Abraham Alphasy, who was then Head of the Jewish Community of Sofia, relates:
"… At that time I went, as the Chairman of the Jewish Congregation, to Metropolitan Stephan, a man with a highly-developed sense of justice, who was a faithful friend of the Jews. When I informed him about the preparations to deport the group of Jews to Germany and requested his intervention, he asked me from whom I had received this information. I replied that it was from a reliable source but for obvious reasons I could not reveal it. Then he immediately dressed and went to the palace of King Boris. The King, who guessed for what reason the Metropolitan had come, sent a message informing him that he was ill and could not receive him. The Metropolitan intimated, as he himself told me, that he would not leave the palace before he had seen the King. Finally, the King was compelled to receive him. The Metropolitan requested him to cancel the order to deliver the Jews to the Germans. The Metropolitan told him that, in the event that they would assault the Jews in order to send them to Germany, he would give instructions to open the gates of the churches and monasteries. They would give the Jews shelter. 'In this situation the King was compelled to promise to do as requested,' the Metropolitan told me…" [418]
We quote the following from the testimony of Joseph Geron, who served as head of the Jewish Community in Sofia, and afterwards became the Chairman of the Union of Jewish Congregations in Bulgaria:
"… Continuing, the witness gave details about united action with the head of the Church in Sofia, Metropolitan Stephan, by whom he was received three times. Dr. Kalmi, one of the leaders of Jewry, kept in touch with the general secretary of the Holy Synod, the body authorized to direct religious affairs in Bulgaria. Thanks to these contacts a meeting between the King and representatives of the Church took place concerning the rescue of the Jews… During his first meeting with the head of the Church in Sofia, the Metropolitan Stephan, he had said to him among other things: 'Cannot the Bulgarian Church do something similar to what the Catholic Church and the Pope himself are doing for the Jews, with an action for their rescue?' To this Stephan answered that the Bulgarian Church would follow the example of the Catholic Church and would do, and allow to be done, everything possible on behalf of the Jews…" [419] <184>
In March, 1943, Metropolitan Stephan called for a plenary session of the Holy Synod which was held April 2, 1943. He informed all the Metropolitans of the danger that was threatening Bulgarian Jewry. The Metropolitans unanimously decided to send a letter of Protest to the Prime Minister, Filov, and to the Minister of the Interior and of Religions. The letter read as follows:
The Law for the Protection of the Nation
"The idea of passing a Law for the Protection of the Nation which would annul dangers to our people and our state, on which the national, spiritual and moral unity of the Bulgarian people is founded, was accepted by our Holy Orthodox Church, which is the eternal guardian of the destiny of the Bulgarian people, and which knows better than others, from bitter historical experience, what it would mean to our people to be divided by false religious, national and economic teaching, and to be exploited by any minority. The need to restrain such disintegrating political and religious-sectarian ideas, has always existed in our country, as it also exists now. To-day, too, when the new destiny of our people is being decided, it is more than ever necessary to limit, with the help of the law, disintegrating factors in our land and, to harness them to the building of the healthy spiritual powers of our people and, to guarantee economic opportunities for every Bulgarian. However, already when this Law for the Protection of the Nation was made, the Holy Synod of our Church gave warning and begged that it should not be only based on the existing foundations and concepts, because in that case it would not meet the great objective standing before it: to safeguard against disintegrating influences and, to unite the Bulgarian people in a spiritual entity. The Law for the Protection of the Nation was created with the express purpose of limiting the Jewish minority; the main concept of the law is based on racialism. At that time the Holy Synod informed the Government, that the principle of racialism cannot be justified from the point of view of the Christian doctrine, being contrary to the fundamental message of the Christian Church, in which all who believe in Jesus Christ are men and women of equal worth. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3, 28). The principle of racialism, according to which certain members of the community can be persecuted, restricted and deprived of their rights only because they belong to a certain race, in this case the Jewish race, cannot be justified from the standpoint of Christian ethics. Therefore the Church emphatically demands that the Law for the Protection of the Nation shall not be based mainly on the principles of racialism, but on those of spiritual wholeness and the protection of our people, so that it may safeguard them from those disintegrating influences which affect spiritual and religious values, and also from economic financial exploitation. <185> They did not listen to the voice of our Holy Synod. We now see, that the Law for the Protection of the Nation, nearly two years after its promulgation, instead of meeting its great task of safeguarding the Nation from damaging and disintegrating influences, and uniting its creative, healthy, spiritual and economic powers into a spiritual and moral unity, has turned into a means of restricting and persecuting the Jewish minority in our country."
Christians of Jewish Origin
"Many times our Holy Synod has requested in writing the honourable Government, from the promulgation of the Law until to-day, to ease the restricting passages of the Law against Christians of Jewish origin, and against the Jews in general. Until now both the written requests and the interventions of the Holy Synod have remained unanswered. Neither has any alleviation in the fate of the Jewish minority been granted. The Christians of Jewish origin are still forced to wear the star with the six points, the symbol of the Jewish religion, and they pay taxes to the Jewish consistory; in fact this is a gross profanation of our holy Orthodox religion, in as much as they have been baptized and received into the Church, some of them long before there was any word at all about the Law for the Protection of the Nation. In spite of our repeated requests to exempt them - what insults they have to bear as Christians - there has been no alleviation whatsoever."
The Jewish Minority
"Neither has there been any easing in the situation of the Jewish minority as a whole. Quite the contrary, restrictions are increasing daily. It has gone so far that these citizens of our country are deprived of the most elementary rights, and the Department for Jewish Affairs is free to do with them as it wishes; sending them to camps and deporting them from the country. Our people, with soul and conscience, mind and conviction, cannot tolerate injustice, cruelty and violence against anybody. It cannot accept what is being done now to the Jewish minority. Its human and Christian conscience is perplexed. The Holy Synod has also received requests from different quarters - from leading citizens who are outstanding Bulgarians, from well-known businessmen who love their fatherland, from Bulgarian mothers - to demand righteous and a humane treatment of the Jewish minority in the country. The Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church cannot ignore its divine command and its holy duty. It must, according to the teaching of the Gospel concerning love of one's neighbour, raise a compassionate and defending voice in aid of the suffering sand wronged people; it must beg, guide and convince, so that the measures in general against the Jews may cease or at least be eased. God's law, which transcends all human laws, definitely obliges us not to be indifferent in the face of the sufferings of innocent people, of whatever race. The majority of our people also place their relationship with the suffering Jewish minority on this biblical and humane foundation. <186> Understandably our Holy Synod, as we have already stressed in another letter to the honourable Government, does not deny the right of the Bulgarian authorities to preserve the security of the State and to take all steps to safeguard this security; to persecute, to restrict, to punish. But the Holy Synod is charged with the divine duty to remind the Government that these steps must be taken with justice and in a humane spirit, so that they may surely attain their aim and be effective and lasting for the protection of the State. Until now, a historical line of justice and integrity has been the sure means for the protection of our people and our State. On these eternal foundations we also base our national and righteous demands, side along our hopes. The Bulgarian people as a whole has always, until now, been just and tolerant. Our nation, although it has suffered more than all the nations, does not love, nor tolerate, violence and cruelty We have this name and by it we are known amongst the other nations. We have realized our national aspirations, precisely because we knew they were just; and we wanted justice, both for ourselves and for others. May we Bulgarians, who have longed so much for a fair and decent attitude towards ourselves, now forsake our strongest weapon? The Bulgarian Orthodox Church fears that, if we destroy the eternal foundation - the right to live as free men and the divine commandment to be just - there no longer will be left to us, as a small people, any other strong support for our existence. The Bulgarian State must, therefore, abide by these truths, and apply them to all its subjects, who are guiltless (except for the fact that they were born in Bulgaria, but not of Bulgarian parents). A divine command and divine justice cannot be disregarded. The Holy Synod, meeting in the special session of April 2, of this year, has decided - after considering its deep concern for the honour and future of the Bulgarian people, and its responsibility before God - to inform you that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, as a national and divine institution, cannot agree to principles such as racialism, in which it is possible to foment hatred and to indulge in violence and cruelty. It cannot accept the principle that any race be deprived of the human right to live, since this right is in accordance with the fundamental principles of Christian religion and morality. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is of the opinion that she cannot deny help and protection to the persecuted and oppressed. If she were to refuse such help, she would be unfaithful to herself. In this case our Holy Church was asked for help, by the Jews as well as by Christian Bulgarians, in order to improve the fate of the Jews in general. The Church does not deny and even especially stresses the duty and the right of the honourable Government to take the necessary steps to protect the people and the State from all dangers. However, she must stress the duty of the State to abide by the principles of justice and the Christian Gospel."
Three Requests "In consideration, therefore, the Holy Synod has decided to request you urgently: <187> 1. Not to deprive the Christians of Jewish origin and the Jews of our country in general of the elementary rights of human beings and of citizens; not to deprive them of the right to live in the country and of the possibility to work and to live as human beings. 2. The restricting decrees regarding the Jews must be both eased and not be enforced too strictly. 3. To cancel the unjustifiable obligation whereby Christians of Jewish origin wear both the Christian cross and the Jewish star, and whereby they pay taxes to the Jewish community. The Bulgarian Church considers herself especially obliged to raise her voice for the protection of the Christians of Jewish origin, who have cut themselves off from the Jewish community and who have been received into the bosom of the Bulgarian Church. She cannot accept that these Christians wear the symbol of the Jewish religion and that they pay taxes to the Jewish religious community, or that they be deported from their fatherland. In this case the Church cannot help but recall to mind the words of our Lord: 'and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again' (Matthew 7, 2), and with concern raise her voice in warning. We pray that God's blessing may be upon you, and fervently praying in the name of Jesus, we remain,…" [420]
Unfortunately, this Protest complained that "Christians of Jewish origin are still forced to wear the star with the six points", stating that "this is a gross profanation of our holy Orthodox religion". It also defended the Jews in general, stating that "the principle of racialism cannot be justified from the point of view of the Christian doctrine, being contrary to the fundamental message of the Christian Church." However, much of the argumentation was still national, rather than religious. Typical is the expression: "The Holy Synod,… after considering its deep concern for the honour and future of the Bulgarian people, and its responsibility before God… (in that order!). Absence of sound theology as regards the position of the Jewish people, combined with national considerations, is especially dangerous when one considers that (contrary to the case in Bulgaria) the national interest does not require to stand up for the persecuted Jews. <188>
After meetings had been held between the Metropolitan Stephan and Jewish businessmen, it was deemed essential to bring about a meeting between King Boris and the Holy Synod. However, the meeting did not take place immediately. This moved the Metropolitan of Vidin, Neophyte, the Chairman of the Holy Synod, to appeal to members of his flock (and intentionally, wide publicity was given to this letter) expressing opposition to the anti-Jewish measures. The Metropolitan Stephan, for his part, preached in the churches of Sofia, condemning the anti-Semitic policy of the Government and thus defending the Jews of his town.
"In that period, nobody in Bulgaria could compare with the higher clergy in courage. As a result of this outcry, the Government was compelled to arrange an audience between the King, the Cabinet and the higher clergy. The meeting took place on April 15, 1943, in the royal palace in Sofia. King Boris, the Metropolitan Stephan, Neophyte, Kyril, the Prime Minister Filov and others participated in the discussions in which the clergy defended the Jews with great courage." [421]
In May, 1943, the Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, Belev, submitted to King Boris two alternate plans: one for the deportation of all Bulgarian Jews to Poland, the other for their evacuation to the country. The King chose the latter. The expulsion order was published on May 25. [422] The Jews expelled from the cities were housed with Jewish families in the country and in schools. They were never deported from Bulgaria. On May 23, instructions concerning the deportations from Sofia began to be received by the Jews. Rabbis Daniel Ben Zion and Dr. Hanael, together with the lawyer Adolf Chaymov and Mr. Menachem Moshonov, decided to go to Metropolitan Stephan, who had called for them, in order to beg his intervention for the cancellation of the deportation decision. Mr. Moshonow relates: <189>
"… We went to the Metropolitan at 8,30 a.m. He wanted to know what we were doing and we told him everything in detail. He received us early and apparently was greatly concerned about our situation, because he was still in his dressing gown. After he had listened to us, he calmed us and promised to continue to do everything in his power to prevent the deportation of the Jews from the country. Metropolitan Stephan added that at the ceremony in honour of the feast of the saints Kyril and Methodius, which was taking place on that same day, May 24, 1943, he would meet the King and would speak to him again about that same matter. He seemed to be very moved and full of hope. He stressed anew that at one of his last meetings with the King, the latter, in the presence of the ecclesiastical high official Kyril, had specifically stated that the Jews would not be deported from Bulgaria. When we parted from the Metropolitan, he reassured us saying: 'Go and calm your brethren, tell them from me that the King has promised, and a King's word is not reversed'." [423]
Contrary to the situation in Rumania, the Church leaders in Bulgaria could indeed claim to express the feelings of "the majority of our people", [424] when they stood up for the Jews. Moreover, the great majority of the Bulgarians belonged to the Orthodox Church. Seldom, however, can a Church leader afford to address his King as Metropolitan Stephan addressed King Boris, in the telephone conversation which is related by Solomon Mashiach. His visits to Metropolitan Stephan probably took place on May 25 and 26, 1943. <190> "I went to the residence of prelate Stephan. He gave me a kind welcome and ordered that we should not be disturbed. He locked the door and I began to tell him our troubles. After he had listened to me with emotion and attention for nearly half an hour, he said: 'This I cannot permit as long as I live. There are many among the Jewish people who have rescued Bulgaria; they sacrificed much on behalf of the nation. I shall speak with the King immediately. I wish you to hear our conversation.' The prelate took the telephone and was connected with the King. After an exchange of words of no interest as far as the Jews are concerned, the prelate said: 'Boris, my son, I am not at all satisfied about you. One hears lately of many things done to our Israelite brethren. Think very hard [425]; it is unworthy of you and of the Bulgarian people.' The King asked: 'But what - what did you hear and from whom?' 'Things have come to my knowledge which I would rather not believe. They are a disgrace and shame to you and to the Bulgarian people. I cannot explain them to you by telephone. If you wish, come to me, or I shall come to you at once, to see with my own eyes what your reaction will be.' The King began to stammer and to excuse himself, saying that he could not meet Stephan on that day. He then made an appointment with him for the next day. I whispered to prelate Stephan: 'That will be too late'. Then the prelate said to him: 'Boris, let it not be too late. Pull yourself together, my son.' 'It will not be too late, I promise you. To-morrow we shall see one another.' Thus ended the first conversation. Prelate Stephan said to me: 'Come to-morrow morning, between 9 and 10. He is trying to give me the slip but I shall not permit him to bring such a disgrace, even if I would lose my head…"
"Next morning I again went to the Metropolitan Stephan to hear the outcome. He immediately took the telephone and was connected with the palace. The King's Councillor (Dr. Neshev, if I am not mistaken) replied. He said that the King had been urgently called away and had not intimated where he was going or when he would return. Metropolitan Stephan got very angry and said: 'Tell me where the little king is, you milksop. Tell others that you do not know, but beware if you continue to be stubborn'. Dr. Neshev apologized, saying he had been instructed not to reveal that the King was in his palace Krichim. He begged the Metropolitan not to divulge this information, as it would cause him trouble. Metropolitan Stephan promised to say nothing, but he asked Dr. Neshev: 'Did he expressly instruct you that you should not even reveal his whereabouts to me'? Dr. Neshev replied in the affirmative." <191> "Metropolitan Stephan was very angry and said to me that the King would regret his deed very much. 'At one time I saved his father's head and to him I gave the throne; now this is his reward to me.' In a great perturbed state of mind he took the telephone and spoke to the King in Krichim palace. I heard, word for word, the following: 'Boris, you forget yourself. You elude me and hide. You know that for me there are no secrets under the sun. You know that at one time I saved your father's head and your throne. But it is doubtful whether I, after these acts of yours, shall be able to save your head. Give the matter serious thought and uproot this demoniac influence from your heart.' He then put down the receiver. Afterwards the telephone began to ring. I said to Metropolitan Stephan: 'They are calling you'. He replied: 'I know; he wants to speak to me over the telephone but I shall not answer him unless he will come personally to apologize to me. You will see that he will not dare to cause you evil.'…" [426]
The last recorded activity of Metropolitan Stephan on behalf of the Jews is a telegram sent to the King, in which was written:
'Do not persecute, so that you may not be persecuted. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. I know, Boris, that from heaven God will keep watch over your actions.'" [427]
Another outstanding leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who intervened on behalf of the Jews was the Metropolitan of Plovdiv, Kyril. Belev had ordered the internment of the "influential Jews" in several cities. On March 10, 1943, some of the Jews in Plovdiv were arrested. Early in the morning of that day, Kyril sent a telegram to the King and called upon the representatives of the regime, to inform the government that from that very moment, because of the action against the Jews, he (Kyril) had ceased to be a loyal citizen and would act according to the dictates of his conscience. [428] <192>
Leviev relates another incident in which Metropolitan Kyril was the hero:
"It is fitting to bear in mind, as a token of the personal courage of Metropolitan Kyril, the date of May 20, 1944. Early in the morning, when it was still dark, he was awakened by a Jewish boy, who had been sent to inform the Metropolitan that during that night large groups of Jews had again been arrested. The Metropolitan went to the Jewish quarter, where many Jews were gathered in a square; Rabbi Samuel, who was wholly dedicated to his people, was at their head, giving them courage. The appearance of the Metropolitan was received by the Jews with relief and hope. The Metropolitan immediately went to the district office where he only found Kolev, the deputy district officer, of whom he demanded particulars about the extent and the meaning of the arrests. Kyril draw his attention to the dangerous consequences which might result from the confusion, created in the mind of the public, and who were not likely to remain inactive in the face of renewed injustice and violence. It was explained to him that about 2,000 Jews had been arrested because a group of five Jewish youngsters had joined the underground movement. The Metropolitan demanded that they set the arrested Jews free; otherwise great public disturbances would occur. After having obtained a promise in this respect, he went to the police station, where the arrested people were held, and encouraged them. He met with the police commander and with his assistants, and pointed out to them that the entire public was following with attention the fate of the arrested Jews. The arrested people were set free at the end of that day." [429]
It appears that an important factor influencing Church leaders in Bulgaria to act was their genuine concern. Thus they were easily accessible whenever their help was needed. It seems to be a small feature in the over-all picture, but it is significant: Kyril got up early in the morning when it was still dark and rushed to the rescue of the arrested Jews in Plovdiv; Stephan received Jewish leaders when he was still in his dressing gown. Jewish leaders in Israel as well as Jews in Bulgaria who now live under a Communist government, have expressed their appreciation of the help rendered by the Church in Bulgaria. We quote the following from the testimony of Joseph Geron, who served as head of the Jewish community in Sofia, and afterwards became the Chairman of the Union of Jewish Congregations in Bulgaria: <193>
"… The witness stressed the fact that the Bulgarian Church, on many occasions and at different periods, revealed understanding and sympathy for the Jews, and took important actions for their rescue… Concerning the Bulgarian Church, her attitude to the Jews was always very correct, but during the events which accompanied Jewish life under the rule of Prime Minister Filov, the Church revealed an attitude of open sympathy, and exercised strong moral pressure on all the decisive factors in Jewish affairs… What then were the factors that, directly and indirectly, helped in the rescue of the Jews of Bulgaria? One may answer that there were collective and individual factors. Among the former, the Orthodox Bulgarian Church, with its leaders Stephan, Neophyte and Paisly, take the first place…" [430]
Of course, in Bulgaria just as in other countries there were many factors helping to influence the outcome. King Boris and the Cabinet were in a position to withstand German pressure to some extent if they wished so. The victories of the Soviet armies made their mark on the minds of the people. It appears, however, that the activities of the leaders of the Orthodox Church were an important contribution to the positive outcome. All the Jews of Bulgaria survived. Yet, there remains one nagging question: did the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria try to render any aid to the more than 11,000 Jews who were deported from the Greek and Yugoslavian territories occupied by Bulgarian troops? It seems that they did not, but perhaps there was no time to intervene. [431]
a. The Preliminary Phase
In November, 1938, Hungary annexed some Slovakian districts and part of
Sub Carpathian Ruthenia. In March, 1939, the remainder of the latter territory
was annexed. In August, 1940, Hungary occupied Northern Transylvania.
In April, 1941, part of Yugoslavia was occupied. In its enlarged state,
Hungary had a Jewish population of 750,000 within its borders. [432] <194>
On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia and the Hungarians joined forces with the Germans. On August 8, the third anti-Jewish law was enacted. [433] This law defined who was to be considered a Jew, according to the well-known principles of the Nuremberg laws.
"Bishop Ravasz, the leading speaker of the representatives of the Reformed Church, after having delivered his address of refusal, read a solemn declaration signed by all the Bishops, and by four general elders, in which the signatories protested against the passage of the law and disclaimed all responsibility for its passage." [434]
I have tried to obtain a copy of Bishop Ravasz's address of refusal and of the declaration mentioned above. Dr. Elek Mathe, of the Reformed Church of Hungary, replied to my request:
"Unfortunately there is no available copy of the address referred to in your letter…; even less, newspaper cuttings, for the simple reason that at that time the daily press was under strict government control and the text of such an address could not be printed. [435]
In the summer of 1941, the Hungarian government ordered an inquiry into the citizenship of all the Jewish residents of Northern Hungary. 11,000 Jews unable to give satisfactory proof of their citizenship were deported to Galicia, where a systematic extermination was carried out by the German troops.
"Baroness Edith Weisz called on Bishop Ravasz, and asked for his intervention. The Bishop requested an audience with the Regent, and appearing before him, informed him of the situation and asked that the Minister of Interior be instructed to give due regard to humanitarian viewpoints. <195> Bishop Ravasz then called on Francis Kereszres-Fischer, Minister of the Interior, who himself later on was carried away by the Germans, warning him that after the conclusion of the war an account would have to be given before world Protestantism, of the fate meted out to the Jews. He requested the adoption of such measures as would enable him to appear before any foreign Church body in future days, with a clear conscience regarding these matters. An end was put to all abuses and the lives of many persons were saved." [436]
Bishop Ravasz thus tried to do something on behalf of non-Hungarian Jews, this in contrast to the tendency of those in other lands who rendered resistance only when Jews of their own nationality were deported.
From March, 1942, to March, 1944, Kallay was Prime Minister. His Cabinet withstood German pressure to deport the Jews.
b. Mass Deportations
On March 17, 1944, Regent Horthy was "invited" to a conference with Hitler, who informed him of the imminent occupation of Hungary by German troops. Horthy had to agree to Kallay's dismissal. The aerodromes of Budapest were seized by a German task force. A new Government was appointed under Sztojay. The Arrow Cross leader, Laszlo Baky, was appointed Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Interior, and Laszlo Endre Administrative Under-secretary and expert on Jewish affairs. Veesenmayer was appointed as Ambassador to Hungary and as Plenipotentiary of the German Reich. Eichmann came to Budapest at the end of March. On March 29, 1944, it was decreed that all Jews must wear the yellow star. Concentration of all the Jews took place at a rapid pace. In May, the first deportation trains left for Auschwitz. At the end of June, 381,661 Jews had been deported. On July 9, 1944, the total number was 437,402. The evacuation of the Jews of Budapest was planned for July. <196> Concerted pressure was exerted on Regent Horthy to stop the deportations. Switzerland and Sweden made urgent requests. The Turkish and Spanish governments also intervened. The Papal nuncio was, according to Sztojay, calling "several times" a day. On July 6, Sztojay informed Veesenmayer that the Regent had given the order that the deportations should stop. In fact, the stoppage occurred in the middle of July and it lasted until October.
On April 3, 1944, Bishop Laszlo Ravasz addressed a letter of protest to the Minister of the Interior. In this document Bishop Ravasz did not object to the stigmatization of the Jews, but to the regulations that required members of the Reformed Church to wear the star of David. [437] At the same time he called on Ambrozy, the Regent's chef de cabinet, and asked to be granted an audience with the Regent. He was informed that "the Regent regards himself a prisoner and will not receive anyone". Subsequently Bishop Ravasz called on the Minister of Interior, who asked him to return at 7 p.m. the same day.
"Jaross, who kept the Bishop waiting till 8 p.m., agreed, after a heated argument, to exempt certain Church dignitaries and persons of Jewish origin who had contracted mixed marriages." [438]
On April 6, the General Assembly of the Reformed Church addressed a petition to the Prime Minister, urging him to be mindful of the claims of humanitarian thinking, and demanding the extension of granting exemptions.
"All the activities carried on by the Churches in these days, centred around the Jewish question. However, as the government was but a mere tool in the hands of the Nazi regime, expressly antagonistic toward the Churches, it paid little regard to the action of the Churches. The results reached accordingly were rather meagre. Yet, meagre as they were, they meant the saving of many lives. The most important result was the exemption secured for members of mixed marriages. This one measure alone meant exemption from the wearing of the yellow star and its fearful consequences for several thousand families <197> The Churches already at that time demanded the formation of a body authorised to grant exemptions whenever individual merits made the granting of the same justified. This demand, although not granted in its original form, led later on the recognition of the Regent's right to grant exemption, through which channel some twenty thousand persons were given exemption. [439]
Under the influence of the news reaching the capital, Bishop Ravasz asked the
Regent - a Protestant - for an audience, which was granted on April 12, 1944.
"He entreated the Regent to abstain from any action in connection with the Jewish question, for which at some future date he might have to bear the responsibility, pointing out that the blame for cruelties, should these occur, would be laid at his door and that he would render himself liable to trial for same. 'The desperadoes,' said the Bishop, 'will not fail to make an attempt to have their own accounts paid out of the moral capital of others'. Horthy reassured the Bishop." [440]
A few days later, however, Baron Zsigmond Perenyi, President of the Upper
House, called upon Bishop Ravasz and informed him of his sad experiences in
Northern Hungary. On April 28, Bishop Ravasz was again received in audience
by the Regent, to whom he passed on the information gathered by Perenyi.
Horthy's answer was as follows:
"Only a few hundred thousands Jews were scheduled to leave the country with the labour battalions. No harm will befall them, not a hair of their heads will be touched. They will enjoy the same treatment as the nearly hundred thousand Hungarian labourers employed abroad?…"
The Regent admitted that complaints had been received from Nyiregyhaza, whereupon he had sent for the Minister of Interior, Jaross, and had asked for an investigation to be instituted. Jaross had charged his two Under- Secretaries with the investigation, and had since reported that a stop had been put to the scandalous treatment. [441]
On May 9, 1944, Bishop Ravasz called on Prime Minister Sztojay and protested against the atrocities committed against the Jews. <198>
"He presented the petition of the Reformed Assembly referring to the horrors which occurred during the concentration of the Jews at Marosvisihely, Kolozsvir, Kassa and Nagybanya.
The Prime Minister seemed to have been informed about the situation and declared that he condemned the brutalities, stating that he had given instructions for the separation to be carried out drastically, but humanely. "The Jews are a race", he said, "and thus the regulation of the Jewish problem is not a question of religion, but of race". [442]
On May 17, 1944, the Assembly of the Reformed Church sent a letter to Prime Minister Sztojay in which two matters were emphasized. First, it recalled the promises which the Prime Minister had made regarding amelioration of the cruel measures and, second, it protested against the segregation of the Jews which had already begun.
"We are compelled to declare that we most resolutely disapprove the segregation of persons classified as Jews. We are of the opinion that the measures adopted by Christian Society in times past in this direction, must not be repeated… The second thing which we have to mention is as yet an anxious presentiment. Signs are not lacking to show that, besides segregation, the deportation of the Jews beyond the country's boundaries is also in preparation. We have to call your Excellency's attention to the tragic developments which mark the conclusion of Jewish deportations in other countries, and we beg your Excellency to do all that can be done in order to impede such happenings and to avert responsibility for such acts from the Royal Government and from the whole nation." [443]
Bishop Ravasz then tried to join forces with the Roman Catholic Church and informed the Chairman of the Holy Cross Society (which was charged with the protection and care of Catholics of Jewish origin) of his willingness to make the introductory steps for a united action. On June 15, 1944, he sent a letter to the Primate, Justinian Serkdi, saying that he had already prepared the draft for a memorandum (of which a copy was included) to be sent to the Government, as "a final earnest warning" before the Churches should "voice their solemn declaration in protest, in the presence of the country and the world". No reply from Primate Seredi, however, was received. [444] <199>
As nothing could be learned from the press, the authorities of the Church sent a young pastor to Kassa, the largest ghetto. He returned from his trip of inspection, reporting that, notwithstanding the protestations and promises of the Prime Minister, the deportation of Jews had begun. Therefore pastors were dispatched to carry the text of the memorandum that had been prepared, to the nine Bishops, in order to obtain their consent. After they had signed it, a deputation presented it to the Prime Minister, on June 23, 1944. Its text was as follows:
"In our memorandum of May 19 we mentioned, with foreboding, that there was a possibility of the deportation of the Hungarian Jews to an unknown destination. Since then information has reached us, according to which Jews have been crossing the frontier in sealed wagons day after day, disappearing from our sight, bound for an unknown destination. Each of these wagons contained about 70 to 80 persons of different sex, age and social standing, of both Israelite and Christian faith. The persons deported, as well as, their relatives are convinced that this journey is leading to final destruction. The solution of the Jewish question is a political task. We now are not dealing with politics. The execution of this solution is a great work of administration. We are not experts on that. But the moment the solution of the Jewish question challenges the eternal laws of God, we are in duty bound to raise our voice, condemning, but at the same time imploring, the head of the responsible Government. We cannot act otherwise. We have been commanded by God to preach His eternal Gospel, to give evidence of the unalterable laws of His moral order for this generation, whether people like it or not. Although humble and sinful men, we, in the bondage of faith and obedience to this heavenly command, possess the right to give evidence of the Word of God and to condemn every action which outrages human dignity, justice or charity, and which loads upon the head of our people the horrible responsibility of innocently shed blood. As Bishops of the two Protestant Churches we protest against devout members of our congregations being punished merely for being considered Jews from a racial point of view. They are being punished for a Jewish mentality from which they, and in many cases their ancestors, have solemnly disconnected themselves. Their lives, as regards Christian spirit and morality, are not considered in the least. <200> Finally we, as Hungarians and as clergymen, repeatedly implore Your Excellency to put an end to the cruelties, even disapproved of by yourself, and to enforce the declaration made by a prominent member of your Cabinet, protesting against the very idea of a senseless and cruel destruction of the Jews. We do not wish to aggravate your Excellency's political position; we even wish to promote the solution of the great task you have taken upon yourself. For this reason, for the time being, we do not carry our protest before the Hungarian public, although this course will incur for us the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches. Should, however, our intervention prove ineffective, we will be obliged to testify before the congregations of our Church and the Protestants of the world, that we did not suppress the message of God. As a last attempt we appeal, through the kindness of your Hungarian heart and the Christian feelings of your Excellency, to the leniency of the Royal Hungarian Government. We desire that this, the most painful manifestation in our whole history hitherto, should become the case of the Government." [445]
The Bishops were afraid of "the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches", in the event of remaining silent. Apparently the anticipated verdict of Churches in other countries, and of the World Council of Churches, was one of the factors which urged action. The Churches made a clear stand in this memorandum, though certainly not everything in it is of prophetic power.
The deputation submitting this memorandum, which in its way was a kind of ultimatum, supported it by word of mouth. Prime Minister Sztojay answered bluntly:
"The two Secretaries of State of the Ministry of Interior have reported that, except in certain cases, no atrocities have been committed. Germany has need of man power, and the Jews are being taken there for labour purposes."
In their reply, the members of the Protestant deputation pointed out to the Prime Minister that deported babies, pregnant women and old people were certainly of no use for that purpose. Sztojay's answer to this was that the authorities did not want the Jews working abroad to feel anxious about the families they had left behind, nor the families to worry as to the fate of the deported Jewish men. <201>
The deputation proposed that the Churches be permitted to care for children whose parents had been selected for such "labour purposes". The Prime Minister consented to this request, but asked that it be submitted in writing. The deputation immediately composed and handed over the written request. It was never answered. [446]
A Confidential Report sent by the Hungarian Protestants to the Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, states:
"… Not a single line on all this has been published, either in the ecclesiastical or in the daily press; for when the first Memorandum was personally handed over, the Government made it a condition that the whole intervention be handled with the utmost discretion and no press-comments whatsoever were to be made: in this case the Government were willing on their part to do everything possible; if press-comments were made it would appear as though the Government, considering the echoes in the press, had taken alleviating i.e. modifying measures in their sudden fear. The date to answer the last Memorandum expires to-morrow and if no adequate essential measures are taken by then, uniform sermons and a strongly worded pastoral letter will be read from every pulpit on next Sunday." [447]
No answer came to the Memorandum. Thus Bishops Ravasz and Kapi decided to address an open declaration to the congregations and to the Protestant Christianity of the world:
"We request all our brethren, the pastors belonging to our communions, that they read the following message to the congregations at the conclusion of next Sunday's morning service: To all congregations of the Hungarian Reformed Church and of the Hungarian Lutheran Church, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Brethren in Christ! The undersigned Bishops of the Hungarian Reformed Church and of the Hungarian Lutheran Church address you and inform you, in the presence of God, of the steps taken before the Royal Hungarian Government in the name of the Protestant Churches. <202> We notify the congregations that the two Protestant Churches, after several proposals both by word of mouth and in writing, on June 21st presented to the Royal Hungarian Prime Minister a solemn memorandum of request and protest. This memorandum pointed out the more than regrettable events accompanying the concentration and deportation of Jews, whether Christian or not. After having stated that the solution of the Jewish question violates eternal Divine laws, the memorandum continued its proposals as follows: 'We have been commanded by God to preach His eternal Gospel, to give evidence of the unalterable laws of His moral order in this generation, whether people like it or not. Although humble and sinful men, we, in the bondage of faith and obedience to this heavenly command, possess the right to give evidence of the Word of God and to condemn every action which outrages human dignity, justice or charity, and which loads upon the head of our people the horrible responsibility of innocently shed blood.' At the same time we beseeched the Royal Hungarian Government to put an end to the cruelties which were also condemned by members of the Cabinet, and to enforce those declarations that protested against the very suggestion of the destruction of the Jews, while at the same time they issued orders that the Jews should be treated humanely. We were deeply afflicted when we were forced to admit that our entreaties had been in vain. We, the Bishops of the two Protestant Churches, considered it to be our duty to inform our faithful, as well as, every member of our congregation and the universal community of Christ's Holy Church of these events. We summon the congregations to repentance and the entire Hungarian nation to penitence under the mighty hand of God. Pray to Him and beseech Him to turn His mercy and His supporting Grace towards our Hungarian nation."
Your loving brethren in Christ: the last Sunday in June, 1944. [448]
The proclamation was lithographed and, as a necessary precaution, put into differently coloured envelopes. It was intended to post it to the two thousand clergymen in the country from different provincial post offices. At this juncture, the Minister of Religion and Education sent word by telephone that a pastoral letter of the Primate, addressed to the Bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church, had been intercepted and that the Government wished to have a conference with the Churches. On July 11, 1944, the Minister visited Bishop Ravasz, who was ill.
"The Minister declared that the Prime Minister had promised the abolition of atrocities, the cessation of further deportations and that the isolation of the Jews would be carried out in a humane manner. 'That,' he said, 'was the agreement with the Catholic Church'. <203> He could not at that time produce it in writing, but that was the text and essential contents of the agreement with the Catholics. At great length he persuaded and threatened the sick Bishop that if they persisted in protesting in public, the Church would be 'overwhelmed', or the Government might resign, thereby paving the way for the coming into power of the Arrow Cross Party. If, however, they came to an agreement, the lives of 250,000 Budapest Jews would be saved." [449]
Bishop Ravasz believed the Minister's statement regarding the agreement with the Primate, but he insisted that the clergy should, at any event, be allowed to read out a short note in the Reformed Churches. This note was immediately drafted. It reads as follows:
"Reverend Pastor! We request that you read the following announcement at the conclusion of next Sunday's morning service [July, 16]: 'The Bishops of the Reformed Church of Hungary and the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of Hungary wish to inform the congregations that in connection with the Jewish question, and particularly in the case of baptised Jews, they have repeatedly intervened with the competent Government authorities. Their endeavours in this respect are continuing'." [450]
It is difficult to answer the question whether it was the right decision to cancel the public proclamation of the pastoral letter form all the pulpits. Dr. Mathe wrote to me:
"… This circular [the pastoral letter] reached all the pastors, and they undoubtedly communicated its contents to most of their parishioners." [451]
The deportations were stopped. The Archbishop of Canterbury addressed "the Christian people of Hungary" through the B.B.C., in July, 1944. He begged them "to do your utmost, even taking great personal risks, in order to save some if you can". [452] This appeal may have had more direct, practical effects than the short note that was read out from the pulpits. <204>
c. The Terror at the End
On October 15, 1944, Regent Horthy was arrested by the Germans and the new Nazi-dominated regime of Szalasi was installed. On October 20, 22,000 Jewish men were rounded up. By the end of October, 35,000 Jewish men and women had been seized. The majority of them were marched off to Austria, without food. All who fainted and fell, were killed on the spot. The 160,000 Jews who had remained in Budapest were herded into a ghetto where they were exposed to raids by German and Hungarian Nazis, and to the bombardments of the Russian guns. On December 13, 1944, the Russians stormed Budapest. On January 18, 1945, the ghetto was liberated by the Red Army. The fighting for the Buda citadel continued until February 13, 1945.
After Szalasi's reign of terror had begun, Bishop Ravasz intervened in the name of the Protestant Churches. He demanded the fulfilment of five points. Three of them were in connection with the Jews:
… c. Humane methods in the treatment of Jews. Revocation of the order which, in cases of mixed marriages, empowered the non-Jewish party to obtain a divorce, and declared as Jewish the party that failed to comply with this regulation. d. The cessation of the deportations. e. Security for the lives of the Jews.
On November 24, 1944, the Deputy Prime Minister replied in the name of the
Government. He informed then that Szalasi had succeeded in obtaining the
Fuehrer's permission to grant the following points:
"No alteration to be made in the legal status of mixed marriages, the Jews to be separated from the rest of the population of Budapest, and the labour service companies to be directed towards the German frontier, because it was to be feared that they might commit atrocities in the case of a Russian occupation. When carrying out these measures, however, the principle of humanity would be respected." [453] <205> On November 26, 1944, Bishop Ravasz again wrote to the Roman Catholic Primate proposing united action. "The Primate, tired and very ill, replied that he had already intervened with Szalasi and that he did not feel like repeating the intervention in the company of others." [454]
On Dec. 1, 1944, the Bishops of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches presented a note to the so-called "Leader of the Nation".
"It follows from the prophetic office of Christ's Church that the servant of the Church should always raise his voice when men's acts gravely violate God's laws", wrote Bishop Ravasz. The letter stressed, that "the treatment meted out mocks God's eternal laws which prescribe humane treatment even toward one's enemies, and brings down God's anger on the head of the nation. This treatment casts a dark blot on the name of the Magyar nation which, for a thousand years, had been known to the world for its generosity and chivalry." [455]
A pastoral letter issued in December, 1944, called on the pastors to pray at the services for "the scattered flock of Israel, the homeless and the persecuted." [456]
On May 9, 1946, the Hungarian Reformed Church declared that "in deep humility she confesses her guilt and offence against God's honour… She had not laboured in time to warn the people and the rulers, when they embarked on a course contrary to God's laws, and she had not strongly taken her stand on the side of the innocent persecuted human beings." [457] <206>
a. Press Censorship
Switzerland remained neutral throughout the second world war, but it was surrounded by the Axis powers and to a great extent economically dependent on them. The Swiss Government tried to avoid offending the Germans, and thus the press was forbidden to make foreign propaganda or to publish stories about atrocities committed by the warring parties, "of which the objective correctness could not be verified".
Even in June, 1943, the press censorship issued the following order: "There recently appeared several articles about Jews and Polish clergy, without mentioning their source of information. It is understandable that our conscience should be moved by all such inhuman treatment, but yet we must strictly obey the instructions of the Press emergency law, which stipulates that it is our duty to suppress rumours and foreign propaganda." [458]
Thus censorship imposed silence on the press concerning reports of "bloody murders of hostages and persecution of Jews". The first time, however, that, to the best of my knowledge, Church leaders in Switzerland spoke out about the persecution of the Jews during the second world war, they did so in a protest against censorship of the Press.
On October 27, 1941, the following Petition was presented by the "Social Study Committee of the Swiss Reformed Pastors Union" to the Swiss Federation of Churches: <207>
1. We take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Swiss Federation of
Churches, which is the spokesman of the Swiss Churches to the Federal
Authorities, to the alarming position of the Evangelical Reformed Church.
2. The press-censor has repeatedly taken severe measures against men who,
as representatives of the Evangelical Church, have raised their voices
to inform public opinion.
These measures have aroused deep and widespread concern in many circles
to whose notice they have come, despite the ban on the publication of
such matters, and have led to the opinion that the Evangelical Church is
no longer allowed to pronounce the truth entrusted to its care…
3. We especially bear in mind the silence imposed on us by our censorship
concerning the injustice of the bloody murders of hostages and the
persecution of Jews. When mentioning this subject, we should certainly
not shout about it from the roof tops, but under no circumstances should
our sense of justice and injustice be blunted within our national
conscience. Otherwise we shall invoke God's heavy punishment on our country.
Therefore, we take exception to the reproach levied at us by some, that such
intrepid talk of injustice by a foreign nation, is a misjudgement.
4. The apprehension we bring to your notice particularly gains alarming weight
by the fact that we, as Evangelical and democratic citizens of Switzerland,
have to look on while un-Christian and undemocratic ideologies and deeds
cross our borders unhindered in the form of many foreign newspapers and
illustrated periodicals, which are thus able to exert their influence on
young and old. Does not this give rise to the impression that our
highest authorities do not sufficiently recognize the danger of a moral
and spiritual capitulation on our part, or consider it to be of only
secondary importance?
We therefore request the Federation of Churches:
a. That it remonstrate with the highest responsible authorities of our
country and draw their attention to the deep concern and alarm which
these measures by our censorship have aroused in large circles of our
Evangelical Church.
b. That it publicly voice its opinion on the matter and unequivocally make
known its stand, with the full weight of its authority.
c. That it emphatically take a stand on behalf of all persons in our Church,
whose freedom of speech is endangered or impaired, and that it encourage
our Church authorities and Synods to make use of their divinely authorized
right of freedom of speech. [459]
On November 17, 1941, a conference of the "Swiss Protestant Relief Society for the Confessing Church in Germany" was held at Wipkingen near Zurich. It was attended by 300 churchmen from all parts of Switzerland. A Resolution regarding the Censorship of ecclesiastical publications was presented and unanimously adopted. We quote from this resolution the following: <208> "The undersigned Reformed Swiss Pastors have taken note of the following facts: That the Department for Press and Radio of the army has imposed preliminary censorship on the periodical Neue Wege, and thus has prevented its further publication; … that the same office has demanded of the Swiss press that they refrain henceforth from taking any stand on the execution of hostages by a foreign power;… They herewith publicly protest against these measures, as they are concessions to the spirit and methods of a policy incompatible with the Reformed Confession and pernicious to the Swiss Federation. They herewith publicly declare that they are determined to continue to fulfil their duty, to declare the truth to our people, the suppression of which is attempted by these measures."
One hundred pastors signed this "Protest and Declaration", which was submitted to the Federal Government and to the Army Commanders. [460] The same Conference adopted the following Resolution on "The Jewish Problem":
"The Conference meeting to-day at Zurich-Wipkingen sends to the Committee of the Swiss Protestant Church Federation the urgent request that it should take action so that all the Reformed Churches in Switzerland may make a public statement on the Jewish problem. Not only the most recent deportations of the Jews, whose number and character are particularly frightful, but also certain announcements which have appeared even in the Swiss press, make it a duty for the Church, for the sake of its own members, to proclaim before the whole world: 1. That the Church, to which the Gospel of the mercy of God is entrusted, calls its members to pray for the suffering Jewish people and to do everything they can to alleviate this suffering. 2. That the Church, to which the message of the creation of man in the image of God is entrusted, condemns as a revolt against the will of God as Creator the violence which is done to the image of God in persecuting a race and humiliating it. 3. That the Church, to which the message of the Revelation of God in the people of Israel is entrusted, knows itself, as the Church of Jesus Christ, to be bound up in a special way with the fate of the Jewish nation. Because 'salvation comes of the Jews' (St. John 4, 22), anti-Semitism is incompatible with membership in the Christian Church." [461] <209> On August 30, 1942, a meeting was held of the "Young Church", attended by about 6,000 young people. Supreme Court Justice Dr. M. Wolff, who in his capacity as President of the Synod conveyed the greetings of the Church of Zurich, declared:
"Switzerland is in extremely danger. One speaks of a new order in Europe, but this order is characterised by attacks on other nations; by the murdering of hostages and the persecution of Jews. This new order means a denial of the Christian faith… The best contribution the Church of Switzerland can render to-day is, to be a true Church, faithfully proclaiming the word of God. Its freedom to preach must therefore be preserved unrestrictedly. We shall be grateful for a State Church, so long as the State recognizes the Church's right to exercise its function as Watchman. Zwingli has unequivocally insisted on this. Unfortunately, the Church's function as Watchman is now being threatened by press censorship. The State must not demand that the Church should refrain from clearly distinguishing between right and wrong. The Church must now fight for its right to raise its voice against the rejection of poor refugees; in a clear "Yes" to Jesus Christ, and in a clear "No" to the dark powers of this world." [462]
On October 28, 1942, Dr. Wollf said in his Opening Address to the Synod of
Zurich:
"… It is therefore not surprising that, when a clearer profession resulted through the awakening of the Church in recent years, its freedom of speech was often denied by political coercion, and the Church was told that it had no right to interfere in Government matters. … The Gospel knows nothing about neutrality of opinion and nothing of a policy of false silence, advocated currently by higher circles." [463]
b. Anti-Semitism within and outside Switzerland
In several declarations anti-Semitism within, as well side, Switzerland was denounced unequivocally, but the name of Germany was seldom mentioned. In May, 1942, the Synodal Council of Bern published the following Declaration: <210> "Deeply concerned by the fact that hatred of the Jews is being stirred up both openly and secretly also in our country, the Council of the Evangelical Federation of Churches has requested the cantonal Church authorities to use their good offices so that our attitude as Evangelical Christians towards the Jewish question be maintained against all such plots. Our attitude towards Jewry is not based on economical or racial problems. It is not even a matter of conducting oneself humanely and decently; the question has a far deeper significance and only can be understood correctly and answered in the light of biblical teaching. Therefore above all it is essential, that we reach a Christian understanding of the Jewish question; only then shall we be able to overcome, on the basis of a deeper understanding, the common prejudices and slogans; and especially, the latent disparaging attitude towards the Jews. Wherever anti-Jewish attitudes appear within a congregation, we must not remain passive; we have an obligation to emphasize the Evangelical stand on this matter, and to admonish and counsel. Above all, we should not slacken in our intercession on behalf of the people of Israel." [464]
In June, 1942, a similar Declaration was issued by the Council of Pastors in Geneva:
"Our Church cannot keep silent in face of anti-Semitic propaganda which is
in danger of becoming stronger in our own country. At a time when the Jews
elsewhere are the victims of plunder and persecution, the Church must define
her spiritual position.
1. The Apostolic message which declares that there is no longer Jew nor Greek
in Jesus Christ forbids us to make any distinction in the community of the
baptized. A Jew attached to the Christian Church by his conversion and
baptism is a member of it on exactly the same basis as every other faithful
Christian.
2. Christendom has denied the spirit of her Lord every time she has maltreated
or persecuted the descendants of those for whose pardon Jesus prayed to the
Father. Our obligation is to deal with all men in justice and charity on
the grounds that they are indeed our brothers.
3. The race from which came the prophets and the apostles, and to which Jesus
Christ belonged, deserves our respect. We owe Jews a debt of gratitude,
and if Christians pray to God for the conversion of the chosen people they
must also implore divine mercy for persecuted Israel; they must sympathize
with the grief which they are suffering; they must suffer in sympathy the
injustices which Jews once more are suffering.
Strong in the convictions of our Evangelical faith we invite members of our
Churches to resist all efforts to introduce in our country anti-Semitic
racialism which is condemned by the spirit of our Master and by all teaching
which is derived from the Holy Scriptures. [465]
<211>
On September 30, 1942, the Assembly of the Swiss Pastors' Union, meeting at
Liestal, adopted the following Resolution:
"We confess on the basis of the Holy Scripture that the hope of the Church through the grace and faithfulness of God in Jesus Christ is indissolubly bound up with the hope for the Jews. We therefore declare that all anti-Semitism is irreconcilable with confession of Jesus Christ. It is the holy duty of every Christian to help the tortured Jews by intercession and active love." [466]
That warnings against anti-Semitic influences in Switzerland were not superfluous, was shown in the Report concerning the Fund Drive for Aid to Refugees, which was held in October-November, 1942. The Report stated:
"… The reasons for the diverse reactions to our fundraising appeals in the German and the French-speaking parts of Switzerland, are of a complex nature. From an inquiry made by the cantonal committees we learn that the press in general took a stand against aid to refugees. An article by Pierre Grellet, the Bern correspondent of the 'Gazette de Lausanne', published in November, had a distinct undercurrent of anti-Semitic feeling, characteristic of his attitude. There were also other expressions of anti-Semitism in the press. In contrast to the German-speaking press which protested against the turning away of refugees from our borders, this action triggered no particular reactions in the French-speaking press. [467]
c The Admission of Refugees
Like the Government of the Netherlands, the Swiss Government had already closed the Swiss borders before the war. <212> The Church Council of Canton Zurich stated, in 1938: "It pains us that consideration for so many unemployed citizens in our own nation prevents us from offering a protecting asylum to the suffering refugees, who, like wild game, are chased from country to country." [468] In the summer of 1942, mass raids took place in France and many Jewish refugees tried to find asylum and safety in Switzerland. They often crossed the French-Swiss frontier "illegally". On August 13, 1942, the border police were instructed to send back civilian refugees from France who had entered into Switzerland illegally, with the exception of political refugees. "Refugees for racial reasons only, for instance Jews," were not considered political refugees. [469] The Federation of the Protestant Churches as well as other organizations turned to the Federal authorities. [470] Their protests were not ineffectual. On August 23, Federal Councillor von Steiger ordered that in special cases rejection should be waved. On August 24, a meeting was convened with the "Swiss Central Office for Refugee Aid", where all the Institutions for refugee aid were represented. The "Central Office" informed the press of the result of this partly tumultuous meeting on the same day: "Foreign refugees, who had entered Switzerland before 13th August, 1942, and register with the police, will be sent back only if, after careful investigation, they must for important reasons be considered undesirable." [471] <213>
On August 30, 1942, at the meeting of the "Young Church" which has been mentioned before [472], Rev. W. Luthi said:
"Sin separates us from God. What has happened in the case of the refugee problem comes under the same heading. Even though we understand that events may be motivated by political considerations, our conscience is burdened by such events in three ways. First, because the rejection of the poorest of the refugees was not an act of humanity. Second, because any claim to humanitarianism becomes hypocritical. And third, because it was an act of ingratitude towards God, who has so graciously protected our own country. Now we may well fear that, after what has happened, God will no longer be for us, but against us."
The morning session ended with words of greetings by the Rev. Hans Roduner, who thanked the authorities for their consent "to revoke the painful measures in force against the refugees". He called upon the Young Church to make great sacrifices for the refugees and ensure the support of fifty of them. The reply of Federal Councillor von Steiger, who spoke in the afternoon, was typical of the Government point of view:
"Of course the Federal Councillor would like to help all the refugees. However, when thousands of victims of a shipwreck cry out for help, the one in command of a small and fully occupied lifeboat, that is limited in capacity and provisions, must seem heartless if he cannot take them all into his boat. Nevertheless, it is humane to give warning against false hopes, and at least try to save those already aboard. As regards the measures adopted concerning the refugee problem, Federal Councillor von Steiger is prepared to accept full responsibility." [473]
Since September 26, 1942, the following categories of refugees were admitted: a. Obviously ill persons and pregnant women. b. Refugees over 65 years old; married couples if at least one of them was over 65 years. <214> c. Children under the age of 16 travelling alone. d. Parents with children under 16 years. e. Refugees who claimed and could prove that they had close relatives in Switzerland or, otherwise, close relations with Switzerland (Residence for a long time).
However, French Jews without exception had to be deported "as they were in no danger in their own country". In doubtful cases (when it was not clear whether a refugee came under one of the categories mentioned, or when deportation appeared to be exceptionally severe) the Police Department had to be contacted by telephone. It was ascertained that 3,800 persons had entered Switzerland illegally during September. [474]
On October 28, 1942, in his opening address to the Synod of Zurich, Dr. Wollf said:
"… The dominant spirit, in no way identical with the sentiments of the people, has become despondent and even pitiable. Its exponents, who can be found not only in the Federal Council but also in the Parliament, pay homage to the opinion that expediency, craftiness and a so-called realistic policy are greater importance to our salvation than the spirit of the Gospel and of freedom and of truth. The misery of the dominant spirit has become evident in recent months in the shameless treatment of the refugees. We must not pass over in silence the disgrace and shame we have brought upon ourselves when, because of cold political calculations, we returned to misery and threat of death, those refugees who believed they had found within our borders a refuge from danger… It is not the beauties of our country nor our safe existence, which make Switzerland worthy of our defence and devotion, but the fact that it is the centre of freedom and justice. The Declaration of the Federal Council and the three coalition parties, contained no sign of their having grasped the challenge of the hour. [475] In contrast to this, it may be said that the Reformed Church, and, in particular, the Executive Committee of the Swiss Federation of Evangelical Churches, has in no uncertain manner fought for recognition of the demands of our Christian conscience. These have found their most impressive formulation by the President of our Federation of Churches: <215> 'God, through His commandments in the Old and New Testament, has placed us unequivocally on the side of the weak, the oppressed and the destitute, no matter what their race or nationality. Confession of faith in Jesus Christ is, for the Christian, almost always also related to recognition of our responsibility to our suffering brothers. The least of His brethren to-day are the oppressed refugees in their physical and mental distress. Christ will either find us on their side or on the side of His persecutors.' The mitigations, now granted by the authorities, may be accepted as revoking their heartless orders. But this is not a lasting or definite solution. The fight for an honourable and humane conduct must continue. Protests alone will not suffice. Indignation is shallow if it is unaccompanied by the will to act. The members of the Church, as well as its critics, justly demand that it put up a determined stand on behalf of the outcasts. Generous contributions to the Refugee fund, and willingness to accept refugees in our homes, must now furnish proof that our nation wishes its ancient Christian traditions to be upheld. Each one of us should do his part to atone for our guilt in this matter. Injustice, force and inhumanity triumph around our borders. These terrible events can no longer allow us only to consider expediency. The only truly realistic policy is the one which accepts God as the highest Reality, and considers Him more important than all calculations of worldly wisdom, which only lead us astray." [476]
In the months October and November, 1942, a general collection for the Aid to Refugees was held. Because of political considerations on the part of the authorities concerned, the planned 5-minute broadcasts could not take place. Nevertheless, the General Management of the broadcasting services agreed to broadcast short appeals under the slogan "Contribute towards an Asylum for the Homeless". [477] The "Swiss Central Office for Aid to Refugees" stated:
"If, however, the result of the fundraising is disappointing, all is lost. Not only will the organizations have no more money, but our opponents who even now are urging the complete closing of our borders, will then say to the Federal Government: 'Close the doors, let nobody in. The Swiss people do not want them…'" [478]
Many Church leaders publicly recommended this collection. Prof. Karl Bart did so in the following words: <216> "There are reasons for and against aid to refugees as currently suggested to us Swiss. The reasons for are: The Christian reason. 'In as much as ye have done it unto one of these least, ye have done it unto me.' The refugees are our concern: not because they are valuable or agreeable human beings, but because in all the world they are to-day the lowest and the most miserable people, and as such they, with their inseparable companion the Saviour, knock on our door. They are our concern, not in spite of their being Jews but just because they are Jews, and as such are the Saviour's brethren in the flesh. (I suggest that this first reason is the strongest and may well be the one decisive and effective reason in this matter). The Swiss reason. The refugees (whether they are aware of it or not) do us a great honour, in looking upon our country and seeking it out as the last refuge of justice and mercy. Many of the great and dreadful things which occurred in our time will be forgotten. After centuries, however, it will still be asked, whether Switzerland proved true to its name as the free Switzerland in these days, or renounced it. The question whether the Lest that we Swiss are capable of and have, can be preserved throughout the present crisis, will be decided only by opening our hearts and hands to these refugees, or by turning our backs upon them. The Humane reason. We see in these refugees the fate we have miraculously been spared. It is quite true that we also are not too well off to-day. It is, however, equally true that we are well enough off to be in a condition exactly opposite to these unfortunate fellow-creatures: well-fed and even rich. Can we bear this, without wanting to help them to the best of our ability? Would it not be disgraceful, even to let our lips suggest any reasons at all against offering such aid?" [479]
In December, 1942, 1,595 refugees were admitted and 330 sent back. At the end of December, the number of immigrants and refugees amounted to 16,200. Of the refugees, 8,467 had entered Switzerland illegally between August 1, 1942, and Dec. 31, 1942. This development led the Department of Police to propose to the Federal Council that new decrees, more stringent than the preceding ones, be issued for the whole of the Swiss border. Apparently the order of Sept. 26, 1942, that being a Jew was no reason for admittance, mostly was not observed. [480] <217> The decree of Dec. 29, 1942, ordered that foreigners arrested whilst crossing the border or in the region of the border (up till 10 kilometres) must be turned back immediately. Exemption would be granted to the categories a, b and c mentioned in the decree of Sept. 26, 1942. [481] "Further, parents with children not over six years old; or if at least one of their children is not older than six; refugees who can prove that they have a spouse, parents or children in Switzerland; or when at least one of a married couple has been born in Switzerland. [482] The "Report of the Swiss Protestant Relief Society" comments:
"We are grateful that a Delegation of the Federation of Churches also remonstrated with the Federal Government in the matter. No substantial amendments to the decree were obtained, but in practice the attitude of the authorities was more obliging than the wording of the decree leads one to assume. The possibilities of providing asylum, and the readiness of the authorities to grant it, are in no small measure dependent on the willingness of the Swiss people to make sacrifices for the refugees. We therefore emphatically insisted that the congregations of the Evangelical Church should take upon themselves the financial responsibility for the upkeep of as many refugees as possible, and so to fulfil towards individual refugees Christ's commandment of love. [483]
In the first seven months of 1943, 1,821 refugees were sent back and 4,733 admitted. "Its is impossible to determine, how many Jews were among those admitted; apparently they made up the vast majority." [484] On May 9, 1943, the Synod of the Evangelical-Reformed Church of the City of Basel adopted the following Resolution:
"The Synod, deeply concerned by the information received regarding instruction given by the authorities to the border guards and the dreadful horrors still being undergone by refugees wanting to cross our borders, charges the Church council to urge the Executive Committee of the Federation of Churches to remonstrate afresh with the responsible authorities on behalf of the refugees according to the Church's responsibility to be a Protector, and desires that the congregation, through the 'Church Messenger', be kept suitably informed of the Synod's negotiations concerning the refugee and asylum problem. [485] <218> In October, 1943, the Church Council of Zurich addressed the following message "To the Reformed People of Zurich":
"… We are able only through rumours to gain a vague impression of the dreadful reality. And because it is beyond the powers of our imagination, we are in danger of closing our hearts and trying to suppress any awareness of the fact that daily, hourly, indeed every single moment, thousands suffer, bleed, starve, despair, die. We also let ourselves be misled by a falsely understood neutrality, which freezes our feelings towards the distress of foreigners, or causes in us a moral apathy towards injustice and inhumanity, sometimes even making us adopt the catchwords and evil slogans of anti-Semitism and racial hatred, and persuading us to accept ideals which are hostile to the Gospel of love to God and to ones neighbour… All humane people are haunted by descriptions of the sufferings to which members of the Jewish people have been exposed during these past four years of war, this following centuries of being slandered, ridiculed, beaten and persecuted throughout the Christian era! Expelled from home and work, forcibly separated, children tom from the arms of their mothers, mothers from the arms of their children, anew they are uprooted just when they had supposed they had found a protecting refuge. They have been tossed towards an uncertain destiny, which all too often only spelled destruction, misery, starvation, beatings, despair and death. Indeed, no other nation has been so overwhelmed by storms of persecution and deluged by sufferings, as has been the people of Israel. Who as a Christian, or as a Swiss, can fail to be oppressed by the distress of the Jewish people, or to be confronted by questions unsolvable by the words guilt and atonement, because we have certainly sufficient cause to ask questions about our own guilt in this matter and to apply to ourselves Christ's word: 'Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.' Such an admission can result only in one thing: the emergence of a deep sympathy and a desire to help wherever and however we can, to grant refuge to the homeless, to shelter the exposed, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to visit the imprisoned, to support the weak, to comfort the mourning; in accordance with the example of the good Samaritan and the teaching and promise of our Master: 'In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me'…" [486]
In November, 1943, the "Social Study Committee of the Swiss Union of Reformed Pastors" published the following Statement: <219> "… With shame and sorrow we see this purposeful turning away from Christ in a monstrous effort to exterminate entire races and peoples. The Christian conscience cries out against this. We therefore appeal to all those in responsible positions in the world, to save what still may be saved. We demand that the Swiss Government which maintains diplomatic relations with all governments in the world, devise with them and with the International Red Cross, a plan of rescue. In the name of Jesus we demand that our authorities put a stop to the driving back of refugees to their death, until final measures are taken, and to grant them a safe, Christian asylum. Our thanks go to the people of Switzerland for their cordial hospitality, even though it is hampered by authority!…" [487]
In my opinion this is the sharpest protest against the official refugee policy of the Swiss government that was ever published during the second world war.
At the end of 1943, it was ordered not to send Jewish refugees back if they objected. Thus Jews who fled Italy after its occupation by the Germans, were to be admitted; however, in the case of a real 'run' one might have to stop admitting them for some time. [488] It is, in my opinion, undeniable that the protests of the Churches and Church" leaders contributed to alleviating the measures against the refugees and their ultimate cancellation in practice. In the meantime, unspeakable sufferings had been inflicted on refugees who had been sent back and fell into the hands of their mortal enemies.
d. Aid to Refugees
We already mentioned some of the activities of the "Swiss Protestant Relief Society for the Confessing Church in Germany", [489] for instance the Annual Conference held on November 17, 1941, and its participation in the general collection for Aid to Refugees, held during October-November, 1942. In order to show the spirit in which this refugee work was done, we record the following letter which was sent by the Executive Council of the Society to the Swiss-Israelite Union of Congregations, on June 22, 1943: <220>
"You have ordered a call to an Assembly of Mourning, for next Sunday, 27th June, 1943. You will then recall the horrible decrees to which Jews in Europe are subjected, and the unspeakable hardship and oppression under which people nowadays suffer and die. Together with you we are deeply shocked at the mass murder that has engulfed European Jewry. Only with dread and horror can one read of the number deported from Germany, France, the Netherlands, Rumania and Greece. We fight against allowing suffering to become a familiar routine, and against blunting of concern on the part of our people of Switzerland at such distress. To us these dry figures represent human beings, who have lived, suffered and died. Their mass graves and their ashes will, till the coming Day of the Lord, be a shocking accusation against a Europe which forgot God. As Christians we cannot let the Assembly of Mourning of the Swiss-Israelite Union of Congregations pass without a cordial word of sympathy and participation. Deeply moved, we shall join our thoughts with yours in intercession. We know that each murder and every act of violence is rooted in the godless thinking of godless minds. The unkind word and the unappreciative gesture are signs of poisoning of the minds. The fact that this poisoning could assume such terrible proportions in 'Christian' Europe, where especially the Jewish people are victimised, shames us and gives us cause for severe self-accusation. So little have we Christians understood Jesus Christ and so far apart from him have we lived, that godless thinking was able to create this insane racial hatred and merciless cruelty in our midst, raging as a demon against the Jews. On your day of mourning we join hands with you in sympathy and sorrow. At the same time we confess our guilt before God and mankind. We regret every word of contempt, we Christians ever uttered against Jews. We regret that we have shamed Jesus Christ by our self-righteousness and our hardness of heart. We regret that we Christians were not more loyal to our Master and thus failed courageously to struggle, in time, against every expression of anti-Semitism. On this day of your mourning we implore the Almighty for his mercy, for the sake of Jesus Christ, with the publican's prayer of penitence: 'God be merciful to us sinners'. On your day of mourning we pray that God's mercy may be upon you, and the deep consolation of His promise from the precious Old Testament, which also has comforted us again and again: 'And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at first. And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me. And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity hat I procure to it' (Jeremiah 33, 7-9). <221> 'The Lord thath sent me to bring good tidings, to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn' (Isaiah 61, 1-2). 'Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me' (Psalm 23, 4). 'For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee' (Isaiah 54, 10)." [490]
Strong powers in Switzerland objected to the admission of refugees. Therefore the "Protestant Relief Society" undertook action in two different but interdependent fields: influencing public opinion, and rendering practical aid. Books and pamphlets were published and distributed. [491] Rev. Paul Vogt was appointed 'Refugee pastor', and was later joined by two other ministers. They launched the "Place of Refuge Operation", [492] asking members of the Church to provide places in their homes to Jewish refugees who were unable to work: pregnant women, mothers with little children; people ill, invalided or old. Another way to help for the local churches was to pay the maintenance (120 Franc per month) of a refugee being cared for in one of the houses of the homes of the Society. [493]
"Help was not just rendered to Protestant refugees; the majority of them were Jewish… We are convinced that we may not exploit the difficult situation of our proteges by trying to convert them. Rather, we respect the religious conviction of the Jews, whose care has been entrusted to us. <222> Therefore two Refugee homes were opened for observant Jews;… one accommodating 35 refugees, the other 26. Plans for a third refugee home were prepared. In order to reunite married couples and families, houses were rented in which a total of 111 persons were accommodated. Up till the end of 1943, 348 persons were helped and places for another 219 persons were in preparation." [494]
On October 1, 1944, 868 refugees who were unable to work were accommodated by the Protestant 'Place of Refuge Operation'. 739 of them were Jewish, 115 Protestant, 8 Catholic (mixed marriage) and 6 without religion. One hundred and seventy-nine places, especially for children, were reported to the Committee for Aid to Children. [495]
Far be it for us to belittle the efforts of Rev. Paul Vogt and others, who did what they could. Yet the number of refugees who were helped is small in relation to the terrible need that existed. Moreover, in Switzerland, people did not risk their lives or freedom by taking in a Jewish refugee, as happened in many other countries.
e. The Deportation of the Hungarian Jews
On July 4, 1944, the following circular letter was sent by Prof. Karl Barth, Prof. Emil Brunner, Dr. W.A. Visser 't Hooft and Rev. Paul Vogt to pastors in Switzerland:
"We send to you, enclosed, two messages from Hungary and a covering letter dated June 19, 1944, which came from reliable sources and reached Switzerland through diplomatic channels. The messages have shocked us deeply. Out of a sense of responsibility we feel it our duty to convey these messages to you. We do not doubt that you will read them and let them circulate within your own group. They are also known to the competent authorities." [496]
There followed a wave of public protests. We quote some of them. [497] <223>
On July 9, 1946, the Church Council of the Canton Zurich urged that the following message be read from every pulpit:
"The present day truly has revealed enough frightful things, but in the last weeks one piece of news has reached us which far exceeds anything that we have heard for years. Reliable witnesses inform us of terrible persecution of the Jews in Hungary. In a few weeks between three and four hundred thousand people have been sacrificed, and who knows how many more there will be. Many are dying of exhaustion or hunger, but the majority meet their death by gas. In one single place, at Birkenau, four crematoria are in use, in which every day six thousand people can be gassed and burned and incinerated. Hitherto Hungary had more than a million Jews. A number of towns already have been cleared of Jews. Persecution is said to be impending in the capital, if it has not already begun. We do not know what can have induced the government to take these dreadful measures and at whose door the responsibility for this dreadful deed must lie. What can we do? It is not for us to pass self-righteous judgment on the acts of other peoples, for we are not guilt-free. It does not lie in our power to order the cessation of atrocities. The Swiss Protestant Church Federation addressed an urgent request to the Federal Council and to the International Red Cross that they would do everything possible to rescue the Jews still living in Hungary. We invite congregations to make solemn intercession for all those who must tread this dark road simply because they belong to another race. Let us also pray for our sister-Evangelical Church in Hungary, that strength and guidance be granted to her at a time when her people is taking upon itself such a terrible load of guilt. Let the word of the Psalmist be our prayer: 'Keep not Thou silence, O God: hold not Thy peace, and be not still, O God'." [498]
The Council of the Evangelical Church of Canton Glarus, on July 12, issued a circular letter to all local ministers, drawing attention to the horrible reports of the extermination of Hungarian Jewry and stressing that, in all probability, reality would prove even more horrible than those reports implied. After having mentioned the appeals made by the Federation of Churches to the Federal Council and the International Red Cross, the circular letter continued: <224> "We fully realise that at present we are incapable of stopping the demonic powers by any human means. Only God can do that, and we invoke His aid. We request you to inform your congregation of these horrors in a fitting manner, and in your prayers to intercede with God on behalf of those that are threatened. Finally, the Church Council hereby issues a call to leave all vengeance and retaliation to Him who has proclaimed: 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord'." [499]
At about the same time, the following Proclamation was issued by the Council of the Synod of Bern:
"Added to the untold miseries that the Jews have had already to suffer in various countries, the terrible mass murders of the Jews in Hungary which, according to reliable information were carried out recently, surpass all imagination and defy any description. The inhuman removal of people of all ages who, solely on account of their racial origin, no longer are considered fit to exist, is a monstrosity unparalleled in history, as well as a grievous sin and guilt before God. As Christians who have received light and life, salvation and mercy from Jesus Christ, we feel a painful indignation in the face of such methods of extermination. We declare that such destruction of our fellow-men was conceived by a spirit and will which came from below, and which will bring a curse and doom on humanity. A deep sympathy unites us with the countless victims. We thank our brethren of the faith in Hungary for their courage in standing up, in time, against these monstrosities in spite of great difficulties, and we urge them to continue to do everything in their power to stop these horrible mass murders. We call on Christians in our own country to fight all hatred and thirst for revenge among people of different origin and race, and to resist all prejudices and offensive slogans wherever they may appear. Let us not tire of intercession on behalf of the ancient people of the Covenant, of Israel." [500]
In August, 1944, the following circular letter was published by the Church
Council of Canton Graubunden:
"Ecclesiastical and other proclamations and directives draw our attention to the fate of Hungarian Jewry. No pen is able to describe, no soul can sense, and no Christian mind can imagine what is being done to these unfortunate people. The human mind is powerless to grasp the horrors, day by day enacted with cool determination and limitless hate. Shocked cries, objections and protests, to those in authority have remained ineffective. Brotherly help to those threatened by death is not possible. <225> Only one thing remains to the Christian, of which he cannot be deprived: prayer. Dear brethren, prepare the people, before offering your public prayers, by referring to the sufferings of the Jewish people of whom the Son of God was born. Tell openly from the pulpits how many hundreds of thousands are being exterminated in gas chambers and crematoriums, while further multitudes tremble in desperation, because the hour is at hand when they too will be herded like cattle, deported and slaughtered. Tell how human dignity is degraded, how man's rights are trampled upon, so that all Christian feelings have received a deadly wound. Remember in your prayers at church the unfortunate who are persecuted, urging all members of your congregations likewise to remember them in their prayers at home in solitude. The prayer of the merciful heart availeth much. Through it God's presence may become real in distant gas chambers; consolation and indestructible faith may shine in their horror-stricken eyes and upon their deadly-pale faces. Such prayer may also have the power to reawaken petrified consciences, and to paralyse the hands engaged in deadly tasks. The prayer should be said in repentance over unbrotherly words also spoken in our country about Jews now and in the past…" [501]
The political situation of Sweden was comparable to that of Switzerland: each country tried to preserve its neutrality, was afraid of a German attack, and sometimes gave in to German demands. Yet Sweden expressed its willingness to receive all the Jews from Denmark, whilst Switzerland closed its borders. We should, however, bear in mind that to Switzerland, owing to its geographical position, the challenge of the refugee problem was much greater than to Sweden. The Swedish Church denounced the persecution of the Jews more sharply than did the Swiss Churches. Apparently Swedish Church leaders were not afraid of offending Germany. But in Sweden there was no press censorship, as was the case in Switzerland.
On November 29, 1942, Manfred Bjorkquist was consecrated first Bishop of Stockholm. Along with the Bishops of the Swedish Church, there were also present representatives of the Church of Denmark and the Church of Finland. The Quisling Minister for Church Affairs in Norway sent an indignant letter to Archbishop Eidem, because he had not been invited to send a representative to the consecration. Dagens Nyheter, commenting on this report, wrote: <226>
"What happened in Norway recently is sufficient explanation, if it is confirmed that Sweden's Archbishop did not reply to the letter. Archbishop Eidem's warning at Lutzen on November 6th against national self-sufficiency and arrogance provides an adequate answer. When now for the first time we see these things happening near at hand we are aghast at this self-sufficiency and arrogance; this complete contempt for human values." [502]
The last sentence refers to the deportation of the Jews of Norway.
On the first Sunday in Advent, 1942, the following Proclamation was issued by the Swedish Bishops:
"Hatred blinds and hardens. Hatred leads to destruction. Hatred is the most frightful and monstrous of the dark powers which now are dominating an unhappy earth. Jesus Christ condemns hatred in all its forms without exception. His words and deeds, His life and death, all mean an absolute judgment upon hatred. Whatever stands in contradiction with the royal command of love, which is the sum of the will of God, is sin, sin against the living God. Men may trample upon the commandments of the All-Highest. But God Almighty lives. And whoever turns away from Him has deserted the springs of life and is walking in the way of death. If we really want to be Christians, we must in all seriousness take up the fight against hatred, against all hatred. We must be strictest towards ourselves, so that we may not leave the smallest room in our heart for the evil spirit of hatred. So far as our voice reaches, we must, each in his own circle, stand up for love in word and deed, and fight hatred and the deeds of hatred. With horror and dismay we have learned in the last two days how an un-Christian racial hatred, which has spread over many lands in the world like a mortal pestilence, has now expressed itself in shocking acts of violence in our immediate neighbourhood, on our Scandinavian peninsula. Human beings are being subjected to the greatest sufferings, not because they have been legally convicted of misdeeds - they have not even been accused of such things by regular legal procedure - but solely because they belong by descent to a certain race. <227> We have been deeply moved to hear the courageous Christian admonitions which our oppressed Norwegian sister-Church has directed to those in power in their country, not to rebel against the clear Word of God by doing deeds of violence in blind racial hatred. Everything that lies in our power to assist the poor people affected by this hatred is being done. That is our elementary duty as Christians and as human beings. But even if we cannot do much to help the unfortunate, we can and must bear them and their needs upon our hearts. We Bishops of the Swedish Church call all our fellow-Christians in Sweden, in the Name of God, to include these our tortured brethren of the race of Israel in our faithful and constant intercessions, and to make daily prayers to our Father in Heaven for the many who are suffering violence and disaster at this time." [503]
At a service of intercession in Goteborg Cathedral on the first Sunday in
Advent, Dean Nysted said:
"Everything we have heard of the nameless sufferings of the Jewish people in past times dwindles to nothing in comparison with the fate that has overtaken them in recent years. We have read with disgust of the slave hunts of former times and the cargoes of slaves which were carried like cattle to America. Who could have dreamt anything so frightful as that such a ship would sail along our coasts last week, laden with men, women and children, who have no other fate to expect than that of the slaves or cattle for slaughter, and that not because of any crime of which they have been convicted but because they are of Jewish descent. The Church of Sweden must not keep silent when such a thing happens at our frontiers. If we were to keep silent, the stones would cry out. We are shocked to the depths of our hearts when we think of the sufferings of these unhappy people. We tremble at the dragon's teeth of hatred which are senselessly being sown… What harvest must grow from such seed? We stand powerless. What is being prepared for the Jews who have remained in Norway? Can our authorities do anything to save them? We implore them to consider this question seriously and without delay." [504]
In a broadcast sermon, Bishop Aukn of Strangnas commented upon the events of the time:
"Violence is triumphing, and the commandments which form the bases of our human common life are remorselessly being trampled upon. Every day brings new pictures of horror. Recently we received the news that the frightful plague of racial persecution has descended upon our Scandinavia… There are probably no limits to the depths to which people who are blinded by hatred may sink. <228> But at the same time a wonderful thing is happening: in the midst of this darkness we are witnessing a bold and firm steadfastness which remains unmoved even when it leads to persecution and martyrdom. Such events have opened the eyes of many people who were subject to the prejudice that we have only to reckon with material factors and the resources of outward force. They bear witness to the power of the Holy Spirit, to the power of Christ, which works in secret and is unconquerable. If we in our Swedish Church are able to begin the new Church year as a free Church in a free country, that lays upon us a great responsibility: to stand up in unshakable faithfulness for the holiness of the laws of God, when the most elementary demands of justice are trampled upon." [505]
At a Meeting of Protest, held in Stockholm on the same Sunday, Dr. Natanael
Beskow said:
"Here we are not concerned with neutrality or politics, but with humanity or inhumanity. Nothing of that kind must ever happen in Sweden. Indifference in face of a crime is in itself a crime."
The meeting passed the following Resolution:
"In the name of Christianity and democracy, humanity and justice, we protest against the mass deportations of Jewish citizens from our nearest neighbour country, not for crimes committed but because of their race. We do this for the sake or our Northern community, but we are angry and distressed that Northern men have been able to commit this deed of shame. We protest in the name of international law, for without security in law all human order collapses, whether it be called old or new." [506]
Svenska Morgonbladet reported that it had received expressions of sorrow and sympathy from the leaders of various Church congregations. Bishop John Cullberg said at Strangnas:
"After what happened earlier in Norway, the latest telegrams about the persecution of Jews are not surprising. But we are profoundly shocked. The Norwegian Church has, through its statements, already interpreted the Christian conscience's protest against these atrocities. It must be loudly proclaimed that we in Sweden support this protest. <229> With bleeding hearts, we think of the martyrs. And what should we say of their tormentors? All we can say is: 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do'." [507]
Although leading men within the Swedish Free Churches already at an early stage had separately expressed their feelings in the press regarding the persecution of the Jews in Norway, the Free Churches' Co-operation Committee wished to emphasize their mutual standpoint:
"God is the Father of all, and all men are called to receive the advantage of the adoption of sons, independent of race and birth. Racial persecution is thus a sin and a rebellion against God. The Jew is our neighbour, and we wish to love him as ourselves. Facing what is happening in Norway, we feel grief and distress. We are onlookers at a situation where our neighbour is being treated as something sub-human. We cannot remain silent witnesses to this We wish that our deeds could bring help, to undo what has been done. Our hope is that God will turn evil to good. We wish to join in the appeal of the Bishops of the Swedish Church, in the name of God, for intercessions for our tortured brethren of the race of Israel, and to make daily prayers to our Father in Heaven for the many who are suffering violence and disaster at this time." [508]
Under the subject heading "Christian Gathering", a meeting was held on
December 6, 1942 at Hedvig's Church at Norrkoping. This meeting was arranged
by clergymen. Speakers were Vicar Thysell, Pastor Einitz Genitz and Vicar
Knut Ericson. We quote the following from Vicar Thysell's address:
"The information concerning 1,000 Jews driven from their homes, robbed of their property and transferred to Germany to meet a most cruel fate, has shaken us thoroughly and deeply. Those Jews were loyal Norwegian citizens: they had done nothing wrong. They were punished because they were Jews, without trial or verdict. <230> The people of Norway were the first to speak up and protest through their Church. The brave and strong words from Norwegian Church leaders, themselves oppressed and persecuted, have moved us profoundly. Now we, too, must speak. There are occasions when it would be denying truth to remain silent. We bear a special responsibility towards God and humanity when such things are happening around US. We Swedes are best able to represent the world's conscience in this case, and we feel that we also owe our Norwegian brethren a clear and unequivocal declaration on our stand. We also have another responsibility in this case, one that lies even nearer to us: our responsibility towards the Jewish brethren, who belong to our own people. The contamination of anti-Semitism has also reached our own country. Infamous and false propaganda is being spread from plague centres within our own borders. We have hitherto belittled this danger. Now we see to where it is leading. It is time for us to wake up! We must also at this hour think of the mass persecution of Jews which is taking place in other countries. From available information it appears that the anti-Semitic wave is still rising. The threat now also concerns half-Jews. Our taking a stand might seem meaningless to all of these. We cannot stop violence. It may, however, in a secret way, bring a ray of consolation and hope into despairing hearts. We have named our meeting 'Christian Gathering'. That our consciences react to the outrage which is happening, is the result of the spiritual values of life which we have received from Christ and the Prophets of Israel - from the very people who are now being persecuted in so many countries. On those basic values rests our Nordic judicial culture. We pride ourselves on Sweden being a constitutional state. Here no one can be sentenced and punished except on the basis of justice. Here, right is not equal to might. Above the power of the state stand those eternal truths of our relation to God and each other, which have been revealed to us and which, in our consciences, appear as indefeasible values of life. Arnulf Overland says: 'Some things are greater than you. There are mountains with snow. There are dearer things than your life; you shall fight for it'. The dearest thing we have are those values of life that Christ gives us. The persecution of the Jews is not the only proof - but the most horrible of all - of a denial of these values of life. We are here to-day to confess our belief in these eternal foundations for human society, which God himself has laid. We believe in God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Father, who has called us all, independent of race and all other differences, to receive the adoption of sons and to live in communion with Him and each other. We wish to adhere to this Christian evaluation of man. And we reject as hostile to God and anti-Christian that brutal conception of man, and that contempt of mankind, which forge the acts of violence in anti-Semitism. We regard the brotherhood of humanity as holy, and brotherly action as our goal. We feel it our obligation to act towards our Jewish brethren in accordance with Jesus' rule of life: 'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them'. <231> Do we seriously mean them to be our confession of faith? Do we dare uphold it, as our Norwegian brethren have done, even if our faith should be tried as gold is tried in fire? Whatever happens, we need not fear, if we follow Jesus Christ, the eternal King. The weapons of iniquity are doomed annihilation. Christ stands on the side of the persecuted. His spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Righteousness and Love, is strongest of all. The day of freedom shall again dawn for the persecuted and oppressed." [509]
It is remarkable that earlier deportations of Jews in countries such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, did not prompt the Swedish Church leaders to raise their voices, though the number of deportees was much greater than that of the Jews deported from Norway. It seems likely that what was happening in Western Europe was less known in Sweden than what was happening in Norway. Moreover, human beings generally are more moved by cruelties committed on their doorstep, than by what happens further away. The Proclamation of the Swedish Bishops expressed "horror and dismay" because "an un-Christian racial hatred… has now expressed itself… in our immediate neighbourhood, on our own Scandinavian peninsula".
As far as we know, the Swedish Church did not issue a Protest against the persecution of the Danish Jews. In fact, events in Denmark took place so rapidly that a Protest would hardly have done any good. The pressure of the Swedish Archbishop (and others) on the Swedish Government to make public their willingness to receive all Danish Jews, was important. It appears that this step, indirectly, saved many lives. Dr. Leni Yahil relates the following:
"The Swedish Foreign Office contacted Richert, the Swedish envoy in Berlin, on the same day, September 29 [1943], and again on the next day, September 30, in order to plan with him the appeal to the German Foreign Office. It was decided that Richert would ask the Germans whether there was a basis to the rumours about an impending deportation of the Jews from Denmark, and that he would stress the fact that such a deportation would cause great indignation in Sweden. Moreover, he was to propose that all Danish Jews be transferred to Sweden and concentrated there in a camp and that the Swedish Government would be responsible that 'they would not be able to undertake any activity that might be harmful to Germany'. <232> It became evident that the Swedes did not intend to take any further action. [Niels] Bohr, Ebbe Munk and their friends, however, were of a different opinion. As we know from entries in Ebbe Munk's diary and from his letters to Christmas Moeller in London, it was the Danish group with the active support of prominent Swedish circles which brought about the publication by the Swedish Government of the appeal to the Germans. On October 2, the day following on the night of the persecution in Denmark, Bohr had an interview with the Foreign Secretary, Guenther. It seems that already on the preceding day the Danes had tried to persuade the Swedes to publish their appeal to the Germans in the hope that such a publication might prevent the deportation. Since this had not been done, Bohr requested the Swedish Foreign Secretary to repeat his appeal to the Germans and to propose to them that the boats on which the Jews were concentrated, be directed to Sweden instead of to Germany. Guenther proposed this to the German Ambassador Thomsen, who called on him at 9 o'clock in the evening on that day. A reply to this proposal was never received. Through Kammerherr von Kruse, the Danish Ambassador in Stockholm, and with the active support of Prof. Stefan Hurvitz, an audience with the King of Sweden was arranged for Bohr, in the afternoon of the same day. During this audience Bohr proposed to the King that the Swedish appeal to Germany be published. The King did not reply, but at the end of the audience the Foreign Secretary was called in. That same evening the Swedish radio broadcasted an announcement about the steps taken by Sweden in Berlin. The announcement stressed that the Swedish Ambassador, on behalf of his Government, had declared that Sweden was willing to receive all the Danish Jews. We know that this announcement encouraged the Jews as well as their Danish helpers to organize the mass escape. In his letter to Christmas Moeller, dated October 12, Munk told that the Swedish Government only agreed to publish the announcement, after the Arch- bishop, professors and other prominent persons had declared that they were prepared to sign an open letter to the Government about the subject." [510]
The King of Sweden was present when, in May, 1944, Archbishop Eidem delivered his opening address to the General Assembly, to which 2,600 parish-delegates and guests from all over the country had come. Archbishop Eidem said:
"… Our Christian conscience must keep constantly on the alert in the face of all that is happening in the world around us. Might is not right. Power is not justice. Torture is not permissible in any circumstances. Innocent people must not be made in any way responsible or punished for the acts of others. Houses and entire communities must not be purposely destroyed in order to intimidate or cripple an enemy. <233> People of a particular racial and national group, such as the unhappy people of the Jews, must not be persecuted and martyred because of their membership in that race or national group. All such actions are not only barbarism but sin… It is indeed no wonder that a frightful harvest of hatred and vengefulness is growing from the sowing of such seeds on our poor earth. As Christians we are called to take up the fight against hatred in every shape and form in this world, which now seems to be a free field for unleashed evil forces; and we must conduct this fight first of all in our own hearts, but each man also in the place where he lives. And we must not grow tired or weary in this fight." [511]
It would be interesting to know how far the King was influenced by this stand of his Archbishop when, shortly afterwards, he appealed to Regent Horthy on behalf of the Hungarian Jews.
It is my impression that the Church of Sweden also undertook steps on behalf of the Jews about which we know nothing, and perhaps never shall. Concerning two steps, we do know at least something. Firstly, the secretary of the Church of Sweden's Committee for Foreign Affairs, Rev. Johansson, communicated to me: "It is true that Archbishop Eidem paid a visit to Hitler himself, but no details are officially known". [512] Secondly, the German Ambassador in Slovakia, Ludin, informed the German Foreign Office in a letter dated January 3, 1945, that the Archbishop of Uppsala had addressed the Slovak Prime Minister (Tiso) with a plea for the transfer of "the unfortunate Jewish brethren" to neutral territories. [513] We have, however, not succeeded in retrieving a copy of Archbishop Eidem's letter. <234>
a. The First Period
Few voices were publicly raised in England during the years 1940 and 1941. In 1940, the Battle of Britain apparently occupied the national attention so much that people tended to forget everything else. If any statements made by ecclesiastical leaders were issued in 1941 (except the statement of the Church of Schotland, mentioned below), I have failed to find them. The Beckley Social Service Lecture is delivered annually in connection with the Methodist Conference in Great Britain. Its purpose is to review certain major problems in the field of social service from the point of Christian responsibility. In the year 1940 the Rev. W. W. Simpson, now secretary of the Council of Christians and Jews, was invited to deal with the refugee problem and the fight against anti-Semitism. His lecture was published in book-form. [514]
In May 1940, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland issued the following statement:
"The General Assembly deplore the continued persecution of Jewish minorities in Central Europe, and deeply regret that the situation has worsened in Hungary. The General Assembly warmly appreciate the vigorous protest against the new anti-Jewish legislation made by the Hungarian Reformed Church, and assure the Committee and the missionaries themselves of their sympathy with all endeavours to minister relief and comfort and hope to suffering Jews, so far as it may be in their power to do so." [515] <235>
I regret that I have not succeeded in finding any confirmation of the "vigorous protests" made by the Hungarian Reformed Church. In May 1941, the Assembly anew expressed:
"their deep sympathy with the Jewish people in their tragic sorrow, and, realising the gravity and intricacy of the problem, approve the settling up of a Sub-Committee to survey the whole situation, and they resolve to appoint six members ad hoc to assist in this survey." [516]
This expression of sympathy was repeated in May, 1942, whilst the General Assembly also warned "their faithful people against the growing menace of anti-Semitism." [517]
We record the statements issued by the Presbyterian Church of Ireland during the second world war in this chapter, as most of the members of this Church live in the Northern part of Ireland which is under the sovereignty of Great Britain. In June, 1942, the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland issued the following "Resolution anent the Jewish People":
"That the following resolution, adopted at a recent conference in connection with the Presbyterian Alliance, be given the warm approval of the General Assembly: 'That this Conference of representatives of the Presbyterian Churches of Great Britain and Ireland, held at Edinburgh on the 28th day of January, 1942, having considered the position of the Jews in the problem of post-war reconstruction, deplores any denial to persons of Jewish descent of the right of equal treatment before the law and of other rights due to their status as ordinary citizens, and urges that all Governments shall take immediate steps to restore to the full status of human dignity such Jewish people as have been deprived of it, and, in particular, that all legislation unjustly diminishing the rights of Jews, as such, shall be repealed at an early date; recognising also that liberty of conscience is an essential part of civil liberty, and that a free exchange of religious convictions is a necessary condition of all understanding between races and nations, the Conference urges on all Governments the recognition of the unfettered right of every individual to free choice in religious faith and to the public profession and preaching of it so long as these rights do not run counter to public law and order. The Conference urges His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with other allied and friendly nations, to provide for some scheme of emigration for Jews who cannot find a home in Europe." [518] <236>
b. Mass Massacres. The Fate of the Refugees
On June 26, 1942, Reports of the massacre of Jews in Poland were broadcast by the B.B.C. The Chief Rabbi, Dr. Hertz, based a special Sunday evening broadcast on the reports. On July 8, 1942, the Archbishop of Canterbury inveighed, on the European service of the B.B.C., against "so terrible a violation of human and Divine law." [519] On October 15, 1942, the Bishop of Chichester spoke in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury:
"The torture and the ceaseless and systematic deportation of the Jews form some of the darkest chapters in the tragic history even of that people, and the latest report which has reached this country tells of the deportation, in terrible circumstances, of thousands of Jewish refugees from Vichy France, where they had thought they were safe from the oppressor, to Occupied France and thence to Eastern Galicia, leaving behind them between five thousand and eight thousand children of whom many are now orphans, while large numbers do not know their parents or their own names, and all are waiting for the charity of Britain, or America or Switzerland to give them sanctuary." [520]
Also in October, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent the following Message to the Jewish Bulletin:
"The situation of the Jews is unique, and yet has lasted for many centuries. They are a people conscious of close and real unity, and yet they have no motherland. Other people have survived and maintained their identity when there was no national State to which they could be loyal; but there was always a homeland inhabited by the people who remembered their days of independence and hoped for its restoration. For the Jews there has been no such a homeland. Their eyes might turn to Palestine; but though there were Jews among the population there, they did not form the bulk of it. The Jews as a people have been homeless. They have lived among the other peoples of the earth, and they have been loyal citizens of the nations which have made them welcome. But if their hosts turn against them they have no remedy. In earlier periods this has happened from time to time. In our day it has happened on a scale without parallel. Their sufferings are appalling and entirely undeserved. It should be our aim to assist them in all ways in our power; for their need is desperate. <237> But there is more in their claim than a plea for sympathy. One of the tests of a people's civilisation is its capacity to treat well a defined minority. To fail in this is to revert to the ethics of the wolf-pack; and to succeed is the evidence of moral stability. In the case of the Jews our task is the easier because the moral principles which we profess are largely drawn from that sacred literature which we share with them. We should be standing together in loyalty to those principles against all who repudiate or ignore them. Anti-Semitism is evidence of a barbarous outlook and a religious apostasy." [521]
In the same month, the Free Church Federal Council sent a letter to the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Hertz, expressing "the deep feelings of indignation and sympathy with which the Free Churches of this country regard the cruel persecution from which the Jewish race is suffering through the tyranny exercised by the Axis powers". The message continued:
"We assure you of our continued prayers to Almighty God that its sufferings may speedily be brought to an end, and that all peoples may once again enjoy freedom of worship, preaching and teaching according to conviction without incurring civil disability or penalty in any form." [522]
On October 29, 1942, an audience of 10,000 assembled in the Albert Hall to voice their protest against "the ruthless policy of extermination decreed by the Nazis and their satellites against the Jewish population in all territories under their sway". The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the chair.
"Speaking about the deportations from France, the Archbishop mentioned the fact that children from two years upwards are now also being deported. 'There is something familiar about that,' he said, 'but when the earlier Nazis massacred the Innocent of Bethlehem it was on those of two years and less that destruction fell; and that in a smaller number.'…
The Archbishop concluded by saying that:
"he was grateful for this opportunity to share in the effort to express our horror at what has been and is being done, our deep sympathy with the sufferers, our claim that our own Government should do whatever is possible for their relief, and our steadfast resolution to do all and bear all that may be necessary to end this affliction." <238>
Dr. I. S. Whale, Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, speaking in the name of the Free Church, declared that anti-Semitism in all its forms was "an outrage against that sanctity of law which is one of the most precious gifts of ancient Israel to modern Christianity". Bishop Matthew spoke on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. The following resolution, moved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, was unanimously adopted:
"This meeting, representative of British public opinion and of the United Nations fighting in the cause of freedom, places on record its profound indignation at the unparallel atrocities which have been and are being committed daily by the German Government and its satellites against the unarmed citizens of countries under the Nazi yoke. It records its horror at the deliberate policy of extermination which the Nazis have declared against the Jews wherever they are to be found, and extends its profound sympathy to the families of the unhappy victims of a systematic terror carried out by wholesale massacre, the murder of innocent hostages, the inhuman separation of children from their parents and other unspeakable cruelties and atrocities. This meeting expresses its heartfelt admiration for the heroism and gallantry of the fighting forces of the United Nations now leading us to victory, and desires to convey its deep sense of gratitude to those people in the occupied territories who, despite the terror, have done so much to help and succour their Jewish fellow-victims." [523]
On November 10, 1942, the Archbishop of Canterbury, inaugurating a new Parliamentary session, drew once more the attention to the extermination of the Jews, that "horror which is going on almost at our door". Contrasting "what is still our standard of living" with the ordeals of the afflicted, "packed in cattle trucks… sixty in each…given little food" so that "on one occasion they all died of starvation", he inquired "whether it is thought possible that we may be able to do something to bring relief to these sufferers". He mentioned as a shining example "the amazing generosity" of the Swiss whose "frontier has been technically closed but actually open" and suggested that Britain should give aid to the Swiss in support of refugees who can make their way there. He also recommended the granting of visas to those able to reach Britain: <239>
"I hope that we should not in such a case waste our time in considering whether we have done as much or more than other nations for people who are in this kind of distress; the only question which really matters is whether we have done all we can… Again I hope we shall not waste time by considering whether these people fall into the categories drawn up to regulate such matters. Categories are nothing but administrative headings, and can be altered, if we wish, to include some who do not fall under them…" [524]
The Archbishop of Canterbury again urged the Government, in a letter to "The Times" [525], to admit to Britain "any refugee who might succeed in escaping".
c. Retribution for the Persecutors; Intercession for the Persecuted
At the beginning of December, 1942, the Archbishop of York delivered a speech in the House of Lords. The Archbishop said:
"Men, women and children are being ruthlessly put to death by massacre, poison, gas, electrocution, or being sent long journeys to unknown destinations in bitterly cold weather without food or drink. Children that die on the way are cast out from the open trucks to the side of the railway. Such is Hitler's new order."
The Archbishop called upon the Government
"…to state solemnly that when the hour of deliverance comes, retribution will be dealt out not only on the cold-blooded and cowardly brutes who order these massacres, but also on the thousands of underlings who appear joyfully to be carrying them out." [526]
The "Solemn Statement" requested by the Archbishop of York (and many others)
was published on December 17, 1942, simultaneously in London, Washington and
Moscow, with the assent and support of all the Allied Governments and of the
British Dominions. The text was as follows: <240>
"The attention of the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia, and of the French National Committee, has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler's oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children. The above-mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom-loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hilarity tyranny. They reaffirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end." [527]
The Bishop of London, Dr. Fisher (later on to be the Archbishop of Canterbury) voiced in the House of Lords "the whole hearted support for the statement which is forthcoming from Christian circles". Referring to the appeal made by the Archbishop of York, the Bishop said:
"It would be a satisfaction to the Archbishop and others if it were made clear that retribution will be exacted not only from those who devised and ordered these proceedings, but also in due degree of responsibility from those who carried out joyfully and gladly the orders which were given to them. The deeds were so repugnant to the laws of God and to every human instinct of decency that whoever took a share must receive due retribution for them. He hoped that it would be made clear that we and all our Allies would offer free asylum gladly to all who could escape."
The Bishop also urged that: <241>
"Neutral countries should be encouraged to grant sanctuary to refugees by a guarantee that for every Jewish refugee from Nazi tyranny they would receive, the United Nations would undertake to share in the cost of maintenance and would make possible the resettlement after the war of refugees in a permanent and abiding home." [528]
At the end of January, 1943, the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Wales issued, "in the name of the Bishops of the three provinces", a statement in which they again stressed the two main points in the Bishop of London's speech in the House of Lords in December, 1942, namely: support of the Declaration made by the Allied Governments that "those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution and the demand to provide a sanctuary for the victims. The "Appeal to the Government" reads as follows:
"The Bishops of England and Wales have been profoundly stirred by the declaration made in both Houses of Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government on December 17th, 1942, describing the barbarous and inhuman treatment to which the Jews are being subjected in German-occupied Europe. They note that the number of victims of this policy of cold-blooded extermination is already reckoned in hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children. They note further that the extermination already carried out is part of the carrying into effect of Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe, which means in effect the extermination of some six million persons in the territories over which Hitler's rule has been extended. The Bishops of England and Wales declare that the sufferings of these millions of Jews and their condemnation, failing immediate rescue, to a cruel and certain death, constitute an appeal to humanity which it is impossible to resist. They believe that it is the duty of civilised nations, whether neutral or Allied, to exert themselves to the utmost possible extent to provide a sanctuary for these victims. They therefore urge the Government of the United Kingdom to give a lead to the world by declaring its readiness, in consultation with the Dominion Governments, to co-operate with the Governments of the United and neutral nations in finding an immediate refuge in territories within the British Empire as well as elsewhere for all persons threatened with massacre who can escape from Axis lands, or for those who have already escaped to neighbouring neutral countries and can make room for other refugees to take their place." [529] <242>
That not everyone agreed with the demand for retribution becomes evident from a speech given by the Archbishop of York at a city meeting in Leeds, on March 14, 1943. The Archbishop had been told that he was unchristian in asking for retribution. Objections were evidently made to the Archbishop's request that "refugees from this horror can find a refuge wherever the British flag flies". Apparently there was the feeling that there might be spies amongst the refugees; that the territories under the British flag would be flooded by a mass immigration of Jewish refugees, and that this would create insurmountable problems after the war. The Archbishop said the following:
"…The persecution of the Jews is, however, unique in its horror. It has the characteristics which make it stand by itself in the long history of cruelty and tyranny. It is a deliberate policy of extermination directed against, not a nation, but a whole race. Neither their nation, nor their profession, nor their character will save Jews from this sweeping sentence. They are doomed without trial, without crime, without the possibility of defence, simply because they belong to the race from which the prophets came, and of which our Lord and His disciples were members. They are condemned to death to satisfy the blood lust of a cruel and wicked megalomaniac who by fraud and violence now holds the greater part of Europe in his grasp… What can be done? 1. Let the German people know what is being done in their name. 2. Let the German people also be told solemnly and repeatedly that sure retribution awaits not only the master criminals who have ordered these horrors, but also their brutal underlings who are carrying them out, often apparently with zest. I have been told that I am un-Christian in asking for retribution. Have those who thus criticise never read that the Christ said that rather than a man should offend one of these little ones it were better that a millstone should be hanged about his neck and he be cast into the sea. I ask for this broadcasting of the Allies' determination to punish, in the hope that it may stay the hands of at any rate some of the criminals. Fear is sometimes effective when mercy makes no appeal. 3. We must make it plain that refugees from this horror can find a refuge wherever the British flag flies. Every precaution will have to be taken against spies. And the refuge will only be promised for the period of the terror. Few will be able to reach our shores. But give them this hope of refuge. 4. Support the Government in the efforts they are now making, with other allied powers and the neutrals, to help the Jews now in danger and to provide succour for their refugees. <243> We must do all we can in the name of Christianity and humanity to save at any rate a remnant from these foul murderers. Victory is the only sure road to their deliverance. The war becomes increasingly a crusade not only to preserve freedom and justice, but also to overthrow and shatter cruelty and tyranny in their most savage and hateful forms." [530]
At the end of 1942, a statement was issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, urging that special intercessions be offered in all churches on the first Sunday of the New Year:
"We do not doubt that in all congregations prayer is throughout this time being offered for the Jews of Germany and the occupied countries, who are suffering so terrible an affliction and over whom the threat of extermination is hanging. It is a bitter grief that our nation can do so little to help, but short of victory in the war there is no way in which we can ourselves effect anything comparable with the need, and the massacre goes on day by day. We should be united in constant prayer to Almighty God that this monstrous evil may be checked and the Jews delivered from their tormentors; and as a focus for such united prayer we urge that special intercessions be offered in all churches on the first Sunday of the New Year." [531]
Seven "representative German Lutheran Pastors in England" commented, in a letter published in "The Times", as follows:
"On the first Sunday of the New Year when the Gospel appointed to read in all German Lutheran Churches is the story of the murder of the innocent (St. Matthew 2, 16-18), we ministers of the German Lutheran Church in England feel in duty bound to call our congregations to solemn prayer and intercession for the Jewish people in their unparalleled sufferings. It was the anti-Jewish legislation as applied to the ministry which brought the Lutheran Church in Germany to its first witness against idolatry and barbarism and caused it to become a 'Confessing Church'. Some of us wish that the protest then made had been stronger, more general, more frequent; but it is not for us who now live in safety to criticise those who under fire have done their utmost not to bow to Baal. While they are silenced by the terrors of persecution, we know that they would want and expect us to speak on their behalf and in the name of all who confess themselves Christians in Germany. <244> In fellowship with them and in solidarity with the people of whom Christ our Lord was born, in solemn protest and deep repentance we recall the words of the Old Testament: 'Open thy mouth, judge righteously and plead the cause of the poor and needy'. (Prov. 31, 8-9)." [532]
d. Practical Steps Demanded; the Bermuda Conference
Many times Church leaders in Great Britain demanded that their Government should take practical steps for the rescue of the Jews of Europe. Some of their statements on this subject have already been recorded in the preceding paragraph. In a letter to "The Times", the Bishop of Chichester recommended that Germany should be officially requested to let Jews emigrate to neutral countries. [533] In Parliament, an all-party committee of members of both houses was formed to prod the Government into action. Its first meeting, on January 27, 1943, was addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [534] On February 4, 1943, at the annual meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews, the Archbishop of Canterbury referred to "the deep concern felt by all sections of the British public at the reports of mass extermination of Jews and others at the hand of the Nazis". He outlined "the steps which he had taken as one of the Joint Presidents of the Council, and in association with the leaders of the other sections of the Christian community, in the hope of securing some measure of relief to the victims of this persecution." [535]
On March 23, 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the following
Resolution to the House of Lords:
"To move to resolve, that, in view of the massacres and starvation of Jews and others in enemy and enemy occupied countries, this House desires to assure His Majesty's Government of its fullest support for immediate measures, on the largest and most generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security, for providing help and temporary asylum to persons in danger of massacre who are able to leave enemy and enemy-occupied countries." <245>
The Archbishop said:
"…We are wisely advised not to limit our attention in this connection to the sufferers of any one race, and we must remember that there are citizens of many countries who are subject to just the same kind of monstrous persecution, and even massacre. None the less, there has been a concentration of this fury against the Jews, and it is inevitable that we should give special attention to what is being carried through, and still further plotted against them… "We are told that the only real solution is rapid victory. No doubt it is true that if we could win the war in the course of a few weeks we could still deliver multitudes of those who are now doomed to death. But we dare not look for such results, and we know that what we can do will be but little in comparison with the need. My whole plea on behalf of those for whom I am speaking is that whether what we can do be large or little it should at least be all we can do."
The Archbishop then told of the deportation of Jews from Moravia, Germany,
Rumania, and Holland, and of the slaughter of Jews in Poland. He continued:
"I believe that part of our difficulty in arousing ourselves and our fellow- countrymen to the degree of indignation that it would seem to merit is the fact that the imagination recoils before it. It is impossible to hold such things at all before the mind. But we are all agreed in this House on the main purpose of this Motion, to offer our utmost support to the Government in all they can do; but with all sympathy for members of His Majesty's Government, I am sure they will forgive some of us who wonder whether quite everything possible has really already been done."
The Archbishop recalled "the solemn statement of the United Nations made public on December 17", and contrasted "the solemnity of the words then used, and the reception accorded to them, with the very meagre action that had actually followed".
"It is the delays in the whole matter while these horrors go on daily that make some of us wonder whether it may not be possible to speed up a little. One must admit that some of the arguments hitherto advanced as justifying the comparative inaction seem quite disproportionate to the scale of the evil confronting us.
As reasons for no further action, "the great part that has been taken by this country and other countries in the relief of the refugees" was pointed out. <246> "That, of course, would be relevant if the people in the other lands were suffering great discomfort or great privation, but when what you are confronted with is wholesale massacre, it seemed to most of us not only irrelevant but grotesquely irrelevant."
The Secretary of State for the Colonies had given a promise with regard to the admission of Jews to Palestine, on February 3, but on February 24 no attempt to move these persons had yet taken place. The Archbishop made a plea that action should be taken as promptly as possible to carry out the promises given by the Colonial Secretary. He also urged, "that we should revive the scheme of visas for entry into this country".
"We want to suggest the granting of blocks of visas to the Consuls in Spain and Portugal and perhaps in Turkey to be used at their discretion. We know of course that the German Government will not give exit permits. What matters is that we should open our doors irrespective of the question whether the German door is open or shut, so that all who can may come… It is of the greatest importance to give relief to those neutral countries because there is at present a steady stream or perhaps more accurately a steady trickle of refugees from France both into Spain and into Switzerland. The numbers that those countries, already suffering a good deal in shortage of food and with their standard of life so far below our own, will be able to receive are of course limited. If we can open the door at the other side and bring away from Spain and Portugal and (if transport is available but probably it would not) from Switzerland and also from Turkey those who are able to make their escape there, we shall render it far more probable that the channels through which that trickle percolates will not be blocked… Then, once more, it is urged, that we should offer help to European neutrals, to encourage them to admit new refugees, in the form of guarantees from the United Nations to relieve them of a stipulated proportion of refugees after the victory, or, if possible, sooner; that we should offer direct financial aid… There is one point I would raise more tentatively… It is that through some neutral power an offer should directly be made to the German Government to receive Jews in territories of the British Empire and, so far as they agree, of the other Allied Nations on a scheme of so many each month. Very likely it would be refused, and then Hitler's guilt would stand out all the more evidently. If the offer were accepted there would of course be difficulties enough, but it would be the business of the Germans to overcome these so far as concerns the conveyance of the refugees to the ports, and efforts could be made to secure help from Sweden and other neutral countries for shipping from the ports… Some of us have wondered how far the possibility has been considered of receiving any considerable number, particularly of children, in Eire and whether the Government of Eire have been consulted about this… <247> "It is said that there is a danger of Anti-Semitic feeling in this country. No doubt that feeling exists in some degree, and no doubt it could very easily be fanned into flame, but I am quite sure it exists at present only in comparatively small patches. It is very local when it exists at all, and therefore it receives a degree of attention beyond what it deserves. But if the Government were to decide that it was wise and practicable to put in action any of the proposals that I have laid before your Lordships, it would be very easy for the Government, by skilful use of the wireless, to win the sympathy and confidence of the people for their proposals, especially if a large number of those who were brought out were children and were being delivered from almost certain death… The whole matter is so big and other claims are so urgent that we want further to make the proposition that there shall be appointed someone of high standing for whom this should be a primary responsibility… My chief protest is against procrastination of any kind. It was three months ago that the solemn declaration of the United Nations was made and now we are confronted with a proposal for an exploratory Conference at Ottawa. That sounds as if it involves much more delay. It took five weeks from December 17 for our Government to approach the United States, and then six weeks for the Government of the United States to reply, and when they did reply they suggested a meeting of representatives of the Government for preliminary exploration. The Jews are being slaughtered at the rate of tens of thousands a day on many days, but there is a proposal for a preliminary exploration to be made with a view of referring the whole matter after that to the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. My Lords, let us at least urge that when that Conference meets it should not meet for exploration only but for decision. We know that what we can do is small compared with the magnitude of the problem, but we cannot rest so long as there is any sense among us that we are not doing all that might be done. We have discussed the matter on the footing that we are not responsible for this great evil, that the burden lies on others, but it is always true that the obligations of decent men are decided for them by contingencies which they did not themselves create and very largely by action of wicked men. The priest and the Levite in the parable [536] were not in the least responsible for the traveller's wounds as he lay there by the roadside and no doubt they had many other pressing things to attend to, but they stand as the picture of those who are condemned for neglecting the opportunity of showing responsibility. We at this moment have upon us a tremendous responsibility. We stand at the bar of history, of humanity and of God. I beg to move." [537] <248>
After the Archbishop of Canterbury had spoken, Lord Rochester spoke "as a
Methodist layman":
'…No one can preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and remain indifferent to social institutions which contradict that teaching. Wherever the Churches find practices which are contrary to Christian doctrine, whether they be such diabolical and horrifying practices as these we are more especially considering this afternoon, or others, it is no more than their bounden duty to denounce them… We are concerned with all persecuted minorities, but the Christian necessarily feels an intimate responsibility in regard to the Jews, since Christ 'according to the flesh' came out of Israel. Almost every page of the New Testament shows how close was the association between religious Judaism and the first followers of Christ… 'I must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.' [538] And woe to us if we leave any stone unturned in seeking to aid and succour those of our fellow human beings who are suffering this cruel Nazi stumbling- block of offence. The Nazis have indeed debased themselves even unto hell, but let us remember' the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,' as we recall those words in the 57th chapter of Isaiah: 'Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people'. [539] I support the Motion of the most reverend Primate, and I would urge the redoubling of our efforts to succour 'one of the least of these', as we recall the latter part of the 25th chapter of St. Matthew." [540]
It is remarkable that, contrary to what one might have expected, it was the Archbishop who made the practical suggestions and the "Methodist layman" who cited texts from the Bible. It is a pity that one expression in the Archbishop's motion ("immediate measures, on the largest and most generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security") provided the Government with an excuse to do practically nothing. In order to understand the Archbishop's words, one should, however, try to realize how manifold were "the requirements of military operations and security" in those days. <249> Obviously the Archbishop was well-informed about the persecutions on the continent of Europe. He had received (as he himself stated in his speech) reports from the World Jewish Congress, Geneva, and from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Dr. Riegner, of the World Jewish Congress, sent an aide-memoire to the British Ambassador in Bern "on behalf of the secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the Jewish Congress". The covering letter, dated March 22, 1943, stated: "We should also appreciate it if His Majesty's Government would see fit to pass on the main contents of this aide-memoire to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the British Section of the World Jewish Congress". [541] But if the aide-memoire was passed on, it must have come too late for the meeting in the House of Lords. The speech of the Archbishop in the House of Lords deserves careful study. It sheds an important light on the attitude of the Government regarding the Jewish refugees.
The Archbishop mentioned the proposal for an exploratory Conference at Ottawa. The country (Canada) in whose capital the conference was to be held, however, had not been informed, and thus the conference was held at Bermuda, on 19-29 April, 1943. The statement issued at the end of its deliberations merely promised recommendations - which were not disclosed - and the setting up of an inter-governmental organization to handle the problem in the future. The verdict on the allied Governments that "History will record the Bermuda Conference as a monument of moral callousness and inertia" is not too severe. [542]
The British Council of Churches, made up of the official representatives of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches, met in London on April 13th and 14th under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The following resolution was passed on anti-Semitism: <250>
"The British Council of Churches warmly welcomes the statements made by the leaders of many Christian Churches expressing fellow-feeling with the Jewish people in the trials through which they are passing and the desire to aid them in every practicable way. In particular the Council notes with admiration and thankfulness the statements on this subject which have issued from Christian leaders in enemy-occupied countries. The Council affirms that anti-Semitism of any kind is contrary to natural justice, incompatible with the Christian doctrine of man and a denial of the Gospel. Malicious gossip and irresponsible charges against Jews, no less than active persecution, are incompatible with Christian standards of behaviour. The Council welcomes the decision to hold in Bermuda a Conference in which the British and American Governments will seek jointly to find practical ways of rendering immediate and continuing assistance to Jews and other imperilled people. The Council considers that every possible step ought to be taken to rescue from massacre the Jews in enemy and enemy occupied territories. It is convinced that both Christian and Jewish people in this country would give strong support to a lead from His Majesty's Government in offering sanctuary in Great Britain for a considerable number of children and adults, additional to those received before September, 1939, and would be ready to make sacrifices so as to provide hospitality for them during the war. The Council further asks that the Bermuda Conference will suggest measures for rendering the requisite material assistance for the maintenance of refugees who reach neutral countries, and will give assurance to those countries of readiness to cooperate in plans for post-war settlement of the refugees in other parts of the world." [543]
In May, 1943, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland stated:
"The General Assembly protest anew against the atrocious persecution of the Jews in Nazi-occupied countries, and in the name of Christ condemns the inhumanity and sacrilege of anti-Semitic policy. They warmly approve of the steps taken by the Government to assist refugees, and respectfully urge it to continue and extend its efforts as far as possible. They assure the Jewish people of their deep sympathy in their grievous distress, and earnestly commend them to the prayerful concern and compassion of the Church." [544]
The Assembly of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland passed the following Resolution (also in May, 1943):
"They call upon His Majesty's Government to promote, in concert with the Governments of the United States of America and other associated nations, effective measures for enabling Jews and other victims of German brutality to escape and find refuge. <251> In their view the strong abhorrence and detestation of the persecutors, which are felt throughout the civilised world, and of their purpose of exterminating the Jews, should be followed by energetic action, not only to bring to justice in due course the instigators and perpetrators of the massacres, but to give immediate aid, welcome and asylum in this and other free countries to those in peril, even though some risk to our own country may be involved. To this end they ask that restrictions regarding age, country of origin or means of support should not be put in the way to liberty and safety. They ask the Churches to show and inculcate a friendly and helpful attitude to such refugees, to pray for the deliverance of those who cannot escape beyond the reach of their barbarous enemies, and to resist as un-Christian all tendencies to anti-Semitism. [545]
On June 10, 1943, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland adopted the following Resolution:
"The General Assembly has learned with great satisfaction that His Majesty's Government is prepared to collaborate with the United States of America in providing asylum for as many victims of German hate as can escape or be rescued from the danger which threatens them, and to consult with the Dominion Governments and the Governments of neutral countries with regard to united action, so that as many of the threatened people as ever possible may be helped. In view of the tremendous urgency of the situation, the General Assembly requests His Majesty's Government to carry out their promises to provide immediate and effective relief for those in such dire peril." [546]
Churches and Church leaders had, as quoted so far, expressed their desire and hope that the Government would take practical steps for aiding refugees. The Bishop of Chichester, however, expressed his disappointment in a letter to the Editor of "The Times":
"The Foreign Secretary is about to make a statement in the House of Commons on the result of the Bermuda Conference, and the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to refugees. It will be almost exactly five months after the declaration of December 17, condemning the wholesale massacre of the Jews by the Nazis 'in the strongest possible terms'. It is a historic moment in the record of our dealings with the persecuted and the oppressed. It is quite certain that if the British and American Governments were determined to achieve a programme of rescue in some way commensurate with the vastness of the need, they could do it. Nor can there be any doubt about the response which would be given in Britain to a clear lead based on the principles of humanity. <252> There are difficulties. But so far as shipping is concerned, these should be greatly reduced as a result of the victories in North Africa. The need of a big camp to which those now in neutral countries could be sent must be patent to everybody. And the case for a revision of the regulations to allow many more to enter the United Kingdom is overwhelming. The guilt of 'this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination' lies with the Nazis. But can we escape blame if, having it in our power to do something to save the victims, we fail to take the necessary action, and to take it swiftly?" [547]
A few days later the Bishop of Chichester published the following letter in "The Times":
"In the House of Commons on Wednesday Mr. Peake referred to my letter printed in your issue of May 18. His principal charge was 'that the Bishop made no attempt to indicate what was the programme of rescue which he suggested'. He added that he had searched Hansard for the House of Lords ever since December 17, but had failed to find any speech by myself on the subject. I was present at the debate opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury on March 23 and was prepared to speak. But owing to the number of speakers, representing all shades of opinion, on that occasion I, with others, stood down. It is not, however, true to say that I have made no suggestions as to a programme of rescue. In a letter in your columns on December 28, 1942, I referred to the suggestion made by Sir Neill Malcolm in his letter of December 22, and made further suggestions, such as the obtaining of facilities from the protecting Power for the transportation of Nazi victims from Germany and German occupied territories to the nearest frontier, with a view to entry into places of refuge; a guaranteeing to neutral Governments willing to give sanctuary to such victims of an evacuation of as many as possible after the war; and the establishment of reception areas in lands outside Europe. I am also a member of the Parliamentary Committee, and I support the 12-point programme for immediate rescue measures drawn up by the National Committee for Rescue from Nazi Terror, and widely published. I am glad to hear of the extension of categories of individuals eligible for visas, which forms a portion of the first of these points. I entirely agree that a programme of rescue must be a programme of victory. But this is not inconsistent with a determination by the Government to do everything possible for temporary sanctuary. There is a great difference between the spirit of a Government which says, 'We are resolved to do everything in our power, we wish we could do more, but such and such steps shall be taken at once in spite of all the difficulties', and the pessimistic attitude which simply repeats, 'We are filled with burning indignation at the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis against these people. We are determined to punish the guilty when the war is over. But for the present these people are beyond possibility of rescue." [548] <253>
On July 28, 1943, the Bishop of Chichester strongly supported the plea for urgent government action in a speech in the House of Lords which was very critical of official policy and action. He contended that:
"…in the matter of the systematic mass murder of the Jews in the Nazi- occupied territories of Europe, which was the reason why the Bermuda Conference was called, there has been a deterioration in the determination to grapple with the problem."
After quoting earlier promises made on behalf of the Government, he criticized the achievement of this Conference.
"…On April 19-29 the Bermuda Conference took place. It began in a spirit of pessimism. Its official pronouncement at the end said that the delegates 'had examined the refugee problem in all its aspects'. The Jews were not mentioned. Agreed confidential recommendations were made which were designed to lead to the relief of a substantial number of refugees of all races and nationalities. Not a word was said about 'temporary asylum'…"
Particularly the Bishop emphasized the obligation to give priority to the persecuted Jews, and the responsibility of both neutral countries and of the Allied Governments to find temporary asylum for Hitler's victims.
"… It is in the face of this systematic murder, especially in the last twelve months, that I and so many others plead with the Government to act in a new way. With the appeal of the stricken people ringing in our ears, we would be false to our tradition if we failed to do everything we can." [549]
e. Towards the End
As far as we know, few statements were issued during the last period of the war. Significant was the Archbishop of Canterbury's warning, on Dec. 8, 1943, that "the sufferings of the Jews be kept in full view of all people so that the spirit of indignation and compassion in them will not die out". <254>
"It is one of the most terrible consequences of war that the sensitiveness of people tends to become hardened, "Dr.Temple said. "We could hardly live these days if we felt the volume of suffering of others in the world as acutely as we felt in peacetime". "There is a great moral danger in the paralysis of feeling that is liable to be brought about. It is most important for our own moral health and vigor that we express horror at the persecution of the Jews." Dr. Temple said the persecution of Jews on the Continent, and particularly in Poland, "almost baffles imagination and leaves one horrified at the power of the evil that can show itself in human nature." [550]
Another warning came from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
(May, 1944):
"The General Assembly express their profound sorrow at the lamentable condition of the Jews in Europe, and in the name of Christ renew their reprobation of the inhuman atrocities committed against them. They assure the Jews of their deep concern and sympathy, commend them to the brotherly offices and prayerful compassion of all Christian men and women, and warn the members of the Church of Scotland against the growing danger of anti-Jewish prejudice and propaganda. They respectfully urge the Government to continue to offer every facility to enable refugees to escape from the tyranny and oppression of Nazism." [551]
In June, 1944, the Archbishop of Canterbury, presiding at a meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews, denounced the continued persecution and attempted extermination of the Jews by the Germans, whose activities he described as "one of the most hideous of the elements even in the recent German record".
Dr. Temple moved a resolution expressing concern at the increasing peril to the Jewish communities involved in the extension of Nazi domination in Central and South Eastern Europe, coupled with satisfaction at the steps taken in North Africa and southern Italy to remove all discriminatory legislation against Jews and other victims of Nazi intolerance. He and many others, he said, had been disappointed that there had not been a greater willingness shown on the part of the authorities to help those who were trying to escape from German-dominated countries… [552] <255>
On July 7, 1944, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed the following message to Hungary through the B.B.C.:
"I am eager to speak to the Christian people of Hungary, so far as I can do so, because of news sent to me through one of the most reliable of ecclesiastical neutral sources - and what I hear from that source only confirms what is reported also through other channels. The report is that a wholesale round-up of Hungarian Jews is taking place under orders from the German Government, and that those who are carried off have little chance of survival. According to this report, the Jews are being deported daily. Already the Eastern provinces have been cleared of Jews. Now the process is beginning in the Western districts including the capital. The conditions of travel are such that on arrival many already are dead; others are killed and cremated at Auschwitz. If the Christians of Hungary know the facts I am perfectly confident that they are also doing everything they can to save these doomed people by hiding them and helping them to escape. But it may be that inside Hungary the facts are concealed. It is for this reason that I feel bound to tell you of them, and beg you to do your utmost, even taking great personal risks, in order to save some if you can. Then you will earn in very special degree the words of approval and thanks: 'In as much as ye did it unto one of these My brethren ye did unto Me' (Matthew, 25, 40). I speak as a Christian who cannot help to Christians who can. For the honour of our common Christianity I implore you to do your utmost." [553]
a. The Time of America's "Neutrality"
It would have been possible to record the statements in this paragraph under "The Neutral Countries". The United States officially entered into the war in December, 1941. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7 and Hitler declared war upon the United States, on Dec. 11, 1941. Until that time, it was at least pretended that the United States was neutral and the spirit of isolationism was still strong. Before 1942, strong statements against anti-Semitism were issued by Protestant Churches in the U.S.A., especially by the Federal Council of Churches. After Hitler's declaration of war, however, the statements took on an additional clarity: "Anybody spreading anti-Semitism is helping Hitler just as much as if he were a paid agent of the Reich." [554] Anti-Semitism became "treason against God, treason against the country." [555] <256> On the evening of December 14, 1939, a mass meeting was held at Madison Square Garden, New York, for the purpose of registering a protest against the treatment of the Jews in Poland and other areas under the Nazi regime. The meeting was attended by 20,000 people. Expressing the sympathy of Christians, Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, General Secretary of the Federal Council of Churches, pointed out, that Christians as well as Jews were suffering in Poland and other parts of Europe and that "Christians have a direct stake in what is happening". In conclusion, he said:
"Out of the calamity in Europe, there emerges one by-product for which we may be thankful - the new sense of fellowship between Jew and Christian in America. Nothing so quickly unites men as a cry of desperate human need. I do not believe there has ever been a time when Christian hearts in America beat in such sympathy for their Jewish neighbours. There are differences of religious conviction between Jew and Christian - at one point a momentous difference - but we share together the priceless spiritual heritage of Israel. As His Holiness Pope Pius XI truly and nobly said, 'Spiritually we are all Semites'." [556]
The United Church of Christ issued the following statement in 1940:
"One of the most disturbing currents in America to-day is anti-Semitism. Under the cover of an attack upon the Jews a covert attack is being made on Christianity. The manipulators of anti- Jewish propaganda are not concerned with the alleged evils they denounce; but they are concerned to destroy the teachings of the Bible - that God, the Lord and Creator of all men, is a holy God - and the prophetic morality of the Old Testament. They attack under cover of anti-Semitism God the Lord who is not bound to any nation but is Lord of all nations. They attack justice, righteousness, mercy and the divine command for holiness. They attack the law which Christians and Jews alike acknowledge as God's requirement. Twentieth century anti-Semitism reveals its true character in its demand on the Church to surrender the Old Testament and to deny that the God of Abraham, of Moses and the Prophets is the Father of Jesus Christ. <257> Anti-Semitism is flatly contradictory to the express teaching of St. Paul. In Romans 11, St. Paul reminds the Gentile Christians, just as we need to be reminded today, that Israel is the stem on which Gentile Christians have been grafted. 'You owe,' he wrote, 'your position to faith. You should feel awed instead of uplifted.' And again, 'So far as the gospel goes, they (the Jews) are enemies of God, which is to your advantage; but so far as the election goes, they are beloved for their father's sake. For God never goes back upon his gifts and call.' St. Paul discovered in anti-Semitism a pride which needed to be rebuked. 'You owe your position to faith'; that means, not something we have by right of possession, not something we can take for granted, not any kind of inherent superiority at all. Faith is the gift of God. Moreover, God has not repudiated Israel. They are still beloved. Anti-Semitism is not only one form of human pride; it is repudiation of the declared purpose of God. We recommend that General Synod declare its condemnation of anti-Semitism and urge upon the members of the Church in the name of Christ the duty to serve in love the brothers of Christ according to the flesh." [557]
The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the United States published the following Resolution, in December, 1940:
"We express as Christians our sympathy with the Jewish people in this hour of calamity for so many of their group in Europe. We deplore the existence of anti-Semitism in America and declare our opposition to it because it is contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christ. We call upon His followers to create Christian attitudes toward the Jews. This should be a matter of primary concern for every Christian Church in every community." [558]
On September 19, 1941, the Executive Committee of the Federal Council adopted the following statement:
"On many previous occasions we have expressed our abhorrence of the religious and racial intolerance which afflicts our world today. We have especially emphasized our opposition to unjust and unchristian attacks upon the Jews. In so doing we have been whole-heartedly supported by similar utterances officially made by the highest governing bodies of the great dominations which cooperate in the Federal Council of Churches. <258> Recent evidences of anti-Jewish prejudice in our own country compel us to speak again a word of solemn warning to the nation. Divisiveness on religious or racial grounds is a portentous menace to American democracy. If one group be made the target of attack today, the same spirit of intolerance may be visited on another group to-morrow and the rights and liberties of every group thus be put in jeopardy. We condemn anti-Semitism as un-American. Our nation is a free fellowship of many racial and cultural stocks. It is our historic glory that they have been able to live together in mutual respect, each rejoicing in the rich contribution which the others have made to the common good. Anti-Semitism is an insidious evil which, if allowed to develop, would poison the springs of our national life. Even more strongly we condemn anti-Semitism as un-Christian. As Christians we gratefully acknowledge our ethical and spiritual indebtedness to the people of Israel. No true Christian can be anti-Semitic in thought, word or deed without being untrue to his own Christian inheritance. In behalf of the Christian churches which comprise the Federal Council we voice our renewed determination to unite in combating every tendency to anti-Semitism in our country. We recognize that a special responsibility rests upon us who belong to the numerically strongest group, to be staunch advocates of the rights of minorities." [559]
In 1941, the following "Manifesto to our Brethren and Fellow Citizens of Jewish Race and Blood" was signed by one hundred and seventy Protestant ministers representing one hundred and sixty-six churches and twenty-four denominations in the City of New York:
"With genuine anguish of heart we behold how in many places across the world today cruel forces of oppression and persecution are being released upon men and women and children of Jewish race and blood. With profound concern we note from time to time within our own beloved nation the manifestation of a spirit of anti-Semitism. The conscience of Protestant Christendom, as recorded at the great ecumenical conference held at Oxford, England, during July of 1937, expressed itself in no uncertain terms when with unanimous voice it affirmed that 'against all racial pride, racial hatred and persecution and the exploitation of other races in all their forms, the church is called by God to set its face implacably and to utter its words unequivocally both within and without its borders. There is a special need at this time that the church throughout the world brings every resource at its command against the sin of anti-Semitism.' With this pronouncement we are in complete accord of heart. Therefore, we would disavow any words or action promoted by the spirit of anti-Semitism, which emanate from sources that purport to be Christian. Such words and actions label themselves unchristian. <259> We call upon our Christian brethren to guard their hearts, their minds, their lips, their hands from emotions, thoughts, words or deeds that partake of 'the sin of anti-Semitism'. To that end we command to them the quest for 'the fullness of Christ' within their lives. We call upon our fellow citizens to remember that anti-Semitism is a threat to democracy and a denial of the fundamental principles upon which this nation is founded. We extend to our brethren and fellow citizens of Jewish race and blood our solemn assurance that by the constraint of our deepest Christian conviction we shall oppose unceasingly 'the sin of anti-Semitism' and we shall strive continuously for the realization of that brotherhood which humanity needs, democracy requires and Christianity demands." [560]
b. At War with Germany. Co-operation with Jewish Leaders
The Executive of the Federal Council addressed the following "Message for
Race Relations Sunday" (Febr. 8, 1942) to its members:
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word even this: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Gal. 5, 14. Let us translate this pattern into a social program. Our pronouncements must now be supported by our practices. Where attacks are made upon Jews or the sinister spirit of anti-Semitism appears, we must protest in the Name of Christ and the Church… Where any racial minority within our borders is exploited or barred from equal opportunity, we Christians must take a stand for the sake of our faith. We must, furthermore, create a genuine fellowship that will prevent the development to such injustice towards any group. Our love for the Church requires that it be pre-eminently the abode of fellowship. The Church, by reason of its origin in the universal Christ, must be a brotherhood of all peoples, remembering that in Him there is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. Therefore, let every follower of Christ search in his own soul to see if any enemies of brotherhood are lurking there. Let him examine his own daily relationships. Let us all in this awful and creative hour march resolutely forward, not faithless nor fearful, but confident in the future when democracy and brotherhood are one. "If a man say I love God and hateth his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen." 1 John 4, 20. [561] <260>
In September and October, 1942, the General Secretary of the Federal Council, Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, visited France and Switzerland. The Director of the World Jewish Congress at Geneva, Dr. Gerhart M. Riegner, stated:
"With regard to our knowledge of the Nazi plan of total extermination of European Jewry, I wish to state that the first report on this plan reached me in the last days of July 1942 and I communicated it to Rabbi Wise in New York and Mr. Silverman in London during the first days of August 1942 (through diplomatic channels). Dr. Wise received the message during the last days of August 1942 and asked Mr. Cavert to use his visit to Geneva at the beginning of September 1942 to find out from us whether deportation really meant extermination. After having spoken to one of us - I believe to Prof. Guggenheim - he confirmed this in a cable to the United States." [562]
On Dec. 11, 1942, at the great Biennial Assembly of the Federal Council, the following Resolution on Anti-Semitism was adopted:
"The reports which are reaching us concerning the incredible cruelties towards the Jews in Nazi occupied countries, particularly Poland, stir the Christian people of America to the deepest sympathy and indignation. It is impossible to avoid a conclusion that something like a policy of deliberate extermination of the Jews in Europe is being carried out. The violence and inhumanity which Nazi leaders have publicly avowed toward all Jews are apparently now coming to a climax in a virtual massacre. We are resolved to do our full part in establishing conditions in which such treatment of the Jews shall end. The feelings of the Jewish community throughout the world have recently been expressed in a period of mourning, fasting and prayer. We associate ourselves with our Jewish fellow-citizens in their hour of tragic sorrow, and unite our prayers with theirs. We confess our own ineffectiveness in combating the influences which beget anti-Semitism in our own country, and urge our constituencies to intensify their efforts in behalf of friendly relations with the Jews. We urge that all plans for reconstruction in Europe shall include measures designed to secure full justice for the Jews and a safe and respected place for them in western civilisation. For those who, after the war, will have to emigrate from the war-ridden lands of Europe, immigration opportunities should be created in this and other lands. We recommend that the officers of the Federal Council transmit this action to the Jewish leaders in person." [563] <261>
On Dec. 31, 1942, the Synagogue Council of America published a New Year message it had addressed to the Rev. Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, and to Mgr. Michael J. Ready, general secretary of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The message was signed by Dr. Israel Goldstein, president of the Council.
"American Jews," the message said, "share with their Christian brothers the sense of having been privileged to bear burdens not only in answering the call of our nation's defence needs, but also in heeding the call of human needs overseas. "To the Jews of Hitler-ridden Europe the year 1942 has been the most catastrophic in their tragedy-laden history. Helpless women, aged and children, and defenceless men have been slaughtered wholesale and a whole people has been marked for extermination. Among no other people is such a toll being taken. If the executioner's hand is not soon stayed, all the Jews whom it can reach will perish." The message said the greeting was "preferred to you and to the great body of Christians whom you represent", and expressed hope for an Allied victory and a just peace in 1943. [564]
On January 6, 1943, the heads of the six Jewish organizations which comprised the Synagogue Council of America, under the chairmanship of Rabbi Israel Goldstein, met in conference with official representatives of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. The purpose of the meeting was to afford an opportunity to discuss together what the Christian Churches could do to assist the Jews of Europe.
Desiring to express its sympathy in something more than resolutions, the Federal Council arranged for the conference with the Jewish leaders. Several fruitful suggestions emerged as to ways in which the Churches might help to develop stronger support for the needs of refugees from Europe, a measure of relief in the form of food for at least some of the Jews in Europe, and a safe and respected place for Jews in the post-war world. [565]
c. Practical Steps Demanded; the Bermuda Conference <262>
"On March 1, 1943, a great demonstration, one of the largest ever held in the United States, took place in Madison Square Garden at the initiative of the Congress and under the joint auspices of the American Jewish Congress, the American Federation of Labour, the CIO, and the Church Peace Union. Twenty-two thousand people crowded into the great hall, while 15,000 stood outside throughout the evening listening to the proceedings through amplifiers. The demonstration was addressed by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Dr. Stephen S. Wise, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia, Senator Robert F. Wagner, William Green, and others. The British Section transmitted cable messages from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the late Cardinal Hinsley, whose last public utterance it was before his death a week later. The meeting laid down a 12-point program for the rescue of European Jewry prepared by World Jewish Congress experts. The effect was immediate. On the following day, Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles declared that a note had already been sent to Great Britain on February 25 offering the cooperation of the United States in organizing an intergovern- mental meeting for study of methods to save 'political refugees' in Europe. The meeting came to be known as the Bermuda Refugee Conference…" [566]
On March 1, 1943, the Executive Committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America appealed to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain "to consider offering financial assistance to Jewish refugees who have escaped to neutral countries from Nazi held territory, and the possible establishment of temporary places of asylum for those evacuated from Europe".
The committee urged that the proposals be considered at the forthcoming conference in Toronto of representatives of the two governments on the Jewish problem. The suggestion was part of a three-point program calling for a report by the council's department of research and education on the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime and setting aside May 2 for observance in churches as a "Day of Compassion" for the Jews in Europe. The committee's action was a sequel to the adoption at the council's biennial meeting in Cleveland in December of a statement setting forth the organization's determination "to do our full part in establishing conditions" in which harsh treatment of Jews should end. The proposals outlined by the committee for consideration of the British and American representatives at Toronto were: <263> "To offer financial assistance for the support of refugees that neutral governments (for example, Switzerland, or Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey) may receive from areas under Nazi control, as a result either of infiltration across their borders or of negotiations with the Axis powers, with the expectation that, after the war, such refugees would be repatriated in their own countries. "To provide places of temporary asylum to which refugees whom it may be possible to evacuate from European countries may be removed, these refugees to be supported in camps for the duration of the war, with the understanding that they will then be repatriated in their own country or be provided with permanent homes in other ways." At the same time the committee urged Christians throughout the country "to give their moral support to whatever measures afford promise of rescuing European Jews whose lives are in jeopardy." The committee invited all Christians to "join in united intercession on May 2 for the victims of racial and religious persecution as a special occasion for the expression of Christian sollicitude." [567]
The practical steps proposed by the Executive Committee of the Federal Council to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain were similar to the steps proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords at about the same time, [568] and to the Aide-memoire sent by the Secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress (Geneva), to the American and British Governments. [569] Not withstanding all this, the Bermuda Conference became "a monument of moral callousness and inertia". [570]
d. Different Churches Speaking on Different Occasions
The following is a chronological record of statements made by Churches or Church leaders in the United States from May, 1943, until the end of the second world war.
Henry St. George Tucker, Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church and president of the Federal Council of Churches, in a statement on the observance by the Council of a "Day of Compassion" for persecuted European Jews, said that there had been found a "rising tide of concern among Christians" over their fate. <264>
Dr. Tucker said it was the first time Christian churches had set aside a specific day for a "united expression of their sympathy with a suffering and persecuted Jewry".
"What is happening to the Jews on the Continent of Europe is so horrible that we are in danger of assuming that it is exaggerated," he said, and cited a recent survey by the council of evidence that he said indicated that under the Nazis a policy of deliberate extermination of Jews was carried out. "The survey shows that the actual facts are probably more, rather than less, terrible than the reports," he continued. "The Christian people of America vigorously protest against this brutal and cruel persecution. But protest is not enough." Two remedial measures have been set forth by the council: First financial assistance for support of refugees reaching neutral countries from Nazi- occupied areas, and second, provision of temporary asylum to which refugees evacuated from European countries may be removed. [571]
On October 20, 1943, American religious leaders denounced "the recent acts of terror in Denmark" and expressed sympathy for the Jews in that country. The Rev. Dr. P.O. Bessel, president of the Augustan Synod, Minneapolis, said that the synod was shocked at the German barbarism in Denmark, but was happy about Sweden's firm stand in offering refuge to the persecuted Jews. The Rev. Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary of the Federal Council, said that "the American churches have been thrilled by the news that the Danish Church has refused to be cowed into silence in the face of the Nazi attack upon Jews in Denmark". [572]
The following article in "The New York Herald Tribune" shows how strong anti-Semitic influences in the United States were, in 1943:
Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, of the Boston area of the Methodist Church, denounced today the alleged beating of Jewish boys as an apparent expression of incipient Fascism and, in a statement, demanded, "who is flooding the nation with anti-Semitic literature, and why?" <265> Declaring that "the beating of Jewish boys is not the work of hoodlums," Bishop Oxnam expressed hope that Jews, Catholics and Protestants could unite "in demanding that these beatings stop and that steps be taken to discover and destroy the dangerous forces that lie back of them." The Bishop's statement followed the placing of charges before Governor Leveratt Saltonstall that Jews had been made the victims of ruffians over a period of months in the Boston area. The Governor, acting upon a petition of which Bishop Oxnam was one of the signers, has appointed five prominent citizens of various faiths to an advisory committee on anti-Semitism. "The beating of Jewish boys must stop," the statement said. "The beaters must be apprehended and punished. The beating of any boys by gangs is bad enough at any time. The beating of boys of a particular race is worse. But the real menace lies in the apparent fact that these beatings are an expression of incipient Fascism, that they follow a similar pattern, and that, in one case, at least, the beaters wore black shirts. "Who is flooding the nation with anti-Semitic literature, and why? Who finances these movements? Why is it that the anti-Semitic leaders now under Federal indictment have attacked such religious organizations as the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the Methodist Church and other Protestant religious bodies? Why has Franco, the Fascist dictator of Spain, been extolled? Bishop Oxnam, in an interview with "The Boston Traveller", said that the recent outbreaks of racial violence in the Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan districts of Boston follow a pattern. "I was in Germany when these things began there. It is the same pattern in which organized gangs beat up a scapegoat race whether they be Jews or any one else," he asserted. He asserted that Fascism is prevalent in Brooklyn now, and predicted that it would show itself in Detroit and sections of the Pacific Coast before long. "I think Brooklyn, New York and Boston are currently the most difficult centres, however," he added. [573]
In Dec., 1943, a Senate resolution proposed the creation of a special commission "to bring about the rescue of the surviving Jews of Europe". Eight Protestant leaders sent "a Christmas Appeal for speedy adoption of the Resolution" to Vice President Henry A. Wallace, Senate majority and minority leaders and members of the House and Senate committees involved.
Asserting that "more than 2,000,000 European Jews have been slaughtered by the Nazis, the message added that "we cannot approach Christmastide without declaring that too many of us have been found wanting in the will to rescue these suffering people." <266> "Let no possible sanctuary be closed, whether in America or elsewhere," the appeal said. "Let each door of refuge be kept open. This is the Christian way."
The message was signed by Bishop William T. Manning (Protestant Episcopal);
Archbishop Athenagoras (Greek Orthodox); Bishop William J. McConnell
(Methodist), and others. [574]
On Jan. 15, 1944, fifteen hundred persons attended a rally against anti-Semitism at Carnegie Hall. Dr.Henry Smith Leiper of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, chairman of the meeting, asserted that anti-Semitism was "treason against God, treason against the country".
"Anybody spreading such slander," he said, "is helping Hitler just as much as if he were a paid agent of the Reich." Dr. Leiper and several others spoke out against what they said was the desire on the part of many to approach the problem of anti-Semitism with too much caution. Dr. Leiper said that exactly this idea prevailed in Germany in 1932, but did not halt the rise of fascism. [575]
The biennial convention of the United Lutheran Church in America adopted, on Oct. 13, 1944, the following Resolution:
"Recognizing that the Jewish problem has been made one of the central elements in the present assault on civilization, the United Lutheran Church in America, viewing with concern the manifestations of a rising tide of anti-Semitism in American life, begs its members to consider their Jewish brethren in the spirit of Luther, who spoke kindly things of them as 'blood brothers of our Lord', to use every available means to assure the Jewish people of their communities of the efforts of our church for the preservation of their rights, and to offer prayers on their behalf." [576]
We do not record all the statements issued by Protestant Churches in the United States over the years 1943-1944. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the United Presbyterian Church in North America issued a statement in 1943; the American Baptist Convention, the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the General Synod of the United Church of Christ issued a statement in 1944. Most of these statements condemned anti-Semitic and anti-Negro prejudices. <267> e. The Churches in the U.S.A. that kept Silent
Three important Protestant denominations in the United States did not speak out unequivocally against anti-Semitism and the persecution and extermination of the Jews: the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the American Lutheran Church. [577] John G. Mager comments:
"… It might have been felt that since a large proportion of the membership of the Synod was of German origin or descent, it would have made for ecclesiastical suicide if the official organ of the Synod made pronouncements against a country to which many were bound by ties of blood, culture and sentiment…" [578]
It must be borne in mind that the Lutheran Churches in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Slovakia clearly expressed their horror at German anti-semitism, and they did so under much more difficult circumstances. This should dissuade us from wrong platitudes such as: "Lutherans tend to be anti-Semitic".
Recently it has been suggested that "the causal chain that links Christian belief and faith to secular anti-Semitism begins with orthodoxy - commitment to a literal interpretation of traditional Christian dogma". [579] My knowledge of the situation of Churches in America is limited. Therefore I would not venture to suggest that there is a causal chain between the orthodoxy of a Church in America and its failure to denounce anti-Semitism. Moreover, in other countries, like the Netherlands for example, such a connection does not appear to exist. <268> It is noteworthy, however, that the three great Protestant Churches in the United States mentioned above, which failed to issue a clear statement against anti-Semitism, were not members of the Federal Council. Moreover, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) are not members of the World Council of Churches, to this day. These Churches apparently did not feel challenged by the protest issued by the Assembly of the Church of England, in 1935, as was the Federal Council; [580] they did not receive the information provided by the General Secretariat of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, during the war. [581] Ecclesiastical isolationism is very dangerous indeed, especially in a time of crisis. They were probably afraid of watering down their own principles by co-operating with other Churches and this lack of co-operation and communication probably contributed to the fact that they did not fulfil the word of the Bible: "Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy". (Prov. 31, 8-9).
The war years were the testing time of the World Council. Contacts with Great Britain and the United States were relatively frequent until the end of 1942, when the whole of France was occupied by the Germans. Since it proved impossible to hold fully representative meetings, the Provisional Committee met and continued to meet in three groups - one in Geneva under the leadership of Dr. Boegner (later of Dr. Koechlin), one in Great Britain under Archbishop Temple, and one in New York under Dr. John R. Mott. <269> The fact that the World Council had offices in New York, London, and Geneva, proved a blessing, for each office had its area of contacts with Churches which the other could not reach. [582] When the second world war broke out, the World Council of Churches was still "in process of formation", and it had not as yet an adequate apparatus at its disposal. But the General Secretary, Dr. Visser 't Hooft, and the Director of the Department for Refugees, Dr. Freudenberg, had their contacts with the World Jewish Congress in Geneva, and with Church leaders in Germany and the occupied countries. They could thus pass on valuable information to the Churches in the free world, and stir them to action.
a. Letters Sent to the International Red Cross
On October 29, 1941, Dr. Visser 't Hooft sent the following Memorandum to the President of the Mixed Relief Committee of the International Red Cross, Prof. Dr. Karl Burckhardt:
Memorandum on the Situation in Poland
I. "We have received some information about the situation in the General government of Poland from a reliable and objective observer who has been travelling there during recent weeks. According to him, there exists a great difference between city and country. In the large cities, especially in Warsaw, the Polish and, to a greater extent the Jewish population, is suffering famine. Typhus is spreading in and outside the ghetto of Warsaw. Our spokesman heard of 2,000 cases in the ghetto alone. The mortality of infants less than three years old is amounting to 26%… We know of only one modest relief activity: American Poles have, in co-operation with American Mennonites, the German Red Cross, the Polish and the American Relief Committee (Hoover), organized a soup-kitchen, where they weekly distribute to the distressed population of Warsaw, fish purchased in Danzig for DM. 5,000. This feeding, which is merely a drop in the ocean, reaches Poles as well as Jews. Moreover, a despatch of medicine from the United States is expected to arrive in Lisbon one of these days.
II. The greatest wave of deportations of German Jews and Christians of Jewish origin to Poland has been going on since the middle of October. Seven thousand Jews were deported from Berlin to Litzmannstadt on the nights of October 18/19 and 19/20. 20,000 Jews of the Rhineland are already there, or are en route. 2,000 are to be transported from Prague. Deportations from Vienna have already been going on for some time. A number of Jews from Breslau is believed to be engaged in labour in the Bohemian Riesengebirge. <270> According to our spokesman, the able-bodied men who have been deported to Poland are constructing roads behind the Eastern front whilst the able-bodied women are employed in ammunition factories. In Litzmannstadt hut camps are said to be provided as temporary lodging, but we have no particulars about this. The deportees were allowed to take only a handbag and 10 RM. with them. Sufficient protection against the cold will be out of the question. One may assume that these measures are the beginning of the complete deportation of the Jews and Christians of Jewish origin from the Reich and the Protectorate. This concerns people the majority of whom, owing to their mental powers having been overcharged for many years, will be unfit to cope with these new hard measures.
III. In view of its Christian responsibility the Provisional Ecumenical Council of the Churches cannot heedlessly close its eyes to this misery of the refugees in Poland. As it practically can no longer carry out its own relief work, it feels all the more its duty to intervene with the competent bodies towards quick relief action. The Jewish organizations, generally speaking, are no longer in a position to undertake effective steps on behalf of their co-religionists. The Jewish question touches the centre of the Christian message: neglect of the Church to raise its warning and protective voice here, and do all in its power to help, would be disobeying its God. It is, therefore, the duty of the Christian Churches, and especially of their Ecumenical representative, the Provisional Ecumenical Council, to intervene on behalf of the persecuted.
IV. Therefore the Provisional Ecumenical Council of the Churches appeals to the competent bodies of the Red Cross with the request to pay special attention to the situation in Warthegau and the General government of Poland. We urge that the Red Cross speedily send a delegate, if possible a medical man, to the regions in question. This delegate would have to investigate, especially in the large Polish cities, the most urgent needs of the Polish as well as of the Jewish population, thus ascertaining the medical, sanitary and clothing requirements. Such a survey should include not only the Warthegau (especially Litzmannstadt) but also the region of Lublin where the Jews from Germany, Austria and Bohemia who were deported in the winter of 1939/1940 are said to be living. We hardly know anything about their fate but it is most certainly very critical. The Provisional Ecumenical Council is prepared to request urgent support from its member Churches, especially those in the United States, for a relief action organised by the International Red Cross." [583] <271>
Dr. Visser 't Hooft stated in the covering letter that he had also sent a copy to the President of the Red Cross, Dr. Huber, and that he would be grateful for a speedy reply.
On June 3, 1942, the Secretary of the Ecumenical Commission for Refugees, Dr. A. Freudenberg, sent the following letter to the Mixed Relief Committee of the International Red Cross:
"An absolutely reliable correspondent requests us, to communicate to the organizations of the Red Cross the following: 'A serious lack of restoratives, digitalis etc. is prevalent in the Jewish ghettos in the East, especially in the camps of Yzbica and Piaski near Lublin, and also in Riga, Wilna, Kowno, Warsaw and Lodz. Many people who had been admitted to the hospitals because of diminishing strength and under-nourishment or other reasons, must now perish there owing to a lack of these restoratives. They could be saved if one could supply them with strengthening food. I have been implored to inform the International Red Cross about this, so that it may render aid wherever possible.' This information, indicating that the deportees and the Polish Jews are suffering terribly from famine, has been confirmed by others As most of them are destitute, numerous cries of distress have reached us both directly and indirectly. Therefore we join in the request of our correspondent, and implore the organizations of the International Red Cross to continue to relieve the fate of these unfortunate people in every possible way." [584]
On December 3, 1942, Dr. Visser 't Hooft again wrote to the President of the Mixed Relief Committee of the International Red Cross, Prof. Dr. Karl Burckhardt. The letter reads as follows:
"We refer to our letter of 29th October, 1941, in which we submitted to you a Memorandum concerning the persecution and the misery of the Jews in Poland. Since then the situation has deteriorated in an alarming way. No doubt you have been informed of the mass executions of which the Polish Jews and the Jews in Poland deported from the European countries, are the victims. To the information that has reached other organizations, we can add the contents of a message received from a very distinguished German personality whose reliability we can guarantee. The message informs us that at one place in Poland, 6,000 Jews - men, women and children - are being shot every day. These executions are made in three groups, each of 2,000 persons, and this has already been going on for weeks. <272> In our Memorandum of 29th October, 1941, we remarked that the Jewish question touches the centre of the Christian message. Therefore we feel compelled to raise our voice anew on behalf of these people who are being threatened with extermination. We therefore permit ourselves to renew our suggestions of last year, that the International Committee of the Red Cross take urgent steps to send delegates to the areas in question. There is reason to hope that such steps, even if they do not directly have the desired result, would encourage certain circles in Germany to combat the mass executions more energetically. Though from the letters received from Theresienstadt in Bohemia it is not possible to ascertain the real conditions existing in this reception centre, we would be grateful if the requested action could also include that city." [585]
The letter mentions "certain circles in Germany". These were groups of resistance with which the Secretariat of the World Council of Churches was in contact, especially the "Kreisau Circle" and Dietrich Bonhoeffer with his friends. [586]
b. Co-operation with the World Jewish Congress
A unique aspect of the activities of the World Council of Churches regarding the persecution of the Jews was the close co-operation between Dr. Visser 't Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg on the one hand, and the Director of the World Jewish Congress at Geneva, Dr. G. M. Riegner. Dr. Riegner stated: "… My correspondence with Dr. Freudenberg starts already in November, 1940, and during certain periods we have been in nearly daily contact". [587] In the same letter to Dr. Visser 't Hooft, Dr. Riegner wrote: <273>
"I remember that you and the World Council have also played an important part in convincing the Swiss authorities of the deadly danger threatening the Jews in all occupied countries and trying to obtain from them a more liberal attitude in admitting refugees. I remember distinctly, though I do not find any trace in writing, that I have put at your disposal several times very detailed information and reports which you have been good enough to communicate on behalf of the World Council of Churches to the Swiss authorities. If I am not mistaken, at least on one occasion you have personally intervened with Federal Councillor von Steiger in such matter."
Dr. Riegner commented on this point as follows:
"I am still convinced that these interventions of the World Council have been at certain moments of great value. In the course of the discussions which I had during the last year with either Dr. Visser 't Hooft or Dr. Freudenberg, I became convinced that these representations have most probably been made by Dr. Alfons Koechlin, (Base]), the former head of the Protestant Federation of Switzerland and one of the Presidents of the Provisional World Council at that time. Dr. Koechlin, of course, received the material from Dr. Visser 't Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg." [588]
Jews and Christians also co-operated together in breaking the wall of silence. The Secretary of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, Dr. McCrea Cavert, visited Dr. Visser 't Hooft in Sept., 1942. Dr. Riegner reports about this visit:
"With regard to our knowledge of the Nazi plan of total extermination of European Jewry, I wish to state that the first report on this plan reached me in the last days of July I 942 and I communicated it to Rabbi Wise in New York and Mr. Silverman in London during the first days of August 1942 (through diplomatic channels). Dr. Wise received the message during the last days of August 1942 and asked Mr. Cavert to use his visit to Geneva at the beginning of September 1942 to find out from us whether deportation really meant extermination. After having spoken to us - I believe to Prof. Guggenheim - he confirmed this in a cable to the United States." [589]
In the same letter to Dr. Visser 't Hooft, Dr. Riegner stated:
"Some of the very forceful speeches by Dr. Bell and other dignitaries of the Anglican Church in the House of Lords were based on reports which we have communicated to them." <274>
A telegram was sent by Dr. Visser 't Hooft to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Federal Council of Churches in the United States. Its contents were as follows:
15.000 Berlin Jews brought to assembling centres Some hundreds shot. Total evacuation Berlin in execution. Similar news other regions prove extermination campaign at climax. Please back Allied rescue efforts suggest rapid proposals exchange against German civilians and guarantees of re-emigration money food supply enabling European Neutrals to grant transitory asylum. [590]
On March 23, 1944, Dr. Visser 't Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg sent a telegram to the Bishop of Chichester, Dr. Bell:
Most anxious destiny 800,000 Hungarian Jews among whom numerous Christians stop suggest you contact Mr. Silverman World Jewish Congress, I Harley Street W.I. and support suggestions cabled by Riegner to Silverman stop suggest also interest Church of Scotland. [591]
We know of another joint approach made by the Secretariats of the World Council of Churches and the World Jewish Congress. The following Aide-memoire was sent to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, and to the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations:
Aide-memoire <275>
The Secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress have taken note with great satisfaction of the aide-memoires exchanged between the Governments of the United States of America and Great Britain on the present situation of refugees in Europe, and of their decision to meet at Ottawa with a view to a preliminary exploration of ways and means for combined action by the representatives of their Governments. [592] Having studied the suggestions and proposals contained in the aide-memoires of the two Governments, the Secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress beg to express their views on the above-mentioned topic. While welcoming most warmly the determination of the Allied Governments to bring help to the persecuted people of all races, nationalities and religions, fleeing from Axis terror, they wish to emphasise that the most urgent and acute problem which requires immediate action, is the situation of the Jewish communities under direct or indirect Nazi control. The Secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress have in their possession most reliable reports indicating that the campaign of deliberate extermination of the Jews organised by the Nazi officials in nearly all countries of Europe under their control, is now at its climax. They therefore beg to call the attention of the Allied Governments to the absolute necessity of organising without delay a rescue action for the persecuted Jewish communities on the following lines: 1. Measures of immediate rescue should have priority over the study of post-war arrangements. 2. The rescue action should enable the neutral States to grant temporary asylum to the Jews who would reach their frontiers. For this purpose a definite guarantee by the Governments of the United States of America and Great Britain, and possibly by other Allied Governments including the British Dominions, should be given to the neutral States, that all refugees entering their territories would be enabled to be repatriated or to re-emigrate as soon as possible after the end of the war. In view of the special characteristics of the Jewish problem, in view of the attitude adopted in the past by many European governments, and furthermore, in view of the present attitude of absolute political neutrality adopted during the hostilities by the neutral countries, it may be stated that the giving of assurance for the prompt repatriation of refugees upon the termination of hostilities, would in the present circumstances not be considered as a sufficient guarantee by the neutral States. Only explicit and comprehensive guarantees of remigration of the refugees, given by the Anglo-Saxon Powers as a reinforcement of any assurances of repatriation which may be given by the Allied Governments in exile, can lead the neutral countries to adopt a more liberal and understanding attitude towards the Jewish refugees. <276> These guarantees should provide for the granting of facilities concerning the supply of food and funds for the maintenance of refugees during their stay in the neutral countries. 3. A scheme for exchange of Jews in Germany and the territories under German control for German civilians in North and South America, Palestine, and other countries, should be pressed forward by all possible means. We should like to stress the fact that the number of nationals of Axis countries living in Allied countries - particularly in North and South America - exceeds by far the number of nationals of Allied countries living in Axis countries. We feel that in spite of the great difficulties which we do not underestimate, a workable scheme of exchanging Jews for Germans would constitute an important method of rescuing a considerable number of persecuted people from the countries under Nazi control. In view of the immediate urgency of the situation, the admission of Jews to the scheme of exchange should be granted en bloc to the greatest possible number, as conditions no longer allow time-wasting and in many cases fruitless individual investigations. This scheme might include war-time security measures. Concrete proposals should be submitted without delay to the Governments representing Allied interests in Germany by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain. The International Red Cross Committee may also be approached by the Allied Governments and asked for support in this matter. [593]
Dr. Riegner sent this aide-memoire to the British Ambassador in Switzerland "on behalf of the Secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress". Dr. Visser 't Hooft forwarded it to the Ambassador of the United States, requesting in his covering letter, dated March 19, 1943, that the aide-memoire should be forwarded to the American Government, to the Federation of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and to the American branch of the World Jewish Congress. He also stated that he had sent a copy to Mr. Allan Welsh Dulles with whom he had "quite recently had the pleasure of discussing the matter". Mr.Dulles was the representative of the "Office of Strategic Services" of the American Government, at Bern. The sending of this aide-memoire was, I think, the first time in history that an important organization of Churches officially approached Governments, jointly with an important Jewish organization. <277>
c. Aid to Refugees
In 1938, the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches was formed. Its first ordinary session took place at Saint-Germain (near Paris), in January, 1939. It was at this meeting that the Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, unequivocally proposed that the Council create a special department to deal with refugee problems. He himself had been a pioneer in this work. He felt that "the time had come to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans". He meant not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also the others, albeit there being a special responsibility towards members of the Christian Church. [594] Soon afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the first secretary of this new department for aid to refugees. The Ecumenical Commission for Refugees rendered aid to refugees in the camps of France at the end of 1940. It was also engaged in first aid to the people in the camp of Gurs. Later on, France remained the main field of activities.
"The Christian aid included Christians as well as Jews. There was co-operation with Jewish organizations in many respects. Thus, for instance, the Commission for Refugees could act as the intermediary for financial aid to Jewish families and children who were in hiding in Belgium, Holland, Hungary and other countries." [595]
The Churches in three countries rendered financial aid: first and foremost
Switzerland, but also Sweden and the United States.
"Switzerland donated Sw. Fr. 77,000 in 1941; the United States donated only Sw. Fr. 10,000 and Sweden Sw. Fr. 6,000. The United States soon realized the importance of the aid to refugees and in the following year the Churches in the United States donated Sw. Fr. 241,000 and later Sw. Fr. 368,000. Obviously they really did understand the significance of this work. I think that this was also due to the fact that Dr. Cavert (the then General Secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.) visited us. Later on I myself went to the United States and was able to explain to them the importance of the matter." [596] <278>
When, in the summer of 1942, Lava1 began to hand over the Jews of the
unoccupied area of France to the Germans, members of the French Protestant
Youth Organization Cimade brought many refugees to the Swiss frontier.
Switzerland, however, was not willing to grant asylum to them. The
Ecumenical Commission for Refugees, "closely co-operating with other
organizations", succeeded in assuring the admission of "many hundreds" of
these refugees. [597]
Another endeavour to save lives failed. The Committee had, with the help of
American Christians, succeeded in obtaining entrance visas into the United
States for 1,000 Jewish children from France, but the occupation of
Southern France by the Germans foiled this plan. [598]
Dr. Visser 't Hooft was personally active in an "illegal" organization which helped Dutch Jews to pass through France to Switzerland. He helped its leader, Jean Weidner, with money from a collection for this purpose amongst Dutchmen living in Switzerland. [599] The former secretary of the Jewish Committee of Coordination in Switzerland, Mr. H. H. Gans, relates the following incident as regarding to the granting of passports and certificates of citizenship granted by South-American Governments to Jews in French concentration camps:
"…We had declared… that the beneficiaries would not try to use their new 'citizenship' after the war. But probably owing to their fear of an invasion of new citizens after the war, some countries dared not postpone the nullification until after the war… The Spanish Ambassador immediately passed on this fatal message (to the Germans) and 300 'South-Americans' were deported from Vitel. The World Congress informed me at night. Consternation was great. <279> I contacted Dr. T. Lewenstein [the then Chief-Rabbi of Zurich and Dr. Visser 't Hooft. Together we sent a telegram to the Queen. There was an immediate reaction: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Buenos Aires was ordered to intervene. Very shortly after this, an entirely favourable result was obtained." [600]
Mr. Gans also stated that once he paid a large amount of money on behalf of persons hidden in Holland, through the kind offices of Dr. Visser 't Hooft. From Holland came the confirmation: "The organization thanks you very much for the money transferred from Switzerland." [601] The testimony of Mr. Gans also speaks of the matter of sending gift parcels to the Jews in concentration camps:
"No parcels could have been sent and no other help could have been rendered, if we had not been supported continuously by Dr. Visser 't Hooft, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva… His contribution to the Dutch resistance movement will certainly be described by others. Suffice it here to point out the general importance of the presence of such a man in Switzerland, and the fact that busy though he was, he never refused to see me whenever I asked for an interview, and that happened almost every day. No detail of our relief work was unimportant to him." [602]
It appears that neither Dr. Visser 't Hooft nor Dr. Freudenberg were formalistic in their activities. They understood, in contrast to so many in and outside occupied Europe, that "illegal" acts were, in those special circumstances, morally justified. Thus money was "illegally" transmitted to Jews in hiding; and refugees were supported who had entered into Switzerland "illegally." What has been said about Church leaders in Bulgaria, can be applied to Dr. Visser 't Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg: they were gravely concerned, and thus they were available whenever their help was requested.
In June, 1944, the Ecumenical Commission for Aid to Refugees published the
following statement:
<280>
The Fate of the Jews in Hungary
"The Ecumenical Commission for Refugees exists in order to give material and spiritual aid to refugees of all faiths. Its main task is therefore to relieve the suffering of the refugees rather than to protest against the treatment meted out to them. But there are situations in which the only aid we can give is in the form of a solemn and public protest. To-day this is the case. Trustworthy reports state that so far some four hundred thousand Hungarian Jews are deported in inhuman conditions and, in so far as they have not died on the way, brought to the camp of Auschwitz in Upper Silesia where, during the past two years, many hundreds of thousands of Jews have been systematically put to death. Christians cannot remain silent before this crime. We appeal to our Hungarian Christian brethren to raise their voice with us to do all they can to stop this horrible sin. We appeal to Christians of all countries to unite in prayer that God may have mercy on the people of Israel." [603]
The heading of this Chapter must be regarded with some reservation, firstly because I may have failed to find statements which were issued, and secondly because even the admission by a Church that it did not speak out, cannot always be trusted. In fact, I have in my possession a letter from the official representative of an important Church in Europe, stating that his Church had not publicly protested against the persecution of Jews; yet later on much material was found proving that it had done so. It is notable that the Churches which, as far as we know, kept silent, were minority Churches, with the exception of the Lutheran Church of Finland which was, however, not directly confronted with the challenge of the persecution of the Jews.
a. Austria <281>
On March 12, 1938, German troops entered Austria; it was then absorbed by the German Reich. The Jews in Austria were subjected to all the horrors which the Jews in Germany suffered.
The legend that Austria was the first victim of Hitlerian aggression, to which official endorsement was given by the victorious Allies, is slow to die. In fact, the people in Austria were more national-socialist than in Germany proper: the frenzy with which the "aggressor" Hitler was received by the Viennese is proof enough of this. Many of the leaders of the Third Reich were Austrians, as for instance Seyss-Inquart, Kaltenbrunner, Globocnik and Rauter. Hitler himself originally came from Austria.
Little is known about the attitude of the Protestants in Austria with respect to anti-Semitism during the war. [604] In 1966, the General Synod of the Lutheran Church adopted a "Message to the Congregations on Jews and Christians". The message stated that:
"…Unfortunately, however, the Christian conscience of our people has not been strong enough to withstand a hatred based on racial differences. This is an alarming sign of the demonic powers of darkness to which we have been exposed and which have not been sufficiently resisted by our Church. Because the Church was entrusted with the Word of reconciliation and the message of peace, its guilt is much greater than that of all other groups. We must acknowledge and confess this guilt. The miracle of God's forgiveness makes our repentance possible…" [605]
b. Belgium
Professor W. Lutjeharms, who teaches Church history at Brussels, communicated to me why, in his view, the Protestant Churches did not publicly protest against the persecution of the Jews during the war. Part of the reasons he advances are, in my opinion, also applicable to minority Churches in other lands. <282> 1. The Protestants comprise less than half percent of the total population. 2. The Protestants nowhere formed a sufficiently concentrated group among the population. 3. The Protestants in those days had very few representatives in cultural and political circles. 4. The Protestant voice was not heard outside its own group before 1940; hardly at all over the radio and certainly not through daily newspapers. 5. The Protestant Churches represented a distinctly foreign flavour: many pastors and members were foreigners. 6. An official public protest would neither have impressed the authorities nor the population. The Protestants could only act effectively on the personal level. In this respect pastors as well as lay members time and again risked their lives, to help Jews as much as they could.
There remains the question, why the small Protestant Churches in Belgium undertook official and public steps in 1933, and not, for instance, in the years 1935 and 1938. It is possible that such steps were undertaken, but that they were not sufficiently published, and thus forgotten (Cf. above, point 4).
At least 25,000 Jews were deported from Belgium. Individual Protestants have rescued Jews [606] but these activities are outside the scope of our subject.
c. The Protectorate
Czechoslovakia was deprived of Sudetenland in the Munich pact of September 29, 1938. On March 14, 1939, Slovakia declared its independence. On March 15, 1939, German forces occupied Prague; Czechia as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia became part of the German Reich. <283> An estimated number of 71,000 Jews were deported, and perished. Apparently no Church in Bohemia-Moravia publicly protested. It is true, of course, that there hardly was any address to which they could send a protest, except the Government in Berlin which would probably have paid even less attention than it paid to the protests of the "Confessing Church", the members of which were Germans and not Czechs. However, a public protest, read out from the pulpits, could have stirred up the members of the Czech Churches and would have encouraged them to help the Jews. In a letter to me, dated November 12, 1965, it was stated by Dr. Viktor Hhjek, Chairman of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren:
"Individual members of our Church have tried to help Jewish families in different ways and have indeed helped them. This has always been dangerous, and the persons involved suffered often from the German occupying force. But the pressure of this force was so heavy that it was out of the question to undertake anything publicly and officially." [607]
The Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren recognized, in 1945, that "our Church did not have enough courage or power to withstand the fury of the enemies of Christ directed against the Jews." [608]
d. Poland <284> The atrocities committed against the Jews in Poland are beyond description. At the end of 1939, 3,300,000 Jews lived in Poland; of these 2,900,000 were murdered. [609] Moreover, most of the Jews arrested by the Germans, in other occupied countries and in the German Reich itself, were deported to Poland and perished there. Thus it was in Poland that the vast majority of the six million was murdered.
There is little to relate about the reactions of the non-Catholic Churches
in Poland; there hardly exist such Churches at all.
I received two replies to my circular letter; the first is from Dr. Andrzej
Wantula, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
I quote the following from his letter:
"During the war, our Church was liquidated by the Germans and the majority of the pastors imprisoned, the remainder working in a newly founded German Church. Our Church, therefore, could not carry out any activities. Individual pastors privately have helped the Jews. I myself, in my former parish, have tried to relieve the position of the Jews and partly succeeded in this. These, however, are individual cases, which are outside the scope of your interest."
The second reply came from the Executive of the small "Polish-Catholic
Church". [610] I quote the following:
"Our Polish-Catholic Church was exposed to many persecutions, under the National-Socialist domination during the second World War. However, we protested many times, against the persecution of the Jews, also publicly whenever this was possible. In addition to material help, we provided the persecuted Jews with baptismal certificates, enabling them to obtain ration cards and identity cards. In this way they were protected from further persecution. We cannot, unfortunately, send you any proofs, e.g. documents, letters or photostats concerning our activities, as all the material was destroyed during the war."
It is difficult for me to believe that the Polish-Catholic Church has "protested many times and publicly", if one is to understand that these protests were made in writing, and officially sent to the German authorities. But perhaps pastors of this Church expressed their protest in their sermons, and if this is so, it was at least something, especially in Poland. <285> The activities and attitude of the head of the Greek-Catholic Church in Galicia, the Metropolitan Andrew Sheptitsky, whose Church is united with Rome, is outside the scope of our subject and is thus not related here. [611]
e. Finland
Finland refused to give up her 2,000 Jews. "We are an honest people," declared Witting, the Finnish Foreign Minister. "We would much rather die with the Jews than give them up." [612] I received the following reply to my circular letter:
"…Finland was never actually occupied by the German army, with the exception of the Northern region… Finland remained a sovereign country and it was, as far as I know, the only country within the German sphere of influence where Jews were protected against German claims. It seems to be very difficult to ascertain whether the Church had any direct involvement in this. It must remain, therefore, more or less an academic question, since nothing actually happened, in spite of the hesitation of the Government during some critical days." [613]
f. Italy
There are hardly any non-Roman Catholic Churches in Italy. Best-known is the Waldensian Church. The Waldenses themselves have been severely persecuted throughout the centuries. The right of free worship was granted to them by the Constitution of 1848. This "pre-Reformation Protestant Community" has 25,000 members. Official declarations against anti-Semitism of such a small minority Church could hardly expected, though the majority of the Waldenses had been strongly anti-fascist. [614] <286> g. Russia
The Orthodox Church was the established Church in Russia, until 1917. Under the Communist regime many Church leaders were imprisoned or murdered; many church buildings were closed, some turned into museums. The Constitution of 1936 allows the Church freedom of worship, but not of propaganda. Printing of Bibles was not permitted. Anti-religious propaganda, however, was systematically carried out. In the wake of the German invasion (June, 1941), the Patriarch of Moscow declared himself loyal to the Russian cause and to the Soviet government. Anti-religious measures were relaxed to some degree. As far as we know, no public declaration against anti-Semitism was issued by the Orthodox Church, nor by any of the smaller Christian communities in Russia. [615] It is estimated that 1,500,000 Jews perished in the Nazi- occupied part of Russia.
I have tried to give the answers to some questions related to our subject, but there remain many unanswered questions. It is beyond the scope of this investigation, to analyse the influence of Luther's attitude towards the Jews upon the German Protestants. Suffice it to say, that many anti-Semites quoted from Luther's brochure "Concerning the Jews and their Lies" (1542), and not from his earlier: "Jesus was born a Jew". (1523) The anti-Jewish sermons of St. Chrysostom, preached at Constantinople at about the turn of the 4th century, are well-known. We have not investigated as to how far these sermons had an influence upon the Eastern Churches in our time. <287> Another question: What exactly was the influence of the Lutheran conception of the "two dominions" through which God rules this world (the spiritual one, or the Church, and the secular one, or the "worldly authorities") on the attitude of the Lutheran Churches towards the persecuted Jews? Why did the Lutheran Churches in Denmark, Norway, Slovakia and Sweden denounce anti- Semitism whilst the record of the Lutheran Churches in America is poor in this respect? The people, according to Luther, have not the right to resist the authorities; only princes have. Was there a notable difference between the Lutheran Churches and the Churches of Calvinist origin regarding their attitude towards the "ungodly government" of Hitler in the 20th century, just as such a difference is said to have existed in the 16th century? What about possible differences between continental and Anglo-Saxon Protestants regarding their theological conception of the Jews, between Protestant Churches in the West and Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe, between non-Roman Catholic Churches and the Church of Rome? How far did the conception of St. Paul about the people of Israel, as expounded in Romans 9-11, encourage the Churches to stand up for the Jews, or how far did the opinion that the Church has "replaced" Israel as the people of the Covenant, prevent Churches from taking action? We have hardly touched on practical questions such as the dilemma of whether "to speak or to save" ("reden oder retten"). It would be easy to make up a much longer list of unanswered questions, but it is difficult to establish facts even though they happened in our lifetime, and it is even more difficult to interpret them correctly. I can only hope that the documentation provided by this book will stimulate others to further study and investigation.
I hope that I have succeeded to some extent in showing how complicated the situation was, and how careful we ought to be if we try to answer the question, how far Christian leaders and Churches fulfilled or failed to fulfil, the commandment which they profess to consider divine: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". <288> However, I do not suggest that to understand all is to pardon all. To me, Dr. Visser 't Hooft's conclusion seems to be well-balanced:
"We may conclude this section by pointing out that while many Christians failed in their duty to resist in word and deed the inhuman racialism of National Socialism, there were a not inconsiderable number of Church leaders and simple Church members who rendered a clear witness to the reality of the Christian faith. The Christians who were involved in the struggle know better than anyone how often the Churches and they themselves failed to do what ought have to be done. Thus the Churches in Germany spoke not only for themselves, but for others who had been in a similar situation when after the war they confessed publicly their sense of guilt in this respect." [616]
It is difficult to draw conclusions. Mostly generalizations are dangerous. I myself have the impression that public opinion tends to overrate the practical help rendered by individual Christians. Only a minority of professing Christians willingly risked their lives in order to help and save their Jewish neighbours. The Bible condemns such a lack of self-sacrificing love. When, however, human beings judge, particularly if they are people who themselves did not have to undergo the test, they should remember the Jewish saying: "Judge not thy neighbour until thou art come in his situation." [617]
On the other hand, public opinion possibly tends to underestimate the official activities of Churches against anti-Semitism, because they are not generally known. The attitude of the Churches with regard to the persecution of Jews under Hitler's reign of terror was far from uniform. The picture is neither completely black, nor purely white. White and black are mingled. Thus the name chosen for this publication is "The Grey Book". The darkness of the holocaust was so great that one can hardly comprehend it. It is understandable that there are people who tend to ignore the lights that were so small, far too small. But "the greater the darkness, the brighter the light, be it no more than that of a small candle." [618] <289> In cases where Church leaders or individual Christians did risk their lives, they should remember the words of their Lord: "Is the master grateful to the servant for carrying out his orders? So with you: when you have carried out your orders, you should say, 'We are servants and deserve no credit; we have only done our duty'."(Luke 17, 9-10). On March 23, 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury declared in the House of Lords: "We stand at the bar of history, of humanity and of God". It is appropriate to conclude this book with the words of Ecclesiastes (12, 13-14): "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." <290>
Much has been spoken against anti-Semitism by non-Roman Catholic Churches and Church leaders, after the Second World War. We only mention the most important declarations and statements.
On April 8, 1948, the NATIONAL BRETHREN COUNCIL (Reichsbruderrat) of the Evangelical Church in Germany, meeting at Darmstadt, issued the following "Message Concerning the Jewish Question".
"…It may rightly be said that after what has happened, after all that we allowed to happen in silence, we have no authority to speak now. We are distressed about what happened in the past, and about the fact that we did not make any joint statement about it. We have not forgotten that a number of pastors and churches did speak out, and suffered for doing so; we thank God for it, and we thank them. We thank all who, in our own country and abroad, have helped us with old and new insights into the Word of God, and who have taken action by setting up warning signs. Today when retribution is meted out to us for what we did to the Jews, there is increasing danger that we may take refuge from God's Judgment in a new way of anti-Semitism, thus conjuring up all the old evils once again. In this perilous situation and amid this temptation God's Word speaks to us and helps us to find the right attitude to the Jews. It is under pressure of this Word that we speak, because we are filled with anxiety about the future and burdened by the past, and because we feel obliged to express our gratitude to all those individual people who spoke out, took action and suffered doing so… It was a disastrous mistake when the Churches of our time adopted the secular attitude of mere humanity, emancipation and anti-Semitism towards the Jewish question. There was bound to be a bitter retribution for the fact that anti-Semitism rose and flourished not only among the people (who still seemed to be a Christian nation), not only among the intelligentsia, and in governmental and military circles, but also among Christian leaders. <291> And when finally this radical anti-Semitism, based on racial hatred, destroyed our nation and our Churches from within, and released all its brutal force from without, there existed no power to resist it - because the Churches had forgotten what Israel really is, and no longer loved the Jews. Christian circles washed their hands of all responsibility, justifying themselves by saying that there was a curse on the Jewish people. Christians no longer believed that the promise concerning the Jews still held good; they no longer preached it, nor showed it in their attitude to the Jews. In this way we Christians helped to bring about all the injustice and suffering inflicted upon the Jews in our country. This is what the Word of God teaches us, so that we recognize with shame and grief what a great wrong we have done to Israel, and how deep our guilt is. As a Church we have failed to be the witness of salvation for Israel. Now we have to face the judgments of God which are coming upon us one after the other, so that we may bow beneath the mighty hand of God in sincere repentance, both as a Church and as a nation…" [619]
On April 27, 1950, the Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany, meeting at Berlin-Weissensee, issued a "Message of Guilt towards Israel", from which we quote the following:
"…We declare that by dereliction of duty and in keeping silent we also are guilty of the crimes committed by people of our nation towards the Jews… We pray all Christians to rid themselves of all anti-Semitism whatsoever, to resist it earnestly where it raises its head again, and to meet Jews and Jewish Christians in a brotherly spirit. We pray the Christian congregations, to care for Jewish cemeteries in their territory if nobody is in charge of them." [620]
On January 12, 1960, the Executive of the United Evangelical Church of
Germany issued the following Declaration:
"The Executive of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany most sharply condemns the expressions of anti-Semitism which have stirred the public in the last weeks. Moral condemnation of the crimes committed by Germans against the Jews cannot be evaded, though it is difficult to explain the motives of this wave (of anti-Semitism) which encompasses many lands. The reaction of the public must not be limited to declarations of sympathy towards Jewish fellow citizens but must aim at uncovering their own failures. It is especially important, to break the silence which frequently is maintained here between the older and younger generation, and to help our young people to come to their own clear judgment of the history of the Third Reich and what led up to it." [621] <292>
On February 26, 1960, the Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany, meeting at Berlin-Spandau, published the following Resolution, after the synagogue of Cologne was daubed with swastikas:
"The fact that the honour of our Jewish neighbours has been offended, fills us with horror and shame. We express our solidarity with those who have been offended and insulted… We are guilty towards youth, to whom we have failed to teach and to bear the witness we owe them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the evil spirit increases its influence, again and again, among our youth. However, anew we must realize and attest: the hatred of the Jews which breaks out, again and again, is public godlessness… Therefore, let parents and educators break the widely-spread, painful silence, in our country about co-responsibility for the fate of the Jews. Let them resist everything that seduces the young generation into hatred of the Jews… Therefore, stand up for the payment of reparations. Keep in mind, however, that true repentance is more essential than financial compensation, which only can mean little to people who lost most of their relatives by acts of violence… Therefore, pray for God's peace upon Israel. Pray for the peace of Israel amongst the nations, on the borders of its State and amongst us." [622]
During the trial of Eichmann, the Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany stated (Berlin-Spandau, Febr. 17, 1961):
"…All surviving Germans who at the age of discrimination witnessed the atrocities of the annihilation of the Jews, and even those who helped their Jewish compatriots under oppression, must confess before God, to have become accessories to the deeds by lack of alert and self-denying love…" [623]
After several years of discussion on the subject of the relationship of the Church to the Jewish people, the 10th German Evangelical Kirchentag, 1961, set aside one work-group to deal specifically with this subject. Work-group VI of the Kirchentag produced the statement which follows, and it was adopted as the official Report of the Assembly: <293>
"Jews and Christians are insolubly linked with each other. The denial of
this link brought forth the hostility to Jews within Christendom. It became
one of the main causes of the persecution of Jewry. Jesus of Nazareth is
betrayed wherever members of the Jewish people among whom he was born are
despised as Jews. Every hostility towards Jews is godlessness and leads to
self-destruction.
The present trial in Jerusalem concerns us all. We Evangelical Christians
in Germany recognise that we are involved in it by reason of our guilt.
Because of the need for fresh thought and conversion, we call upon the German
public to make the following points their own:
1. Parents and educators should break their silence when meeting the young
generation. They should confess their own failure and bring to light the
origins of the crimes so that we all may learn how to face the present
together. In the present world political situation, throwing off our own
failure onto others must threaten not only one section of mankind but all
life.
2. The inhumanity of compulsory systems of command where men can argue that
criminal orders must be obeyed, is calculated to warn us against the
inhuman potentialities of the modern organisation of State and society.
We must be ready to take upon us political responsibility even in spite of
risks. Those who were concerned in the preparation and implementation of
persecution should resign from high office.
3. Where Jews live amongst us, it is our duty to promote their well-being as
best as we can. Likewise everything must be done by us Germans which serves
the reconstruction and peace of the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours.
Compensation claims by victims of racial persecution should be settled with
special urgency and generosity. The material compensation must be matched by
a rebirth of the spirit. In Germany, the so-called Jewish question is today
above all a question concerning the future of the Germans.
4. As against the wrong doctrine preached for centuries that God has cast away
the Jewish people, we once again affirm the word of the Apostle: 'God hath
not cast away His people, which He foreknew' (Romans 11, 2)…" [624]
On March 13, 1964, the Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany issued the following Declaration on the trials of Nazi criminals:
"…Only ignorance can speak of 'soiling one's own nest' when in fact the cleaning of a badly soiled nest is at stake. Nor is it in any way profitable to try to hide behind the wrongs committed by other nations against members of our people during the war. The mass murder of Jews and other ethnic groups, with which the German name is connected, is not thereby erased… <294> Even the citizen who had no direct share in the crimes, nay, even he who did not know of them, has a share in the guilt because he was indifferent towards the perversion of all moral standards and all notions of right and wrong among our people. Nor can we exempt ourselves and our congregations from this guilt. For where all Christians were called upon to uphold the Gospel entrusted to us, to make public affirmation of the everlasting dominion of God in all spheres of our lives, and, thus armed, to protect the victims of the regime, especially the Jews living amongst us, only few had the insight and the courage to resist. Forced into this humiliating position, we cannot pretend to be unconcerned with the trials now pending, nor can we turn our gaze away from the crimes now being revealed. It was the folly of our entire nation, and the omissions of us Christians, that enabled those crimes to be perpetrated. There is nothing here that can be condoned, and we must resist all temptations to indulge in self-justification. Rather is it our duty to follow the defendants now as they stand before God and His judgment." [626]
In 1963, the Evangelical Kirchentag of German speaking Switzerland adopted the following Resolution:
"Israel and the Church belong together. God has chosen them both and formed a Covenant with them - first with Israel, then with the Church. The Church has been grafted onto the stem of God's People. Hence: if one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it. We confess our guilt with regard to Israel, that we Swiss people did not suffer with the Jews either, thus betraying our fellowship with God's ancient people. Our hope rests in the fact that we know our sins are forgiven. But for us forgiveness must mean active repentance. Let us make atonement through action. As Swiss people and Christians let us recognize the following tasks as our next step, and transform them into action: 1. We urge all Christians, both individually and collectively, to take part in assisting the Jews and promoting mutual contact and mutual respect. 2. We regard it as our Christian duty to oppose all forms of discrimination against Jewish people, and we expect the same attitude from all our fellow-Christians. 3. Short, inexpensive instructive booklets are needed as soon as possible, so that Christians can remedy their ignorance of Jewish history. 4. We recognize a sub-conscious anti-Semitism here in Switzerland too, with devastating and far-reaching effects. We urge the Church to devote more attention to this question. (Parish evenings, evenings for parents, evenings for mothers, instruction to religious teachers, training of religious teachers). 5. The intercession for Israel, which exists in most liturgies, should be made an integral part of the worship-service." [627] <295>
On February 6, 1967, the Archbishop of Sweden sent a circular letter to the ministers of the diocese, from which we quote the following:
'On various occasions accusations have been made against the Church of Sweden for anti-Semitism. This is especially directed towards the way in which the passion-history is created. From abroad many appalling examples are known in which 'the Jews' are described as a deicide people, as referring not only to the mob in front of the palace of Pilate which wanted Jesus to be crucified but to the whole people and the generations after them. In the Swedish tradition of preaching and teaching this is completely unaccepted. Any feeling of revenge and hatred against Romans and Jews is repudiated and it is emphasized that it is our own sin which has brought Jesus to the cross… The Gospel is against all racial and group discrimination. Each person shall be judged on his own merits according to what he himself is and does. There is no graduation of the value of man; all are called to be children of God and are therefore our brothers and sisters, and Christ died for all. After all, God alone is the Judge, but never we ourselves." [628]
On March 18, 1964, the following Statement was issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury:
"It is always wrong when people try to lay blame upon the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In the event the Roman Governor was no less responsible for what happened. The important fact, however, is that the crucifixion was the clash between the Love of God and the sinfulness and selfishness of the whole human race. Those who crucified Christ are in the true mind of the Christian Church representatives of the whole human race, and it is for no one to point a finger of resentment at those who brought Jesus to his death, but rather to see the crucifixion as the divine judgment upon all humanity for choosing the ways of sin rather than the love of God. We all must see ourselves judged by the crucifixion of Christ." [629]
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland adopted a statement against anti-Semitism nearly every year. Here follow some examples. <296> 1945 "The General Assembly express their renewed sympathy with the Jews in their present circumstances and assure them of the Church's friendly interest in all that pertains to their future welfare and in particular commend the active steps, which are being taken to restrain Anti-Semitism and promote better understanding between Christian and Jew." [630]
1947 "The General Assembly, aware of the growth of anti-Semitic feeling, condemn anew this attitude as un-Christian and contrary to the mind of our Lord; call upon their faithful people to guard against this grave danger; assure the Jewish people of their deep sympathy in the present uncertainties and remember especially the many Jews in the Displaced Persons Camps in Europe still awaiting some scheme for their settlement in other lands." [631]
1953 "The General Assembly view with concern the renewed outbreaks of anti-Semitism in various countries, renew their condemnation of this evil thing and call upon their faithful people to be on the alert to oppose any signs of it in this country." [632]
1957 "The General Assembly express their concern that the threats of annihilation directed against the State of Israel still continue. They express profound sympathy with the State of Israel in the crisis with which she is confronted and earnestly hope that the United Nations will now direct all possible efforts towards a just and lasting settlement between Israel and the Arab States, so that Israel's future will no longer be in jeopardy." [633]
1962 "The General Assembly, in view of the horrors recalled by the Eichmann trial, remind the Church - especially the youth of the Church - of the deadly danger of Anti-Semitism, which has in the past so cruelly wounded the brotherhood of the human family." [634]
Many Protestant Churches in the United States publicly registered their opposition to anti-Semitism. We only quote the following Resolution, adopted by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, on June 5, 1964:
"The General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., recognizing the ever-present danger of anti-Semitism, renews the call to the Churches and the community to recognize (in the words of the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches) 'anti-Semitism, no matter what its origin, as absolutely irreconcilable with the profession and practice of the Christian faith'. <297> The spiritual heritage of Jews and Christians should draw us to each other in obedience to the one Father and in continuing dialogue; the historic schism in our relations carries with it the need for constant vigilance lest dialogue deteriorate into conflict. We confess that sometimes as Christians we have given away to anti-Semitism. We have even used the events of the Crucifixion to condemn the Jewish people, whereas (in the words of the Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches) 'the historic events which led to the Crucifixion should not be presented as to fasten upon the Jewish people of today responsibilities which belong to our corporate humanity and not to one race or community'. The General Board urges that the members of its constituent communions seek that true dialogue with the religious bodies of the Jewish community through which differences in faith can be explored within the mutual life of the one family of God - separated, but seeking from God the gift of renewed unity - knowing that in the meantime God can help us to find our God-given unity in the common service of human need." [634]
In 1948, the World Council of Churches held its first Assembly, at Amsterdam. 147 Churches in forty-four countries were represented by 351 official delegates. A report on "The Christian Approach to the Jews" was heard by Assembly, and its deliberations were commended to all member Churches "for their serious consideration and appropriate action". We quote the following:
Introduction … We cannot forget that we meet in a land from which 110,000 Jews were taken to be murdered. Nor can we forget that we meet only five years after the extermination of 6 million Jews. To the Jews our God has bound us in a special solidarity linking our destinies together in His design. We call upon all our Churches to make this concern their own as we share with them the results of our too brief wrestling with it."…
3. Barriers to be Overcome "…We must acknowledge in all humility that too often we have failed to manifest Christian love towards our Jewish neighbours, or even a resolute will for common social justice. We have failed to fight with all our strength the age-old disorder of man which anti-Semitism represents. <298> The Churches in the past have helped to foster an image of the Jews as the sole enemies of Christ, which has contributed to anti-Semitism in the secular world. In many lands virulent anti-Semitism still threatens and in other lands the Jews are subjected to many indignities. We call upon all the Churches we represent to denounce anti-Semitism, no matter what its origin, as absolutely irreconcilable with the profession and practice of the Christian faith. Anti-Semitism is sin against God and man…". [635]
In 1961, the World Council of Churches held its third Assembly, at New Delhi. 200 Churches were represented by more than a thousand official participants. The following Resolution on Anti-Semitism was adopted:
"The Third Assembly recalls the following words which were addressed to the Churches by the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1948: 'We call upon all the Churches we represent to denounce anti-Semitism, no matter what its origin, as absolutely irreconcilable with the profession and practice of the Christian faith. Anti-Semitism is sin against God and man. Only as we give convincing evidence to our Jewish neighbours that we seek for them the common rights and dignities which God wills for his children, can we come to such a meeting with them as would make it possible to share with them the best which God has given us in Christ.' The Assembly renews this plea in view of the fact that situations continue to exist in which the Jews are subject to discrimination and even persecution. The Assembly urges its member Churches to do all in their power to resist every form of anti-Semitism. In Christian teaching the historic events which led to the Crucifixion should not be so represented as to fasten upon the Jewish people of today responsibi- lities which belong to our corporate humanity and not to one race or community. Jews were the first to accept Jesus and Jews are not the only ones who do not yet recognize him." [636]
In 1964, a Consultation on "The Church and the Jewish People" under the auspices of the Lutheran World Federation was held at Legumkloster, Denmark. The following statement was adopted:
III. The Church and Anti-Semitism <299>
"Anti-Semitism is an estrangement of man from his fellowmen. As such it stems from human prejudice and is a denial of the dignity and equality of men. But Anti-Semitism is primarily a denial of the image of God in the Jew; it represents a demonic form of rebellion against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and a rejection of Jesus the Jew, directed upon His people. 'Christian' anti-Semitism is spiritual suicide. This phenomenon presents a unique question to the Christian Church, especially in light of the long terrible history of Christian culpability for anti- Semitism. No Christian can exempt himself from involvement in this guilt. As Lutherans, we confess our own peculiar guilt, and we lament with shame the responsibility which our Church and her people bear for this sin. We can only ask God's pardon and that of the Jewish people. There is no ultimate defeat of anti-Semitism short of a return to the living God in the power of His grace and through the forgiveness of Jesus Christ our Lord. At the same time, we must pledge ourselves to work in concert with others at practical measures for overcoming manifestations of this evil within and without the Church and for reconciling Christians with Jews. Towards this end, we urge the Lutheran World Federation and its member Churches: 1. To examine their publications for possible anti-Semitic references, and to remove and oppose false generalisations about Jews. Especially reprehensible are the notions that Jews, rather than all mankind, are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, and that God has for this reason rejected His covenant people. Such examination and reformation must also be directed to pastoral practice and preaching references. This is our simple duty under the commandment common to Jews and Christians: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour'. 2. To oppose and work to prevent all national and international manifestations of anti-Semitism, and in all our work acknowledge our great debt of gratitude to those Jewish people who have been instruments of the Holy Spirit in giving us the Old and New Testaments and in bringing into the world Jesus Christ our Lord. 3. To call upon our congregations and people to know and to love their Jewish neighbours as themselves; to fight against discrimination or persecution of Jews in their communities; to develop mutual understanding; and to make common cause with the Jewish people in matters of spiritual and social concern, especially in fostering human rights…" [637]
An International Conference of Christians and Jews was held at Seelisberg, in 1947, and attended by sixty-five persons from nineteen different countries. They adopted the following "Address to the Churches", which became widely known as "The Ten Points of Seelisberg": <300>
1. Remember that One God speaks to us all through the Old and the New
Testaments.
2. Remember that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother of the seed of David and
the people of Israel, and that His everlasting love and forgiveness embrace
His own people and the whole world.
3. Remember that the first disciples, the apostles, and the first martyrs were
Jews.
4. Remember that the fundamental commandment of Christianity, to love God and
one's neighbour, proclaimed already in the Old Testament and confirmed by
Jesus, is binding upon both Christians and Jews in all human relationships,
without any exception.
5. Avoid disparaging biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of
extolling Christianity.
6. Avoid using the word Jews in the exclusive sense of the enemies of Jesus,
and the words the enemies of Jesus to designate the whole Jewish people.
7. Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the
killing of Jesus upon Jews alone.
In fact, it was not all the Jews who demanded the death of Jesus. It not the
Jews alone who were responsible, for the Cross which saves us all reveals
that it is for the sins of us all that Christ died.
Remind all Christian parents and teachers of the grave responsibility which
they assume, particularly when they present the Passion story in a crude
manner. By so doing they run the risk of implanting an aversion in the
conscious or subconscious minds of their children or hearers, intentionally
or unintentionally. Psychologically speaking, in the case of simple minds,
moved by a passionate love and compassion for the crucified Saviour, the
horror which they feel quite naturally towards the persecutors of Jesus
will easily be turned into an undiscriminating hatred of the Jews of all
times, including those of our days.
8. Avoid referring to the scriptural curses, or the cry of a raging mob: His
blood be upon us and upon our children, without remembering that this cry
should not count against the infinitely more weighty words of our Lord:
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.
9. Avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the Jewish people is
reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering.
10. Avoid speaking of the Jews as if the first members of the Church had not
been Jews. [638]
<301>
Austria
The Protestant Churches in Austria are minority Churches. The (Lutheran)
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession has 406,966 members; the
Reformed Church of Austria has 16,078 baptized members.
Belgium
The Protestant Churches in Belgium are minority Churches, together comprising less than half percent of the population. The total number is less than 50,000.
Bulgaria
The Orthodox Church in Bulgaria claims a number of six million members, being the vast majority of the population. There is no other Christian community of any numerical importance in Bulgaria. <302>
Czechoslovakia
The largest non-Roman Catholic Churches in Bohemia and Moravia are: the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren (295,354 baptized members), the Czechoslovak Church, and the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Silesia (48,000 members). There are two Protestant Churches in Slovakia: the Reformed Church of Slovakia (165,000 baptized members) and the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church in Slovakia (520,000 members).
Denmark
The vast majority of the people of Denmark belong to the Lutheran Church, which has 4,104,000 members.
Finland
The vast majority of the population of Finland belongs to the Finnish
Evangelical Lutheran Church, which has 4,429,137 members.
France
The Protestants in France are a small minority, numbering altogether not more than 800,000 souls. Members of the Protestant Federation of France are: The Reformed Church of France (375,000), the Reformed Church of Alsace and Lorraine (50,000), the Lutheran Church of Alsace and Lorraine (240,000) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of France (50,000).
Germany
The vast majority of the Protestants of Germany belonged to one of the 28
Landeskirchen (Lutheran, Reformed or Uniate), of which the largest was the
Church of the Old Prussian Union, with 18 million members. In all, there were
forty-five million Germans who were, nominally at least, members of the
Protestant Church.
Great Britain and Ireland
The main non-Roman Catholic Churches in England are: the Church of England, claiming 2,989,704 members and 15 million adherents (1950); the Methodist Church (775,294 members and 2,2250,000 adherents in 1955); the Congregational Union of England and Wales (451,523 members in 1955); the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland (246,400 members in 1955) and the Presbyterian Church of England, having 70,298 communicants. <303> There are four Free Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, as well as Baptist, Episcopal, Congregational and Methodist Churches. The Church of Scotland is by far the largest Church, having 1,281,559 communicants. The political partition of Ireland did not divide any of the Churches. Most of the non-Roman Catholic Churches were represented in the United Council of Christian Churches in Ireland. The (Episcopalian) Church of Ireland has 400,000 members. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has 140,395 communicants and 397,500 baptized members. The Methodist Church has approximately 30,000 communicants and 100,000 baptized members.
Greece
The vast majority of the population of Greece belongs to the (Orthodox) Church of Greece, which has an estimated 8,000,000 members.
Hungary
According to the 1941 census, there were in Hungary 9,775,310 Catholics, 2,785,782 Calvinists (Reformed Church of Hungary), and 729,289 Lutherans (Hungarian Evangelical Church).
Italy
The Waldensian Church has 25,000 members. Other non-Roman Catholic communities are the Methodist and Baptist Churches. Their total membership amounts to about 0,19 per cent of the population.
The Netherlands
The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH has 3,500,000 baptized members. The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands had 640,984 members in 1940. The Evangelical Lutheran Church has 52,587 members. The other Churches mentioned are of about the same size, or smaller. <304> Norway
The (Lutheran) Church of Norway has 3,456,687 members, being 96,2 per cent of the population.
Poland
Out of a population of 32,000,000 there are a 130,000 Protestants. 100,000 of them belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Poland. Smaller communities are the Evangelical-Reformed Church (5,000 members); the Baptist Church (2,500 members) and the United Gospel Church (7,500 members).
Rumania
The vast majority of the population of Rumania belongs to the Rumanian Orthodox Church, which has an estimated 11,500,000 members. The Reformed Church of Rumania is the Church of the Hungarian national minority; it has 693,511 baptized members. The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession is mainly the Church of German immigrants; it has 183,399 members.
Russia
Before 1917, the Orthodox Church of Russia claimed a membership of 100,000,000. Estimates about the present situation - "perhaps 25-50,000,000" - are unreliable. Smaller communities are the Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists of U.S.S.R. and the Lutheran Churches in former Estonia (350,000), Latvia (350,000), and Lithuania (30,000).
Sweden
The vast majority of the population of Sweden belongs to the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, which claims 7,000,000 members.
Switzerland
The Protestant Churches of Switzerland are cantonal Churches, distinct and independent from one another. In most of the cantonal Churches, the legislative body is the Synod and the executive organ the Synodal Council. <305> The Federation of the Protestant Churches of Switzerland at first consisted only of National Churches, but it soon admitted the Free Evangelical Churches, the Methodist Church and the "Evangelische Gemeinschaft". The Federation has 2,888,122 baptized members.
The United States
The following are some of the greatest Churches affiliated to the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America in the year 1942 with their membership for the years ending in 1941-1942.
Northern Baptist Convention 1,538,871
National Baptist Convention 3,911,611
Congregational Christian Churches 1,052,701
Disciples of Christ 1,655,580
Protestant Episcopal Church 1,074,178
United Lutheran Church (consultative) 1,709,290
The Methodist Church 6,640,424
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1,986,257
The total membership was 25,551,560
The Federal Council of Churches united with 11 other national inter- denominational organizations, to form the National Council of Churches, in 1950. Its 34 member Churches have a total membership of about 42 million persons. The most important Protestant denominations which are not members of the National Council of Churches are: Southern Baptist Convention (present membership 10,770,573); the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (present membership 2,692,889); the American Lutheran Church (present membership 2,541,546).
Yugoslavia
The greatest non-Roman Catholic Church is the Serbian Orthodox Church which has about 8,000,000 members. Other Churches are: the Reformed Christian Church of Yugoslavia (30,000 members) and the Slovak Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Yugoslavia.
The World Council of Churches <306> The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of more than 200 Churches of Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox and Old Catholic confessions. It includes in its membership Churches in more than 80 countries. In 1961, the Orthodox Church of Russia also joined the World Council of Churches. A number of large Churches, however, are not World Council members. These include the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention (U.S.A.), the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the majority of Pentecostal Churches. Many of these Churches regularly send observers to the World Council meetings and there were five Roman Catholic observers at the World Council's Third Assembly at New Delhi in 1961. <307>
BRAHAM, RANDOLPH L. The Hungarian Jewish Catastrophe: A Selected and Annotated
Bibliography. New York, 1962.
DIEHN, OTTO. Bibliographie zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes, 1933-1945.
Goettingen, 1958; in German.
ROBINSON, JACOB, and PHILIP FRIEDMAN. Guide to Jewish History under Nazi Impact.
New York, 1960.
The Wiener Library. Catalogue Series No. I, 2nd ed., London, 1960.
ARON, ROBERT. L'Histoire de Vichy. Paris, 1959; in French.
ARDITI, BENYAMIN J. Les Juifs de Bulgarie sous le regime Nazi 1940-1944.
Tel Aviv, 1962; in Hebrew.
BAROUCH, ELY. Iz Istoriata na Bulgarskoto Evrejstvo (From the History of
Bulgarian Jewry). Tel-Aviv, 1960; in Bulgarian.
BARTH, FERNAND. Presence de l'Eglise (La Belgique sous l'occupation. In: La
Chretiente au creuset de L'epreuve (Editions Labor et Fides, Geneva); in
French.
BELL, G.K.A. (Bishop of Chichester). The Church and Humanity. London, 1946.
BELOFF, MAX (Ed.). On the Track of Tyranny. London, 1960.
BENTWICH, NORMAN. They Found Refuge. London, 1956.
BERECZKY, ALBERT. Hungarian Protestantism and the Persecution of the Jews.
Budapest, 1946.
BETHGE, EBERHARD. Dietrich Bonhoeffer; Gesammelte Schriften. Munich, 1959;
in German.
BETHGE, EBERHARD. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Munich, 1965; in German.
BLAU, BRUNO. The Last Days of German Jewry in the Third Reich. In: Yivo Annual,
vol. VIII, pp. 197-204.
Bulgarian Atrocities in Greek Macedonia and Thrace. A report of Professors of
the Universities of Athens and Salonica. Athens, 1945.
BURGDORFER, F. Die Juden in Deutschland und in der Welt. In: Forschungen zur
Judenfrage. Hamburg, 1938; pp. 152-198; in German. <308>
BUSKES, J.J. Waar stond de Kerk? Amsterdam, 1947; in Dutch.
BUSKES, J.J. Hoera voor het Leven. Amsterdam, 1963; in Dutch.
CADIER, HENRI. Le Calvaire d'Israel et la solidarite chretienne. In: La
Chretiente au creuset de l'epreuve. Geneva, 1947; in French.
CARP, MATATIAS. Le martyre des Juifs de Roumanie. In: Les Juifs en Europe.
Paris, 1949; in French.
"Christians Protest Persecution". Published by the Religious News Service of
the National Conference of Christians and Jews. New York.
CHRISTIE, H.C. Den Norske Kirke I Kamp. Oslo, 1945; in Norwegian.
COHEN, D. Zwervend en Dolend. Haarlem, 1955; in Dutch.
DELLEMAN, TH. (Ed.). Opdat wij niet vergeten. Kampen, 1949; in Dutch.
Delta, Spring 1965, Vol. VIII/NO. I (A Review of Arts, Life and Thought in
The Netherlands).
ECK, NATHAN. New Light on the Charges Against the Last Chief Rabbi of Salonica;
In: Yad Vashem Bulletin, No. 17; Jerusalem, December 1965, pp. 9-15.
Les Eglises Protestantes pendant la Guerre et l'Occupation (Actes de l'Assemble
Generale du Protestantisme Franyais reunie A Nimes, du 22 au 26 octobre
1945). Paris, 1945; in French.
Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage. Ausgewahlte Dokumente
aus den Jahren des Kirchenkampfes 1933 bis 1943. Geneva, 1945; in German.
FABRE, EMILE C. (Ed.). Les Clandestins de Dieu (Cirnade 1935-1945). Paris, 1968;
in French.
FISCH, HENDRIK (Ed.). Kerestztkny egyhizfok felsohbi beszei a zsidokerdesben
(The Speeches on the Jewish Question by Christian Church leaders in the
Upper House). Budapest, 1947; in Hungarian.
FLANNERY, EDWARD H. The Anguish of the Jews. New York, 1965.
FLENDER, H. Rescue in Denmark. New York, 1963.
FORD, HERBERT. Flee the Captor. (The Story of the Dutch-Paris Underground and
its compassionate leader John Henry Weidner). Nashville, 1966.
FRAENKEL, HANS. Die Kirche im Krieg (Unpublished Manuscript). Archives of
the World Council of Churches, Geneva. In German.
FRANK-WILKENS. Ordnungen und Kundgebungen der Vereinigten Evangelisch-
Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands. Berlin-Hamburg, 1966; second imprint;
in German.
FREUDENBERG, A. The Church and the Jewish Question; Geneva, 1944. Mimeo-graphed.
FRIEDLANDER, SAUL. Kurt Gerstein ou I'ambiguite du bien. Toumi, 1967; in French.
FRIEDMAN, PHILIP. Their Brothers' Keepers. New York, 1957.
FRIEDMAN, PHILIP. Ukrainian- Jewish Relations during the Nazi Occupation.
In: Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science, Vol. XII. New York, 1958/1959.
FRIEDMAN, PHILIP. Was there an 'other Germany' during the Nazi Period? In:
Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Studies, Vol. x. New York, 1955. <309>
FUGLSANG-DAMGAARD, H. Kirken og Joedeforfoelgelseme (The Church and the
Persecutions of the Jews). In: Refslund Chr. - Schmidt, M. (Ed.), "Fem
Aar" (Copenhagen, 1946), 11, pp. 100-108; in Danish.
GARFINKELS, BETTY. Les Belges face A la persecution raciale 1940- 1944.
Bruxelles, 1965; in French.
GLOCK, CHARLES Y. , and STARK, RODNEY, Christian Belief and Anti-semitism.
New York, 1966.
GOLDSCHMIDT, D., and KRAUS, H. J., (Ed.). Der ungekundigte Bund. Stuttgart-
Berlin, 1963; second imprint; in German.
GROSSMANN, KURT R. Die unbesungenen Helden. Berlin, 1957; in German.
GRUBER, H. Werner Sylten. Berlin, 1956. In German.
GRUBER, H. Dona Nobis Pacern. Berlin, 1956. In German.
GRUBER, H. An der Stechbahn. Berlin, 1960. In German.
GRUNDLER, J. Lexicon der Christlichen Kirchen und Sekten. Vienna, 1961.
In German.
HASLER, ALFRED A. Das Boot ist voll. Zurich, 1968; second imprint; in German.
HAY, MALCOLM. Europe and the Jews (The Pressure of Christendom on the People
of Israel for 1900 years). Boston, 1961; second imprint.
HEARST, ERNEST. The British and the slaughter of the Jews. In: The Wiener
Library Bulletin, XXI-XXII.
HEDENQUIST, COTE (Ed.), The Church and the Jewish People. London, 1954.
HERMELINK, HEINRICH. Kirche in Kampf. Stuttgart, 1950; in German.
HERZBERG, ABEL J. Kroniek der Jodenvervolging. Amhem-Amsterdam, 1950; in Dutch.
HEYDENREICH, RENATE MARIA. Versuch Theologischer Wiedergutmachung. In: Der
ungekundigte Bund (Goldschmidt - Kraus, Ed.), pp. 183-283.
HILBERG, R. The Destruction of the European Jews. Chicago, 1961.
Hitler's Ten-Year War on the Jews. New York, 1943. Published by the Institute
of Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish Congress.
HOCHHUTH, ROLF. The Deputy. New York, 1963; third impression.
HOYE, BJARNE, and AGER, TRYGVE M. The Fight of the Norwegian Church against
Nazism. New York, 1943.
ISAAC, JULES. The Teaching of Contempt. New York, 1965.
JANNASCH, W. Deutsche Kirchendokumente. Zurich, 1946; in German.
JASPER, R.C.D. George Bell Bishop of Chichester. London, 1967.
DE JONG, LOUIS. Jews and non Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland. In: On the Track
of Tyranny (Ed. Max Beloff), pp. 139-155; London, 1960.
DE JONG, LOUIS. De Bezetting. Vol. III. Amsterdam, 1963; in Dutch.
DE JONG, LOUIS. Een Sterfgeval in Auschwitz. Amsterdam, 1967; in Dutch. An
English translation will be published in Yad Vashem Studies, VII
(Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 39-55: "The Netherlands and Auschwitz".
Les Juifs en Europe, 1939-1945, Published by the "Centre de Documentation Juive
Contemporaine. Paris, 1949; in French. <310>
VAN KAAM, B. Opstand der Gezagsgetrouwen. Wageningen, 1966. In Dutch.
KNAP, H. Vreemdeling, Bericht de Spartanen. Amsterdam, 1966. In Dutch.
KNOUT, DAVID. Contribution a L'histoire de la RESISTANCE JUIVE EN FRANCE.
Paris, in French.
KOCH, ANTON. Vom Widerstand der Kirche. Freiburg, 1947; in German.
KRAKAUER, MAX. Lichter im Dunkel. Stuttgart, 1947; in German.
LAPIDE, PINCHAS E. The Last Three Popes and the Jews. London, 1967.
LATTES, SAMY. L'Attitude de l'Eglise en France a l'egard des Juifs pendant
la persecution. In: Les juifs en Europe, pp 166-170.
LAVIE, THEODORE. Roumanian Jewry in World War 11. Jerusalem, 1965; in Hebrew.
LEUNER, HEINZ. When Compassion was a crime. London, 1966.
LEVIEW, MISHO. Nashata Blagodarnost (Our Gratitude). Sofia, 19457; in Bulgarian.
LEWY, G. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. London, 1964.
LOWRIE, DONALD A. The Hunted Children. New York, 1963.
LUDWIG, CARL. Die Fluechtlingspolitik der Schweiz seit 1933 bis zur Gegenwart
(Bericht an den Bundesrat zuhanden der eidgenossischen Rate). ZU 7347.
Lutheran Directory. Published by the Lutheran World Federation; Geneva, 1966.
MACFARLAND, CHARLES s. Across the Years. The Macmillan Co., 1936.
MARTIN, H. (Ed.). Christian Counter-Attack. London, 1943.
MAYFIELD, GUY. The Church of England. Oxford, 1958.
MEIER, Kurt. Kristallnacht und Kirche - die Haltung der Evangelischen Kirche
zur Judenpolitik des Faschismus. In: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der
Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig, 13. Jahrgang, 1964; pp. 91-106; in German.
MEYENDORFF, J. The Orthodox Church. London, 1954.
MEYER, PETER (Ed.). The Jews in the Soviet Satellites. Syracuse
University Press,
MIEGGE, GIOVANNI. L'Eglise sous le joug fasciste. Geneva, 1946; in French.
MOLHO, MICHAEL. In Memoriam. Salonica, 1948; in French.
MOLHO, MICHAEL, and NEHAMA, JOSEPH. The Destruction of Greek Jewry, 1941-1944.
Jerusalem, 1965; in Hebrew.
MOISSIS, ASCHER. La situation des Communautks juives en Grkce. In: "Les Juifs
en Europe", pp. 47-54.
MORSE, ARTHUR D. While Six Million Died. London, 1968.
MUNKACSI, ERNO. Hogyan tortent? Adatok es okmanyok a magyar zsidosag trage-
diajahoz. Budapest, 1947; in Hungarian.
NEILL, STEPHAN. Anglicanism. London, 1958.
NIEMOLLER, WILHELM. Kamp und Zeugnis der Bekennenden Kirche. Bielefeld, 1946;
in German.
NIEMOLLER, WILHELM. Die Bekennende Kirche sagt Hitler die Wahrheit. Bielefeld,
1954; in German.
NIEMOLLER, WILHELM. Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich. Bielefeld, 1956;
in German. <311>
VAN NORDEN, G. Kirche in der Krise. Dusseldorf, 1963; in German.
Nordiska Roster mot Judeforfoljelse och Vald (Documents and Commentaries).
Edited by Judisk Tidskrift, Stockholm 1943; in Swedish.
OLDHAM, J.H. (Ed.), The Churches Survey Their Task (The Report of the
Conference at Oxford, July 1937, on Church, Community and State).
London, 1937.
OSUSKY, SAMUEL STEFAN. Sluzba Nirodu. Bratislawa, 1947; in Slovakian.
PARIS, EDMOND. Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945. Chicago, 1959.
PARKES, JAMES. Anti-semitism. Chicago, 1964.
La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne: Attitude des Eglises Chretiennes.
Geneva, 1933; in French.
PRESSER, J. Ondergang. 's-Gravenhage, 1965; in Dutch.
POLIAKOV, LEON. Harvest of Hatred. London, 1960.
REITLINGER, G. The final Solution. London, 1953; The Relationship of the
Church to the Jewish People, Collection of Statements made by the World
Council of Churches and representative bodies of its member Churches.
Geneva, 1964; mimeographed.
ROBINSON, JACOB. And the Crooked Shall be Made Straight. New York, 1965.
VAN ROON, G. Neuordnung im Widerstand. Munich, 1967; in German.
ROSENKRANZ, HERBERT. The Anschluss and the Tragedy of Austrian Jewry 1938-1945.
In: Josef Fraenkel (Ed.), The Jews of Austria. London, 1967.
ROTHKIRCHEN, LIVIA. The Destruction of Slovak Jewry. Jerusalem, 1961; in Hebrew,
with an English Summary.
ROTHKIRCHEN, LIVIA. Vatican Policy and the 'Jewish Problem' in 'Independent'
Slovakia (1939-1945). In: Yad Vashem Studies (Jerusalem, 1967), Vol. VI,
pp. 27-53.
ROTHKIRCHEN, LIVIA. The Attitude of the Vatican and the Churches in Hungary
towards 'The Solution of the Jewish Question'. In: HaUmmah ("The Nation");
Jerusalem, 1967; No. 21, pp. 79-85; in Hebrew.
ROUSE, RUTH, and NEILL, STEPHEN c. (Ed.). A History of the Ecumenical Movement
1517-1948. London, 1954.
SAFRAN, ALEXANDRE. L'Oeuvre de sauvetage de la population juive accomplie
pendant l'oppression nazie en Roumanie. In: Les Juifs en Europe,
pp. 208 - 213.
SANDBAEK, HARALD, and RALD, N. J. (Ed.). Den danske Kirche UNDER BESAETTELSEN.
Copenhagen, 1945; in Danish.
SCHEFFLER, WOLFGANG, Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich. Berlin-Dahlem, 1960;
in German.
SHUB, BORIS (Ed.). Hitler's Ten Year War on the Jews. New York, 1943.
SIMPSON, W.W. Jews and Christians To-day (A Study in Jewish-Christian
Relationships). London, 1940.
SIMPSON, W.W. Co-operation between Christians and Jews, Its Possibilities
and Limitations. In: Gote Hedenquist (Ed.), The Church and the Jewish
People. London, 1954. <312>
STADLER, KARL. Das Einsame Gewissen. Vienna, 1966; in German.
STEINER, F. La Situation des Juifs en Slovaquie. In: Les Juifs en Europe,
pp. 2 16-220.
SIJES, B.A. De Februari-Staking. 's-Gravenhage, 1954; in Dutch, with an
English summary.
TARTAKOWER, ARIEH, and GROSSMANN, KURT R. The Jewish Refugee. New York, 1944.
TENENBAUM, JOSEPH. Race and Reich. New York, 1956.
TENENBAUM, JOSEPH. For the Sake of Historical Balance. In: Yad Vashem Bulletin,
No. 3; Jerusalem, 1958.
THIEME, KARL (Ed.). Judenfeindschaft. Frankfurt a. M., 1963; in German.
TOUW, H.C. Het Verzet der Hervormde Kerk. 's-Gravenhage, 1946; in Dutch.
Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, Essai d'une Documentation. Anvers, 1933; in French.
Unity in Dispersion, A History of the World Jewish Congress. New York, 1948.
VALENTIN, HUGO. Rescue and Relief Activities in Behalf of Jewish Victims of
Nazims in Scandinavia. In: Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science; New
York, 1953; Vol. VIII.
VENEZIS, ILIAS. Archbishop Damaskinos. Athens, 1952; in Greek.
VOGT, PAUL. Judennot und Christenglaube. Zurich, 1943; in German.
VOGT, PAUL. Soll ich mein Bruders Hueter sein? Zurich, 1944; in German.
VOGT, PAUL. Aus Not und Rettung. Zurich, 1944; in German.
VISSER 'T HOOFT, W.A. The Struggle of the Dutch Church for the Maintenance
of the Commandments of God in the Life of the State. London, 1944.
VISSER 'T HOOFT, W.A. (Ed.). The First Assembly of the World Council of
Churches. London, 1949.
VISSER 'T HOOFT, W.A. The Ecumenical Movement and the Racial Problem.
Paris, 1954.
VISSER 'T HOOFT, W.A. (Ed.). The Third Assembly of the World Council of
Churches (Second impression). London, 1962.
WARE, TIMOTHY. The Orthodox Church. Pelican Books, 1963.
WARMBRUNN, WERNER. The Dutch under German Occupation 1940-1945, London, 1963.
WIELEK, H. De Oorlog die Hitler won. Amsterdam, 1947; in Dutch.
WEISENBORN, GUNTHER. Der lautlose Aufstand. Hamburg, 1953; in German.
"The World Alliance of Reformed Churches". Published by The World Presbyterian
Alliance; Geneva, 1964.
YAHIL, LENI. Test of Democracy, the Rescue of Danish Jewry in World War II.
Jerusalem, 1966; in Hebrew, with a summary in English.
YAHIL, LENI. Historians of the Holocaust; a Plea for a New Approach. In: The
Wiener Library Bulletin, 1967/68, Vol. XXII, pp. 2-5.
ZIPFEL, FRIEDRICH. Kirchenkamp in Deutschland 1933-1945. Berlin, 1965; in
German.
<313>
American Lutheran (monthly).
L'Arche (Jewish monthly), Paris.
Basler Nachrichten.
Le Christianisme Social (French Protestant Bimonthly).
The Christian World (Protestant weekly), London.
"Church of England Newspaper LONDON."
"Conversation entre le Dr. Visser 't Hooft, le Dr. Freudenberg et le Dr. Barot, concernant les activites Cimade-wcc pendant la guerre". Dec. 14, 1965. Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva; mimeographed; in French.
Dagens Nyheter (Swedish daily).
The Ecumenical Review. A Quarterly published by the World Council of
Churches, Geneva.
Federal Council Bulletin. Monthly of the Federal Council of Churches of
Christ in the U.S.A.
Glasgow Herald.
Hervormd Nederland (Dutch Protestant Weekly).
International Christian Press & Information Service (I.C.P.I.S.), Bulletin published by the World Council of Churches, Geneva.
The Interpreter (Quarterly published by the London Diocesan Council for
Christian-Jewish understanding).
The Jewish Chronicle (weekly), London.
The Jewish Review, New York.
Kristen Gemenskap (Swedish Protestant Magazine).
The Life of Faith (Protestant weekly), London.
Liverpool Post.
Manchester Guardian.
Narodno Delo (newspaper), Sofia.
The New York Herald Tribune. <314>
The New York Times.
Quarterly Newsletter from the World Council of Churches' Committee on the Church and the Jewish People; Geneva.
"Rapport van de Commissie van Onderzoek inzake het verstrekken van pakketten door het Rode Kruis en andere instanties aan Nederlandse politieke gevangenen in het buitenland gedurende de bezettingstijd alsmede inzake het evacueren van Nederlandse gevangenen kort voor en na het einde van de oorlog" ('s-Gravenhage, 1947; in Dutch).
Reformiertes Kirchenblatt fur Osterreich (Protestant monthly), Vienna.
Reports and Recommandations of the International Conference of Christians and Jews, Seelisberg, 1947. (London, 1947).
Schweiz. Evang. Pressedienst (E.P.D.), Protestant Bulletin, Zurich. "Schweiz. Sammlung fur die Fluechtlingshilfe, Oct. Nov. 1942"; Report published by the "Schweiz. Zentralstelle fur Fluchtlingshilfe".
The Spiritual Issues of the War, Bulletin published by the Religious Division of the Ministry of Information, London.
De Standaard (Dutch Protestant daily), Amsterdam.
The Times, London.
De Waarheid (Dutch Communist daily), Amsterdam.
The Wiener Library Bulletin, London.
Yad Vashem Bulletin, Jerusalem.
Yad Vashem Studies, Jerusalem.
De Zwarte Soldaat (Dutch Nazi paper). <315>
FOOTNOTES for The Grey Book by Johan M. Snoek =============================================
page I
1 The struggle of the Dutch Church for the Maintenance of the Commandments of God in the Life of the State, Documents collected and edited by W.A. Visser 't Hooft, London, 1944, p.16 (henceforth: Visser 't Hooft).
page II
2 Kirche im Kampf, Dokumente des Widerstandes und des Aufbaus der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland von 1933 bis 1945, herausgegeben von H. Hermelink, Tubingen-Stuttgart, 1950, p. 344 ff. On the historiographical use of the term "political messianism" in this context, cf. J.L. Talmon, The Unique and the Universal - Some Historical Reflections, London 1965, Chap. IV: Mission and Testimony - The Universal Significance of Modem Anti-semitism, p. 119 ff.
page III
3 Kirchliches Jahrbuch fur die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland 1933- 1944, hrsg. von Joachim Beckmann, Gutersloh 1948, p. 76 f., quoted according to: Der Nationalsozialismus, Dokumente 1933-1945, herausgegeben, eingeleitet und dargestellt von Walther Hofer, Frankfurt a/M, 1957 (henceforth: Hofer), p. 140.
4 Visser 't Hooft, pp. 61, 64-65. This reference to the first of the Ten Commandments by the Church in its struggle against the totalitarian and pseudo-messianic character of the Nazi regime already appeared in: Wort der Bekenntnissynode der evangelischen Kirche der altpreussischen Union an die Gemeinden, 4/5 March 1935 in Berlin-Dahlem; par. 1: The first commandment reads: 'I am the Lord God. Thou shalt have no other gods besides me. 'We obey this commandment alone having faith in Jesus Christ who was crucified and resurrected for us. The new religion is a revolt against the first commandment." Cf. Hofer, p. 144.
page V
5 Visser 't Hooft, p. 64.
Page VI
6 Heinrich Schmidt, Apokalyptisches Wetterleuchten, Ein Beitrag der Evangelischen Kirche zum Kampf im 'Dritten Reich', Munchen, 1947, p. 305. This source also appears in: Friedrich Zipfel, Kirchenkampf in Deutschland 1933-1945 - Religionsverfolgung und Selbstbehauptung der Kirchen in der national-sozialistischen Zeit, Berlin I 965, p. 31.
7 Hofer, p. 128.
8 On the origin of the term: "metapolitics" cf. Constantin Frantz: "Offener Brief an Richard Wagner", Bayreuther Blaetter, Jahrgang 1, No. 6 (June 1878), op. 169. Cf.: Peter Viereck, Metapolitics - The Roots of the Nazi Mind, N.Y. 1961 (1941), p. 4.
9 Visser 't Hooft, p. 71.
page VII
10 See in this volume pp. 131 - 132 . Cf. Visser 't Hooft, p. 57.
page VIII
11 These sources of modem anti-semitism have recently been treated in: Shmuel Ettinger, "The Critique of Judaism in the Teachings of the 'Young Hegelians' as one of the Roots of Modem Anti-semitism", Lecture given at the Academia scientiarum Israelitica, Jerusalem, 1969 (in press, Hebrew). Ibid: "The Roots of Modern Anti-semitism", (Hebrew) Molad, Jerusalem, New Series Vol. 11 (xxv), No. (219) Jan.-March, 1969, p. 323 ff. On the theoretical relationship between theological criticism and racial theory, cf. Nathan Rotenstreich, Judaism and Jewish Rights, (Hebrew), Tel-Aviv, 1959, Chaps, 1, 3, 5, 6. Ibid. "For and against Emancipation: The Bruno Bauer Controversy", in Leo Beck Institute, Year Book IV, London, 1959, p. 3 ff. Cf. also: Eleonore Sterling, Er ist wie Du - aus der Fruehgeschichte des Anti-semitismus in Deutschland (1815-1850), Munchen 1956, 235 pp. For sources on modern anti-semitism in the Critique of positivistic religion by the deists and rationalists in France, cf. Arthur Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews, N.Y.-Phil. 1968, 420 pp.
12 Ludwig Feuerbach, Das Wesen der Religion, Dreissig Vorlesungen, 1845 (1848), Dritte Vorlesung, Leipzig, 1908, p. 12.
page IX
13 Friedrich Nietzsche, Gesammelte Werke, Gesamtausgabe, Kroner, Leipzig,
Vol. VII, p. 273: … Das Christenthum ist ein Aufstand alles
Am-Boden-Kriechenden gegen das, was Hoehe hat; das Evangelium der
Niedrigen macht niedrig…".
14 Alexander Bein, Der moderne Anti-semitismus und seine Bedeutung fur
die Judenfrage, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte, Stuttgart,
1958, pp. 345/6.
15 Moritz Freystadt, Der Christenspiegel von Anti-Marr, ein offenes
Sendeschreiben an die modernen Judenfeinde, 5e Anlage, Koenigsberg 1863,
pp. 3, 8, 20, 21, 39.
page X
16 Wilhelm Marr, Streifzuege durch das Koncilium von Trient - Voltaire frei nach erzaehlt, Hamburg, Otto Meissner Verlag, 1868, pp. 95/6. In this work Marr emphasizes the fact that the criticism of Christianity was for the most part directed against the Catholics who were called by the spokesmen of German nationalism in the period of Bismarck 'ultramontanists.' At the same time he claims: "We… reject Christianity as well as Judaism… We reject… all religions…". Cf. p. 102.
17 Marr, like most of the fathers of antisemitic ideology, is not consistent
in his antisemitic arguments or in his anti-Christian motives. Different
views are held at different times, and contradictory views are expressed
at the same time. Thus, Marr sometimes does not oppose Christianity but
seems to be a proponent of "practical Christianity" with an eye to the
social policy of Bismarck in the 80's of the last century, or as a
proponent of "Christian-German realism. Thus, we also note an anti-Christian
sentiment directed not so much against Protestantism as against Catholicism.
The Anti-Catholic attitude of the fathers of racial anti-semitism was
part of the national awakening in the days of the Second Reich, an
awakening that was based to a considerable extent on the tradition of
Protestant sovereignty.
Of the many sources of antiCatholic anti-semitism from the first days of
this movement the propaganda of Ottomar Beta is typical, as we find in his
book which he dedicated to Bismarck, "Juda-Jesuitismus, where, among other
things, he says: "The arrogant assumption of infallibility of the Jewish
descendents in Rome is nothing more than an ultramontanist firework to
divert the eyes of the Germanic peoples from the more ominous capitalistic
infallibility of their racial brethren in wordly garb… The source appears
in the anti-semitic collection: Antisemiten-Spiegel - die Antisemiten im
Lichte des Christenthums, des Rechtes und der Moral, Danzig, 1892, (A.S.
further), p. 136.
page XI
18 Walter Holsten, Adolf Stoecker als Symptom seiner Zeit - Anti-semitismus in der evangelischen Kirche des 19e Jahrhunderts? The article appears in: Christen und Juden - Ihr Gegenueber vom Apostel- konzil bis heute, herausgegeben von Wolf-Dieter Marsch und Karl Thieme, Mainz/Goettingen 1961, p. 182 ff. On this ambivalent character of anti-semitism, cf. the words of A. Stoecker to the German Kaiser, 25. 9. 1880: "…Im Ubrigen habe ich in allen meiner Reden gegen das Judentum offen erklaert, dass ich nicht die Juden angreife, sondern nur dies frivole, gottlose, wucherische, betruegerische Judenthum, das in der Tat das Unglueck unseres Volkes ist…". This source is found in: Dietrich von Oertzen, Adolf Stoecker - Lebensbild und Zeitgeschichte, Berlin 1910, Vo1.1, p. 213. Cf. also: Paul W. Massing, Vorgeschichte des politischen Anti-semitismus, Frankfurt a/M, 1959, (P. Massing: further) p. 31.
page XII
19 Adolf Stoecker, Christlich-Sozial; Reden und Aufsaetze, 1885, p. 153 f. Cf. also P. Massing, p. 238/9, note 64. According to the second edition of the addresses and works of A. Stoecker of the year 1890, P. Massing quotes the entire document which concludes with the words: "… A return to more of Germanic law and economic life, a return to Christian faith - this will be our slogan."
page XIII
20 R. Seeberg, Reden und Aufsaetze von Adolf Stoecker, Leipzig 1913, p. 141/2. Cf. also the above essay of Walther Holsten, p. 119.
21 Above, note 19, p. 211.
page XIV
22 Eugen Duhring, Wert des Lebens, 3. Auflage, 1881, p. 5: "… paradoxe Lehre von der Umkehrung oder Kreuzigung aller Fleischregungen…".
23 Eugen Doehring, Die Parteien in der Judenfrage, Separat-Ausgabe von Hefte 7, 8 des ersten Bandes der Schweitznerischen internationalen Monatschrift, Leipzig 1882, Verlag Theodor Fritsch, p. 403 ff.
page XV
24 A.S. Danzig, 1892, p. 137 fl. Cf. also: these sources in a pamphlet issued by the "Verein zur Abwehr des Anti-semitismus", which also issued the "AntisemitenSpiegel. The name of this pamphlet is: "Antisemitisches Christenthum und christlicher Anti-semitismus", Flugblatt No 7, p. 1/2 (Year not given).
25 The anti-intellectual meaning of this doctrine that seeks to relegate the image of Jesus to the mythology of racial anti-semitism was pointed out by several writers already during the Second Reich. Cf. the many publications of the "Verein zur Abwehr des Anti-semitismus," beginning in 1892, and in condensed form: Antisemiten-Spiegel, Berlin- Frankfurt a/M, 1911 , p. 161 ff. On the historical background of the anti-intellectual character of racial doctrines and on the influence of anti-intellectualism on this interpreta- tion that would transplant Jesus from his Jewish origin and make him a member of the Aryan race, cf.: Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair - A study in the Rise of the German Ideology, Berkeley and Los Angelos, 1961, pp. 41/2: to divorce Christianity and Judaism even at this late stage would be a recognition of an unambiguous historical truth and of Jesus' own intent…". cf. pp. 139, 143, 144, 145, 163, 199.
page XVI + XVII
26 From the journal "Hammer", published in: A.S. Berlin-Frankfurt a/M, 1911, p.201.
27 Ibid. p. 203. The anti-Christian meaning of modem anti-semitism and its historical sources have recently been noted by Salo W. Baron in: Deutsche und Juden, Beitraege, etc., Frankfurt a/M, 1967, p. 84/85: "…It is unmistakable how the resistance against everything that Judaism and Christianity stand for has increased since the 70's of the 19th century, and it is no exaggeration to say that this development prepared the ground for the Nazi assumption of power…". I have dealt with this question at length in the last chapter of my book, cf. UneiTal, Christians and Jews in the Second Reich (1870-1914), Chap. V: "Christian and anti-Christian Anti-Semitism", (Hebrew), in Press, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the anti-Christian elements in racial anti-Semitism, cf. also: Edward H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews, N.Y. London, 1965, p. 180 ff. See also: Hermann Greive, Theologie und Ideologie - Katholizismus und Judentum in Deutschland und Oesterreich (1918-1935), Heidelberg, 1969. In this book the author stresses that a clear-cut distinction between Christian anti-semitism or "kirchlicher Anti-Judaismus" and racial anti- semitism or "Rassenanti-semitismus" is not warranted. His conclusion is: "…dass anti-juedische Vorurteile im Katholizismus der diskutierten Periode auf breitester Basis nachgewiesen werden koennen… Die anfaenglich vielfach nicht unerhebliche Verschiedenheit in der Judenfeindlichen Argumentation zumindest der tonangebenden Kreise in Katholizismus und auf voelkisch-antikirchlicher Seite wich im Laufe der Zeit immer weiter reichenden Vermittlungstheorien zwischen den sozial, kulturell und religioes orientierten und den voelkisch-rassischen Anti-semitismus…"; p. 222/223. A similar conclusion that stresses the direct connection between the theological and historical anti-Jewishness of Christianity and modem anti-semitism is reached by: A. Roy Eckardt, Elder and Younger Brothers -The Encounter of Jews and Christians, N.Y., 1967, Chap. 1, The Enigma, 1, p. 8: "There can be little serious doubt that Christendom's traditional antipathy to the Jews is the major historical root of anti-semitism in the Western world. Historically speaking, anti-semitism derives from 'the conflict of the Church and the Synagogue.' Here is the Crime of Christendom. Such distinguished and authoritative historians as James Parkes and Jules Isaac have chronicled this fact definitely…". This thesis, about the historical continuation between the anti-Jewish attitude in Christianity and modern anti-semitism rests not only on the theological attitude of Christianity but also on the legal history of the persecution of Jews by Christians, beginning in the forth century. This is treated by: James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue - A Study in the Origins of Anti-semitism, Cleveland, N.Y., Phil., 1961, Appendix I, p. 379 ff. A similar historiographical approach is taken by Raul Hilberg who has Drawn up a comparative list of Canonical and Nazi .Anti-Jewish Measures, in his book: The Destruction of the European Jews, Chicago, 1961 , pp. 5-6. The list also appears in the above mentioned book of A. Roy Eckhardt, p. 12 - 13, where he draws the same conclusion, namely, that the Nazis "…did not discard the past; they built upon it…". And he adds to this quotation from Hilberg: "This fact makes ludicrous any unqualified claim that the Nazis were the enemies of Christendom."
page XVIII
28 Cf. the works of E. Flannery, James Parkes, A. Roy Eckhardt, Marsch-Thieme; cf. above, and also: Karl Thieme, Der religioese Aspekt der Judenfeindschaft (Judentum und Christentum), in: "Judentum - Schicksal, Wesen und Gegenwart", hrsg. von Franz Boehm und Walter Dirks, unter Mitarbeit von Walter Gottschalk, Wiesbaden 1965, Vol. II, p. 603 IT. See also: "Judenfeindschaft. Darstellungen und Analysen," hrsg. Von Karl Thieme, Frankfurt a/M. Hamburg, 1963, 326 ff. Cf. especially the work of: Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich, "Judenfeindschaft in Deutschland von der Roemerherrschaft, bis zum Zeitalter der Totalitaet," p. 209 ff. Also: W.P. Eckert und E.L. Ehrlich, "Judenhass - Schuld der Christen?", Essen, 1964, 525 pp.
page XIX
29 Cf. the study of: Willehad Paul Eckert: "Beatus Simonius - Aus den Akten des Trienter Judenprozesses", in the above collection, note 28, edited by W.P. Eckert and by E.L. Ehrlich, p. 329 ff; also in the same collection the work of: Kurt Hruby, Verhangnisvolle Legenden und ihre Bekaempfung, p. 281 ff.
page XXI
30 Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Jewish-Christian Disputation in the Setting of Humanism and Reformation in the German Empire, H.T.R., 59 (1966), pp. 369-390. Salo W. Baron, Modern Nationalism and Religion, N.Y., Phil. (1947), 1960, Ch. V.: Protestant individualism, p. 117 ff. Cf. especially Salo W. Baron, Medieval Heritage and Modern Realities in Protestant-Jewish lielations, Diogenes Spring 1968, No. 61, p. 32 ff.
31 "Der Ungekuendigte Bund", hrsg. von Dietrich Goldschmidt und Hans Joachim Kraus, Stuttgart, 1962, p. 206.
32 Ibid., p. 218.
page XXII
33 Visser 't Hooft, pp. 35/36.
34 Ibid., p. 36.
page XXIII
35 Ibid.
36 A striking and instructive example to such a different approach has been given by the Bishops of Denmark, in their protest against the persecution of the Jews, 3 Oct. 1943. See below in this volume, on p. 168. Cf. "The Israel Digest", X1/22, Jerusalem, 1, 1, 1968, p. 3. A German translation in Freiburger Rundbrief, Vol. xx, 1968, No. 73-76, Dec. 1968, pp. 69/70. As to the historical background of this document, cf. Leni Yahil, Test of a Democracy - the Rescue of Danish Jewry in World War II, Jerusalem, 1966, pp. 59, 125, 145, 165.
37 World Council of Churches - Division of Studies, Commission on Faith and Order in cooperation with the Committee on the Church and the Jewish People: "The Relationship of the Church to the Jewish People, Collection of Statements", Geneva, July 1964, p. 19 ff.
page XXIV
38 Ibid., p. 22-23
39 Ibid,. P. 22
40 Ibid., p. 23
41 Ibid., p. 26
42 Ibid., p. 27
Footnotes from Preface ———————————
page 1
43 Much has been published about the subject of "Christian" anti-Semitism. Some literature: Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt (New York, 1965); James Parkes, Anti-semitism (Quadrangle Books, 1961); Malcolm Hay, Europe and the Jews, The Pressure of Christendom on the People of Israel for 1900 years (Second printing, Boston, 1961; this book was first published as "The Foot of Pride", in 1950); Karl Thieme (Ed.), Judenfeindschaft (in German; Fischer Bucherei KG, 1963); E. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews (New York, 1965).
page 2
44 Thus a Protestant minister from Switzerland who now lives in Israel, in The Jerusahlem Post, Sept. 27, 1963. The Speaker of the Israeli Parliament, Mr.Kadish Luz, made a similar statement in the session of the Parliament on April 21, 1963.
45 The Yad Vashem Martyrs and Heroes Memorial Authority, Jerusalem, was established by Law in 1953, The Yad Vashem Act assigned to "Yad Vashem" the task "to collect, investigate and publish all evidence regarding the Catastrophe and its heroic aspects and to inculcate its lesson upon our people".
page 3
46 Cf. Dr. Leny Yahil, Historians of the Holocaust; A Plea for a New Approach (in: The Wiener Library Bulletin, 1967/68, Vol. XXII, pp. 2-5).
47 Dr. Visser 't Hooft and Dr.A.Freudenberg, of the World Council of Churches, are preparing their memoirs. Rev. Armin Boyens is preparing his thesis which will have a chapter on "The Confessing Church and the Jews, 1933-1938".
48 Cf. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Gesammelte Schriften, Munich, 1959; in German), Vol. I, p. 9 (Introduction).
page 5
49 Cf. "La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne: Attitude des Eglises Chretiennes" (Geneva, 1933; in French), p.25.
50 See for the acts of individuals (Christians and non-Christians): Philip Friedman, Their Brothers Keepers (New York, 1957); Kurt R. Grossman, Die unbesungenen Helden (Berlin, 1957; in German); Heinz Leuner, When Compassion was a Crime (London, 1966); Saul Friedlaender, Kurt Gerstein Ou l'ambiguite du bien (Tournai, 1967; in French).
Footnotes Part I ————————
page 9
51 See below, on p. 113.
52 See below on p. 135-136.
53 See below, on p. 160.
54 E.H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews (New York,1965), p. 224.
page 10
55 See below, p. 265.
56 "Unity in Dispersion", A History of the World Jewish Congress (New York, 1948 pp. 194, 195.Also see: Dr. L. de Jong, Een Sterfgeval in Auschwitz (Amsterdam, 1967; in Dutch); an English translation will be published in Yad Vashem Studies, VII (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 39-55: "The Netherlands and Auschwitz."
57 Cf. Flannery, op. cit., p. 227: "Criticism of passivity or collaboration under the Nazis must be tempered by an understanding of the confusion wrought by the insiduous methods of Nazi propaganda and the paralysis of wills in the Nazi terror, made all the more effective by its appeal to patriotic and anti-Communist loyalties. Resistance under the circumstances should not be entirely assessed from the comfortable perspective of the postwar era.
page 11
58 "Unity in Dispersion", pp. 193-196.
59 See below, p. 255.
60 Cf. H.C. Touw, Het Verzet der Hervormde Kerk ('s Gravenhage, 1946; in Dutch), 11, p. 388-390.
page 12
61 In February, 1941, a general strike in Amsterdam and other places in the
Netherlands was called as a protest against the deportations of Jews.
The Germans proclaimed martial law and suppressed the strike by force.
They proceeded to deport a total of 430 Amsterdam Jews to the concentration
camp of Mauthausen, where they perished.
Cf. B.A. Sijes, De Februari-Staking ('s-Gravenhage, 1954; in Dutch, with an
English summary), passim.
Also see: H. Knap, Vreemdeling, Bericht de Spartanen (Amsterdam, 1966), p.
III: "The technical conditions for massive actions of solidarity with the
Jews - if our people as a whole would have wanted them - were lacking."
62 Rolf Hochhuth, The Deputy (New York, 1963; third printing), p. 79.
63 J.J. Buskes, Waar stond de Kerk? (Amsterdam, 1947; in Dutch), p. 93.
64 Francois Mauriac, quoted by Hochhuth, op. cit., p. 6.
65 Knap, op. cit., passim.
page 13
66 See below, p 259.
page 14
67 See beyond, p. 147.
68 Cf., for instance, Exodus 32, 9; Isaiah 1, 2-15; Jeremiah 7, 24-26; Ezekiel 2, 3; Hosea 4, 7- 8.
page 15
69 Werner Warmbrunn, The Dutch under German Occupation 1940-1945 (London, 1963), p. 279.
70 See below, on p. 175.
page 17
71 Jeremiah, Amos and others. Also see: I Kings 22, 5-28.
72 See below, p. 79 ff.
73 See below, p. 245 ff.
74 See below, p. 212 ff.
page 18
75 See below, on p. 201.
76 See below, on p. 99.
page 19
77 Jenoe Levai, Black Book on the Martyrdom of Hungarian Jewry (Zurich, 1948), p. 217.
page 20
78 A.J. Koejemans in De Waarheid, Sept. 20, 1945.
page 21
79 Touw, op. cit., I , p. 69
80 Cf. Dr. J. Presser, Ondergang ('s-Gravenhage, 1965; in Dutch), 11, p. 177. For the protest, which was read from the pulpits in the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, see below, pp. 130 -131.
page 22
81 Cf. H. Leuner, When Compassion was a Crime (London, 1966), p. 13: "Every possible means of propaganda and subtle psychology was used to separate Germans and Jews, to create an unbridgeable gulf between the members of the Aryan master race and those belonging to the family of 'parasites'.
82 W.A. Visser 't Hooft, The Ecumenical Movement and the Racial Problem (Paris, 1954), p.40.
83 Cf. the chapters 27-30 in this book.
84 Cf. ch. 31 in this book.
85 Cf. ch. 32, p. 233
86 Cf. chapters 33 - 34 in this book.
page 23
87 "Unity in Dispersion", pp. 160-161.
page 24
88 F. Burgdoerfer, "Die Juden in Deutschland und in der Welt"; in: "Forschungen zur Judenfrage" (Hamburg, 1938; in German), pp. 152-199.
89 Cf. ch. 18, p. 95
90 Cf. ch. 30, p. 204
page 25
91 Leuner, op. cit., p. 100.
92 Touw, op. cit., 1, p. 174.
Cf. W. A. Visser 't Hooft, The Struggle of the Dutch Church for the
Maintenance of the Commandments of God in the Life of the State (London,
1944), p. 13: "When threats were of no avail the Germans attempted to
blackmail the Churches. In this way the Churches were brought into great
conflicts of conscience. Should they give up the open protests so that
this or that group of church-members might be saved? Or should they go
forward, without regard for the consequences that might arise for others?
These are difficult questions that no one can decide on the spur of the
moment or looking at the situation from the outside."
Cf. also the opinion of a group of Christians of Jewish origin (p. 130 in
this book).
93 Abel J. Herzberg, Kroniek der Jodenvervolging (Arnhem-Amsterdam, 1950; in Dutch), p. 133.
94 Presser, op. cit., 11, p. 128.
page 26
95 Cf. ch. 22, pp. 129.
96 Cf., however, Pinchas E. Lapide, The Last Three Popes and the Jews (London,
1967), p. 138:
"At that time Archbishop Roncalli, the Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and
Greece, received Mr. Ira Hirschmann, a special emissary for the U.S. War
Refugee Board… sent to interview Yoel Brand in connection with Eichmann's
'blood for goods' deal.
Mr. Hirschmann told Roncalli of the plight of several thousand Jews,
including a number of children slated for deportation and death at Auschwitz.
The Archbishop instantly made available thousands of 'baptismal certificates'
for use for the doomed Jews, without conditions, and thousands were saved
from the Nazi furnace."
page 27
97 Quoted from a letter, dated October 14, 1965, of Dr. Jan Chabada, the
present Generalbischof of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Slovakia,
to me.
Cf. Dr. L. Rothkirchen, "Vatican Policy and the 'Jewish Problem' in
'Independent' Slovakia (1939-1945)", in: "Yad Vashem Studies" (Jerusalem,
1967), Vol. VI, p. 46: "…the Protestant clergy… for the most part
supporters of the pro-Czechoslovak line, were prominent for their more
adaptable approach, mainly in the furnishing of certificates of conversion
to Christianity. Some Protestant clergymen have even been charged with
profitmaking motives and with granting hundreds of certificates of
conversion within a day or two."
Also see: R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (Chicago, 1961),
p. 466: "From the ethnic German organ, the Grenzbote, criticism was more
vociferous. The baptisms were ternied a blasphemy, and the churchmen who
engaged in them were accused of having monetary motives. Two Calvinist
pastors, Puspas and Sedivy, were subsequently arrested, and Sedivy was
accused of having performed not fewer than 717 baptisms."
98 Peter Meyer (Ed.), The Jews in the Soviet Satellites (Syracuse University
Press, 1953), p. 571.
page 28
99 Yad Vashem Archives, No. 0311 708 (A summary of the evidence by the interviewer; in Hebrew).
100 Michael Molho and Joseph Nehama, The Destruction of Greek Jewry, 1941-1944
(Jerusalem, 1965; in Hebrew), p. 142.
101 Ilias Venezis, Archbishop Damaskinos (Athens, 1952;) in Greek), ch. 34.
page 29
102 Buskes, op. cit., p. 89.
103 J.J. Buskes, Hoera voor het Leven (Amsterdam, 1963), p. 193.
104 Romans 13, 8.
Footnotes Part II —————————
page 33
105 Wolfgang Scheffler, Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich (Berlin-Dahlem, 1960), p. 26.
page 34
106 Ibid., p. 26.
page 35
107 Ibid., pp. 79-80.
page 36
108 Ibid., p.26.
109 Cf. Bruno Blau, The Last Days of German Jewry in the Third Reich (in: Yivo Annual, vol. VIII, 1953, pp. 197-204).
page 37
110 An immense number of publications appeared about the Church in Germany
during the Third Reich. We mention here: "Die Evangelische Kirche in
Deutschland und die Judenfrage", Ausgewaehlte Dokumente aus den Jahren
des Kirchenkampfes 1933 bis 1943 (Geneva, 1945);
G.van Norden, Kirche in der Krise (Dusseldorf, 1963);
W.Jannasch, Deutsche Kirchendokumente (Zurich, 1946);
Heinrich Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf (Stuttgart, 1950);
Guenther Weisenbom, Der lautlose Aufstand (Hamburg, 1953);
Wilhelm Niemoeller, Kampf und Zeugnis der Bekennenden Kirche (Bielefeld,
1948); Wilhelm Niemoeller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich
(Bielefeld, 1956); Renate Maria Heydenreich, Versuch theologischer
Wiedergutmachung; in D. Goldschmidt und H. J. Kraus (Ed.),
Der ungekundigte Bund (Stuttgart-Berlin, 2. Auflage, 1963), pp. 183-283;
Otto Diehn, Bibliographie zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes, 1933- 1945
(Gottingen, 1958);
Anton Koch, Vom Widerstand der Kirche (Freiburg, 1947);
Friedrich Zipfel, Kirchenkampf in Deutschland 1933-1945 (Berlin, 1965);
Dr. Joseph Tenenbaum, For the Sake of Historical Balance (in: Yad Vashem
Bulletin, No. 3, Jerusalem, 1958);
Philip Friedman, Was there "another Germany" during the Nazi Period? (in:
Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Studies, Vol. x, New York, 1955).
page 38
111 Cf. the "Gesetz ueber die Rechtsverhaltnisse der Geistlichen und Kirchen- beamten" (EKD und Judenfrage, pp. 35 ff.; Heydenreich, op. cit., p. 196).
112 The full contents in: Heydenreich, op. cit. ; EKD und Judenfrage, passim.
page 39
113 Hermelink, op. cit., pp. 250-251. Cf. the article of Kurt Meier,
Kristallnacht und Kirche - die Haltung der Evangelischen Kirche zur
Judenpolitik des Faschismus (in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der
Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig, 13. Jahrgang, 1964, pp. 91-106), p .99.
114 Heydenreich, op. cit., p. 228.
115 Ibid., p. 230.
page 40
116 Hermelink, op. cit., 351.
117 Meier, op. cit., p. 99. Also see: Wilhelm Niemoeller, Die Bekennende Kirche sagt Hitler die Wahrheit (Bielefeld, passim). On August 23, 1936, the Memorandum was published as a "Proclamation from the Pulpit" in an amended form. Cf. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Gesammelte Schriften; Munich, 1958), 11, p. 277 (note).
page 41
118 Cf. "Die Evangelische Kirche und die Judenfrage", pp. 180 ff.; H.Grueber, Wemer Sylten (Berlin, 1956; in German); idem: An der Stechbahn (Berlin, 1960; in German); H.D. Leuner, When Compassion was a Crime (London, 1966). pp. 114-119.
119 Hermelink, op. cit., p. 461. Cf. Meier, op. cit., p. 100: "The reason that no joint protest was issued by the Confessing Church after the pogrom of November, 1938. was that the Confessing Church as an organization was under strong pressure at the time. On June 23, 1937, several members of the Reich Brethren Council were arrested; on July 1, 1937, also Martin Niemoeller. After that, the Reich Brethren Council was hardly able to act.
page 42
120 Die Evangelische Kirche und die Judenfrage, p. 179.
121 Meier, op. cit., p. 101
page 43
122 Cf. below, p. 244.
123 Cf. H.C. Touw, Het Verzet der Hervormde Kerk (s'Gravenhage, 1946;
in Dutch), pp. 13-34.
124 La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne, p. 21; "De Standaard" (Protestant
Daily in the Netherlands before the war), April 7, 1933.
125 Cf. below, p. 93.
126 "De Standaard", April 7, 1933.
page 44
127 Ibid., May 5 and 12, 1933.
128 Ibid., May 16 and 20, 1933.
129 Ibid., May 24 , 1933.
130 The addresses were published in the Brochure "Vrede over Israel" (Amsterdam, 1935; in Dutch). Also see: D. Cohen, Zwervend en Dolend (Haarlem, 1955; in Dutch), pp. 27-28.
131 "Dietschen stam".
132 Th.Delleman, Opdat wij niet vergeten (Kampen, 1949; in Dutch), pp. 55-69, 481-489. Action was also taken against members of the "Christian Democratic Union", a party of Christian socialists. Also see: Werner Warmbrunn, The Dutch under German Occupation 1940-1945 (London, 1963), p. 160.
page 45
133 Ben van Kaam, Opstand der Gezagsgetrouwen (Wageningen, 1966; in Dutch), p. 16.
134 Cohen, op. cit., p. 56.
135 Cf. for - at least - questionable comments in the Protestant Press on the events in Germany: van Kaam, op. cit., pp. 25-27. Also see the article "Van eigen bodem" (in: "De Standaard", Dec. 3, 1938).
136 "De Standaard", Nov. 17, 1938.
page 46
137 Ibid., November 14, 1938.
page 47
138 Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, pp. 191-192.
page 48
139 Ibid., p. 193.
140 The nickname of the Protestants in Belgium and the Netherlands, in the 16th century. It became their name of honour.
141 Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, pp. 178-179.
page 49
142 Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, pp. 200-201. La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne, p. 6.
143 Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, p. 201.
page 50
144 Ibid., pp. 202 ff. (2 x used)
page 53
145 "Pour la dignite humaine" (Brochure), pp. 48-52.
page 54
146 Archives of the Protestant Federation of France, Paris.
147.Ibid.
page 55
148 "Journal de Geneve", April 9, 1933; quoted in: La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne, p. 23.
149 La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne, p. 24.
page 56
150 Ibid., p. 24.
151 Cf. pp. 210-212.
page 57
152 Schweiz. Evang. Pressedienst (E.P.D.), Zurich, Nov. 30, 1938.
153 E.P.D., ibid., p. 2.
154 E.P.D., Dec. 14, 1938.
page 58
155 Professor Aage Bentsen, Docent Flemming Hvidberg, Professor Johannes Pedersen and Professor Frederik Torm. The declaration was published in "Berlingske Tidende".
156 Dr.Leni Yahil, Test of Democracy, The Rescue of Danish Jewry in World War II (Jerusalem, 1966; in Hebrew, with a summary in English), pp. 59-60.
page 59
157 Cf. the article of Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard in: Chr. Refslund - M. Schmidt (Ed.),Fem Aar (Copenhagen, 1946; in Danish), II, pp. 100-108.
158 Church Magazine "Kristen Gemenskap" (in Swedish), 1933, No. 2.
page 60
159 Ibid., 1933, No. 2.
page 61
160 Ibid., 1934, No. 19.
page 63
161 Ibid., 1938, No. 4.
page 64
162 Ibid.
163 The Hungarian Upper House had 254 members, including 34 representatives of the Churches. Cf. Albert Bereczky, Hungarian Protestantism and the Persecution of the Jews (Budapest, 1946), p. 8. Also see: Hendrik Fisch (Ed.), Kerestzteny egyhazfok felsohazi beszedi a zsidokerdesben (The Speeches on the Jewish Question by Christian Church Leaders in the Upper House; Budapest, 1947; in Hungarian); and: "Schweiz. evang. Pressedienst" (Zurich), March 27, 1946, pp. 3-6.
page 65
164 Jeno Levai, Black Book on the Martyrdom of Hungarian Jewry (Zurich, 1948), p. 12.
165 Rabbi Hershkovits in my interview with him on March 29, 1966.
166 Cf. Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
167 R.Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (Chicago, 1961), p. 514. Cf. "Schweiz. evang. Pressedienst", March 27, 1946, p. 5: "Special endeavours were made on behalf of the Protestant Jews, not because they belonged to the Church but because it was easier to attain something for them."
page 66
168 "Dimineata", Bucharest, April 15, 1933; quoted in: "La Persecution des
Juifs en Allemagne", p. 22.
169 Other protests, statements and declarations:
Speech by the Bishop of Fulham ("The Times", April 27, 1933).
Speech by the Vicar of Leeds (Manchester Guardian, April 10, 1933).
Speech by the Bishop of Liverpool (Liverpool Post, April 6, 1933).
Speech by the Bishop of Nottingham (Manchester Guardian, May 3, 1933).
Resolution of the Council of the World Evangelical Alliance, British
Section; May 1, 1933
(Dr.A.Freudenberg, the Church and the Jewish Question; Geneva, 1944; p.18).
Resolution of the Baptist Union of Scotland (Glasgow Herald, June 6, 1933).
Message from the Bishop of Durham; "J'accuse" (brochure, London), p. 93.
Letter from the Bishop of Chichester to "The Times", May 30, 1935.
page 67
170 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 3
171 Ibid., p. 4.
page 68
172 Ibid., p. 4
173 Ibid., p. 5
174 Ibid., p. 3.
page 69
175 Ibid., p. 5 . Cf. "Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs", pp. 218 - 219. Also see: "La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne", pp. 12-13.
page 70
176 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 18.
177 Reports to the General Assembly, 1933, p. 709.
178 See p. 79.
page 71
179 Acts, Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly, 1934, p. 79.
180 Reports to the General Assembly, 1935, p. 772.
page 72
181 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 15.
182 From the "Reports and Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of England", 1934.
page 73
183 The Church Assembly of the Church of England usually meets for three
sessions a year. It consists of the three houses of Bishops, clergy
and laity.
At present there are 734 members: 34 Bishops, 344 clergymen and 347
laymen.
page 75
184 "The Times", November 21, 1935. The full report in the Brochure "The Jews in Germany", Debate in the Church Assembly, Nov. 20th, 1935, London.
185 Cf. R.C.D. Jasper, George Bell Bishop of Chichester (London, 1967), passim.
186 See above, on p. 74.
187 Jasper, op. cit., pp. 137-138.
page 76
188 The Diocesan Conferences meet once a year or at most, twice. They are the local counterpart of the Church Assembly and consist of two houses, the Chamber of Clergy and the Chamber of Laity. The Bishop is always the president of the Diocesan Conference.
189 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 7.
190 Cf. Jasper, op. cit., pp. 135-163. Also cf.: Norman Bentwich, They Found Refuge (London, 1956), pp. 43 and 51.
page 77
191 Minutes of the meetings of the Church Assembly (Archives of Church House, Great Smith Street, Westminster).
page 78
192 Jasper, op. cit., pp. 142-143.
193 "Reports and Minutes of the General Assembly", 1937.
194 Freudenberg, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
page 79
195 Reports to the General Assembly, 1936, p. 709.
196 Acts, Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly, 1937, p. 71.
197 Reports to the General Assembly, 1938, p. 753.
page 80
198 "The Times", November 12, 1938.
199 Minutes of the meetings of the Church Assembly (Archives of Church House, Great Smith Street, Westminster).
200 See p. 101.
page 81
201 Norman Bentwich, They Found Refuge (London, 1956), p. 69. Also see pp. 78-85.
202 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 33.
page 82
203 Reports to the General Assembly, 1939, pp. 691-693. See for the full text
of Dr.Black's letter: The Jewish Chronicle, Nov. 25, 1938, p. 26.
204 Minutes of the Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland,
held in June, 1939.
205 Keesing's Contempary Archives, March 22, 1933; 725-E.
page 83
206 Keesing, March 30, 1933; 735-B.
207 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 19. Cf. "La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne", p. 5; and: "Le IIIe Reich et Les Juifs", p. 224.
page 84
208 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 20.
page 85
209 I See above, p. 72 . ff.
210 Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, Across the Years (The Macmillan Co., 1936), p.168.
211 Ibid., p. 168.
page 86
212 Ibid., p. 169.
213 The New York Times, June 9, 1937; Freudenberg, op. cit., pp. 20 - 21.
page 87
214 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 31.
215 Federal Council Bulletin, October 1938, p. 13.
216 Ibid., December 1938, p. 3.
page 88
217 Ibid., October 1938, p. 13.
218 Ibid., December 1938, p. 9
219 Ibid.
page 89
220 The New York Times, Jan. 10, 1939. Among the signers were: Dr. Samuel
McCrea Cavert, Federal Council of Churches; the Rt. Rev. Edwin H.Hughes,
Bishop of Washington area, Methodist Episcopal Church; Bishop Charles
Mead, Methodist Episcopal Church, Kansas City.
221 Cf. Arthur Morse, While Six Million Died (London, 1968), p. 253.
222 The New York Times, Febr. 19, 1939. Cf. Federal Council Bulletin, Febr., 1939, p. 7.
223 Morse, op. cit., p. 268. Cf. Arieh Tartakower and Kurt R.Grossmann, The Jewish Refugee (New York, 194.4). p. 90: "One of the chief arguments raised against this bill was that the admittance of 20,000 refugee children to the United States from Germany and the refusal to admit their parents would be against the laws of God, and therefore would be an opening wedge for a later request for the admission of about 40,000 adults, the parents of the children in question."
page 90
224 The New York Times, March 26, 1939.
225 Ibid., April 27, 1939.
page 91
226 National Council of Churches, Department of Information.
page 92
227 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 51; Federal Council Bulletin, Febr, 1939, p.3 ff.
228 The New York Times, May 31, 1939
229 Ibid., June 13, 1939.
page 93
230 See above, p. 38.
231 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 22. Cf. "La Persecution des Juifs en Allemagne", p. 27. The Resolution had been requested by the Dutch Council (see above, p. 43).
232 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 23.
page 94
233 Jasper, op. cit., p. 101.
234 Minutes, Novi Sad, 1939, pp. 37-38. Cf. Jasper, op. cit., p. 104.
235 See above, p. 38.
236 Jasper, op. cit., p. 105.
page 95
237 "Le Christianisme Social" (French Protestant Periodical), Nov. - Dec. 1933, p. 606.
page 96
238 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 27.
page 97
239 Ibid., pp. 28-29.
240 Cf. for the Oxford Conference: "The Churches Survey Their Task" (The Report of the Conference of Oxford, July 1937, on Church, Community, and State; with and Introduction by J.H.Oldham), London, 1937. Also see: Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neil (Ed.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948 (London, 1954) pp. 587-592. The essential theme of the Oxford Conference, as was stated in the first announcement of it, was: "The life and death struggle between the Christian faith and the secular and pagan tendencies of our time."
page 98
241 Jasper, op. cit., pp. 221-223.
242 "The Churches Survey Their Task", pp. 58-59.
page 99
243 Ibid., pp. 230-238. Cf. pp. 72-73 (the Report on the Church and Race).
244 See p. 259.
245 See p. 142.
page 100
246 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 24.
247 A conference about the Refugee Problem, called by President Roosevelt, was held at Evian, in July, 1938. It was attended by representatives of 32 countries.
page 101
248 Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva.
249 See above, on p. 88 . ff.
250 See above, on p. 95.
251 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 32.
252 "Conversation entre le Dr.Visser 't Hooft, le Dr.Freudenberg et le Dr.Barot, concernant les activites Cimade-wcc pendant la guerre" (Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva; in French).
Footnotes PART III —————————-
page 107
253 See for Rev. Grueber's activities: pp. 40-41.
254 Max Krakauer, Lichter im Dunkel (Stuttgart, 1947; in German), passim.
255 Krakauer, op. cit., p. 131.
page 110
256 Hermelink, op. Cit., 651-652.
page 111
257 Ibid., p. 564-565.
Cf. Meier, op. cit., p. 104: "Apparently Wurm did not protest publicly,
as he wanted to avoid providing amunition to the foreign press and thus
provoking the National-Socialist authorities, which would have blocked
the way of sending petitions in writing to the Government".
258 Hermelink, op. cit., pp. 654-656.
259 Ibid., pp. 657-658. See for the angry reply of Dr. Lammers: Hermelink, op. cit., pp. 700-702. The letter was dated March 3, 1944. Bishop Wurm wrote another letter, dated Febr. 8, 1945, to Reichsstatthalter Murr, on behalf of the partners in mixed marriages (Hermelink, op. cit., pp. 658-660).
page 113
260 "Der ungekundigte Bund", pp. 246-247.
The Message was dated Oct. 17, 1943, and published by "The New York
Times, on August 4, 1944.
In the Lutheran Churches, the fifth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill.
261 See below on p. 294.
262 Quoted by Friedman, op. cit., p 100.
263 Heinrich Grueber, Dona Nobis Pacem (Berlin, 1956; in German), p. 104.
page 114
264 "Die Evangelische Kirche und die Judenfrage", pp. 6, 10, 13 and 14.
265 See below, pp. 291-295.
page 115
266 see above, on pp. 111(note I ) and 113 (note I ) Cf. p. 40 (the fate of
Dr. Weissler).
267 Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London, 1964),
pp. 23-294.
page 116
268 J.Tenenbaum, Race and Reich (New York, 1956), p. 292. Also see: Jacob Robinson, And the Crooked Shall be Made Straight (New York, 1965), p. 243; Hilberg, op. cit., p. 356.
page 118
269 The original test in: H.C. Christie, Den Norske Kirke I Kamp (Oslo, 1945; in Norwegian), pp. 267-268. An English translation in: Bjarne Hoye and Trygve M. Ager, "The Fight of the Norwegian Church against Nazism" (New York, 1943), pp. 146-149.
page 119
270 See pp. 227-228.
271 "The Spiritual Issues of the War", No. 167, Jan. 14, 1943.
272 Christie, op. cit., p. 281.
page 120
273 Dr. J. Presser, Ondergang ('s-Gravenhage, 1965; two volumes; in Dutch; an English edition is in preparation). Also see: Robinson, op. cit., pp. 240-243; Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 365-381; Abel J. Herzberg, Kroniek der Jodenvervolging (Arnhem-Amsterdam, 1950; in Dutch), passim.
274 We shall write the name of this Church in capitals, in order to prevent confusion with the "Reformed Churches in the Netherlands".
page 121
275 "Interkerkelijk Overleg." Cf. H.C. Touw, Het Verzet der Hervormde Kerk ('s Gravenhage, 1946; in Dutch), 1, pp. 42-43, 138-141.
276 Cf. J.J. Buskes, Waar stond de Kerk? (Amsterdam, 1947; in Dutch), pp. 77-87. Also see: Touw, op. cit., I, pp. 47, 85 , 373-375; Delleman, op. cit., pp. 35-39.
277 Touw, op. cit., 11, pp. 259 - 260.
278 Buskes, op. cit., p. 79.
pag 122
279 A moving exception was N. H. de Graaf. See for his protest: W. A. Visser 't Hooft, The Struggle of the Dutch Church for the Maintenance of the Commandments of God in the Life of the State (London, 1944), pp. 16- 17. A few days later Mr. de Graaf was arrested and sent to a concentration camp. He did not return.
280 The full text in Touw, op. cit., 11, pp. 209-215.
281 Touw, op. cit., I, p. 392.
282 Ibid., 11, pp. 227-232. An English translation of this and most of the other documents quoted in this chapter, in Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., passim.
page 123
283 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., pp. 23-24.
284 Cf. Touw, op. cit., pp. 132-134; Buskes, op. cit., pp. 62- 63; Delleman, op. cit., pp. 40, 78- 80.
page 124
285 Touw, op. cit., 11, p. 32; Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., pp. 26-27.
page 125
286 Cf. Buskes, op. cit., pp. 35-36; Touw, op. cit., 1, p. 171; Delleman, op. cit., pp. 81-83.
287 Delleman, op. cit., pp. 42-44, 512-516.
page 126
288 Quoted in "Hitler's Ten Year War on the Jews", p. 244.
289 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., pp. 42-45; Touw, op. cit., 1, pp. 388-392; 11, pp. 66- 67; Delleman, pp. 92-100.
290 Ibid.
page 127
291 Touw, op. cit., 11, pp. 78- 83.
292 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., p. 36; Touw, op. cit., 11, p. 84.
293 Touw, op. cit., I, pp. 395-397.
page 128
294 Buskes, p. 69.
295 Touw, op. cit., 11, p. 101.
page 129
296 Ibid., I, p. 404.
297 Louis de Jong, Jews and non Jews in Nazi-Occupied Holland (in: On the Track of Tyranny, ed. Max Beloff; London, 1960), pp. 148-149. Presser is of the opinion that the other Protestant Churches would not have read out the telegram from their pulpits, if they had known about the threat, but that they were not warned against doing so (Presser, op. cit., 1, pp. 260-261). Wielek (in: H. Wielek, De Oorlog die Hitler won, Amsterdam, 1947; p. 218) is of the same opinion. The other Churches, however, did know about the threat. Cf. Henberg, p. 134; Delleman, pp. 155-157; Buskes, p. 50. Also see the version of the German General Commissioner Schmidt, quoted in Touw, 1, pp. 405-406.
298 Delta, Spring 1965, Vol. VIII/No. 1 (A Review of Arts, Life and Thought in the Netherlands), pp. 28-29.
page 130
299 Touw, op. cit., 1, p. 173.
300 Ibid., 1, p. 423.
page 131
301 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., pp. 52-55.
302 For practical results of this protest, see above, on p. 21. Also see: L. de Jong, De Bezetting (Amsterdam, 1963; in Dutch), 111, pp. 30-31.
page 132
303 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., pp. 56-58; Touw, op. cit., pp. 150-151.
304 Touw, op. cit., 11, pp. 155-156.
305 "Delta", p. 88.
page 133
306 Touw, op. cit., pp. 169-170. Also see: pp. 177-179.
page 134
307 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., pp. 66-67; Touw, op. cit., 1, p. 394; 11, pp. 161-169.
page 135
308 Visser 't Hooft, op. cit., p. 7.
309 Touw, op. cit., 1, pp. 371, 434.
310 Wielek, op. cit., p. 216.
311 Werner Warmbrunn, The Dutch under German Occupation 1940-1945 (London, 1963), p. 271.
312 Ibid., p. 279.
page 136
313 J. J. Buskes in the Protestant Weekly "Hervormd Nederland", May 1, 1966.
314 Touw, op. cit., 1, p. 660.
315 Hilberg, op. cit., p. 364. Cf. for the situation in France during the war: Robert Aron, L'Histoire de Vichy (Paris, 1959; in French).
316 Hilberg, op. cit., p. 392.
317 Robinson, op. cit., p. 237.
page 137
318 Tenenbaum, op. cit., p. 280.
319 Chief Rabbi Kaplan in L'Arche, No. 1 10, April 1966, p. 26.
page 138
320 L. Poliakov, Harvest of Hatred (Pocket Edition, 1960), p. 251.
321 Cf. p. 145. Cf. Rev. Boegner's letter to Laval: "Authorized to speak on
behalf of the Protestant Churches of the entire world, many of which have
already asked my intervention…" (p. 146).
322 "Les Eglises Protestantes pendant la guerre et l'occupation; Actes de
l'Assemblee Generale du Protestantisme Francais reunie a Nimes,
du 22 au 26 octobre 1945." (Paris, 1946; in French), p. 18.
323 Ibid., p. 23.
page 139
324 Ibid., p. 24.
page 140
325 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
page 141
326 Ibid., p. 26.
page 142
327 Ibid., pp. 27-28. The letter was submitted to Marshal Petain on June 27, 1942.
328 A copy of the letter is in the Archives of the "Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie", Amsterdam; file: "De Zwitserse weg". For the Oxford Conference, see pp. 97-99.
page 143
329 Cf. Henri Cadier in: La Chretiente au Creuset de L'epreuve, Vol. 11, p. 631 (Geneva, 1947; in French).
page 144
330 Cf. Robinson, op. cit., p. 236; Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 407-408.
331 "Les Eglises Protestantes…", pp. 28-29.
332 "Cimade" (Comite Inter-Mouvement aupres des Evacues), the organization brought into being during the second world war by the Protestant Churches and the lay youth movements in France.
333 "Les Eglises Protestantes…", pp. 28-29.
page 145
334 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
page 146
335 Hilberg, op. cit., p. 409.
336 "Les Eglises Protestantes…", p. 31.
337 Ibid., pp. 33-34.
Cf. p. 279 in this book: "Another endeavour to save lives failed.
The Ecumenical Committee for Refugees had, with the help of American
Christians, succeeded in obtaining entrance visas into the United
States for 1,000 Jewish children from France, but the occupation of
Southern France by the Germans foiled this plan." Also see: Donald A.
Lowrie, The Hunted Children (New York, 1963), pp. 218-228.
page 147
338 "Les Eglises Protestantes…", pp. 34-35.
339 Luke 10, 30-37.
page 148
340 Sami Lattes, L'Attitude de L'Eglise en France a L'Egard des Juifs pendant la persecution (in: Les Juifs en Europe, p. 169).
page 149
341 L. Poliakov, L'Hostellerie des Musiciens. Quoted by David Knout in: Contribution a L'histoire de la Resistance Juive en France (Paris, 1947), pp. 107-109.
342 C.I.M.A.D.E.: See above on p. 14 (note 2).
343 Emile C. Fabre (Ed.), Les Clandestins de Dieu (Paris, 1968; in French), p. 31.
page 150
344 Ibid., p. 31.
345 Ibid., p. 66.
346 Ibid., p. 33.
347 Ibid., p. 35.
348 Ibid., p. 117.
349 Ibid., p. 120.
350 Cf., p. 212 ff.
351 "Les Clandestins de Dieu," p. 27; cf. p. 279. in this book.
page 151
352 Particulars taken from Tenenbaum, op. cit., pp. 301, 339.
353 Cf. Edmond Paris, Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945 (Chicago, 1959).
354 Joseph Schechtman in: "Hitler's Ten-Year War on the Jews", pp. 99-100.
355 Ibid., p. 108.
page 152
356 See, however, the chapters in this book on Greece, Rumania and Bulgaria.
357 Tenenbaum, op. cit., p. 79.
358 Hilberg, op. cit., p. 42; Tenenbaum, op. cit., pp. 307-308.
359 Philip Friedman, Their Brothers' Keepers (New York, 1957), p. 109.
page 153
360 Michael Molho and Joseph Nehama, The Destruction of Greek Jewry, 1941-1944 (Jerusalem, 1965; in Hebrew), p. 101.
361 Mr. Moissis in a letter to me dated November 2, 1966.
362 The following particulars (unless other sources are mentioned) are taken from: Ilias Venezis, Archbishop Damaskinos (Athens, 1952; in Greek); chapter 34.
page 156
363 For the text of this memorandum in French, see: Michael Molho, In Memoriam (Salonika, 1948), I, pp. 118-120. The text in Hebrew in: Molho-Nehama, op. cit., pp. 106-107.
page 159
364 Molho-Nehama, op. cit., p. 142.
365 Tenenbaum, op. cit., p. 106.
page 160
366 Nathan Eck, New Light on the Charges Against the Last Chief Rabbi of
Salonica (in: Yad Vashem Bulletin No. 17, Jerusalem; December, 1965),
p. 14.
Cf. the "Bericht eines aus Athen gefluechteten" (General Zionist Archives,
Jerusalem, No. 841/44): "Man muss gestehen, dass die Einwohnerschaft von
Athen sich menschlicher betragen haben als diejenige aus Saloniki.
367 Friedman, op. cit., p. 106.
page 161
368 Molho-Nehama, op. cit., p. 224.
369 Ibid., pp. 135-136. Cf. Friedman, op. cit., p. 107: "Leaders of the Jewish community insisted that Rabbi Barzilai take refuge, a notion he rejected until Archbishop Damaskinos prevailed upon him to change his mind."
370 "The Situation of the Jews in Greece" (Published by the World Jewish
Congress, New York, 1944), p. 7.
371 Asscher Moissis, La situation des Communautes juives en Grece (in: "Les
Juifs en Europe"), p. 54. Quoted by Tenenbaum, op. cit., p. 310.
page 162
372 Mr Moissis in his letter to me dated November 2, 1966. Another information from the same source: "After the Germans had called the Chief Rabbi of Volos, ordering him to take the necessary steps to facilitate the deportations, the latter went to the Bishop of Volos asking his advice and help. The Bishop advised him to abstain from collaboration whatsoever, and helped him to go into hiding; the majority of the Jewish population of Volos followed suit and thus was saved from deportation to Auschwitz."
373 The pastors were followers of Grundtvig (1783-1872), the teachings of whom in the opinion of Mrs. Yahil had a great influence on the views and attitude of Christians in Denmark during the German occupation. Cf. Dr. Leni Yahil, Test of Democracy, the Rescue of Danish Jewry in World War II (Jerusalem, 1966; in Hebrew, with a summary in English), p. 25.
page 163
374 Yahil, op. cit., p. 33.
Cf. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard in: "Chr. Refslund & M.Schmidt (Ed.), Fern Aar (Copenhagen, 1946; in Danish, p. 101: "Our Jews urgently requested [during the first years of the war] that as far as possible there should be silence about the Jewish question".
375 Yahil, op. cit., p. 33.
376 Ibid.
377 Ibid., pp. 164-165. The full text of the article in: "The Spiritual Issues of the War", No. 144, August 6, 1942.
page 164
378 "Christians Protest Persecution" (Religious News Service, "The National
Conference of Christians and Jews", New York), p. 14.
379 Boris Shub (Ed.), Hitler's Ten Year War on the Jews (New York, 1943),
p. 220.
380 Yahil, op. cit., pp. 164-165.
381 "Christians Protest Persecution", p. 14.
382 Harald Sandbaek and N. J.Rald (Ed.), Den danske Kirche UNDER BESAETTELSEN (Copenhagen, 1945; in Danish), pp. 27-28. Cf. Hugh Martin (Ed.), Christian Counter-Attack (London, 1943), pp. 74-75.
page 165
383 Robinson, op. cit., pp. 243-247; Yahil, op. cit., pp. 158-193.
384 Fuglsang-Damgaard, op. cit., p. 102 ff.
page 166
385 Ibid.
Cf. Yahil, op. cit., p. 148: "Not only Svenningsen, however, was misled
by Best and believed in his promises that the Jews were not in danger,
but also Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard came to the congregation, on Sept. 28th,
at 3 p.m., in order to reassure its leaders, telling them that he knew
from very reliable sources that the rumours were without foundation.
386 The Danish resistance movement consisted of "study circles". In Copenhagen such circles were organized on professional lines - architects, doctors, clergymen etc. The P.U.F. was the "study circle" of pastors. Not less than 90% of all pastors belonged to it. (Cf. Yahil, op. cit., p.160).
pag 167
387 Fuglsang-Damgaard, op. cit., p. 103.
388 Ibid., pp. 104-105.
389 Ibid., p. 105.
pag 168
390 Ibid., pp. 105-106.
391 Sandbaek and Rald, op. cit., pp. 21-22. Cf. "Fem Aar", 11, pp. 141-142.
pag 169
392 Yahil, op. cit., p. 166.
pag 170
393 Fuglsang-Damgaard, op. cit., p. 106
394 Ibid., p. 107.
page 171
395 "International Christian Press & Information Service, Geneva, No. 43, December, 1943.
396 "Fem Aar", 11, p. 144.
page 172
397 Dr. Samuel Stefan Osusky, Sluzba Narodu (Bratislava, 1947; in Slovakian), 11, pp. 133, 136.
page 173
398 Cf. for the historical particulars: Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 458-475; Tenenbaum, op. cit., pp. 318-321; the article of Dr. F. Steiner, "La situation des Juifs en Slovaquie" (in: "Les Juifs en Europe", pp. 216-220); and especially the comprehensive book of Dr.Livia Rothkirchen, The Destruction of Slovak Jewry (Jerusalem, 1961), passim.
page 174
399 Osusky, op. cit., pp. 230-231.
page 175
400 Cf. for the historical data: Robinson, op. cit., pp. 258-265; Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 485-509; Tenebaum, op. cit., pp. 312-317; also see the comprehensive work of Theodore Lavi: "Roumanian Jewry in World War II" (in Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1965), especially pp. 11-13.
401 "Hitler's Ten-Year War on the Jews", p. 84.
402 Dr.Alexandre Safran, L'oeuvre de sauvetage de la population juive accomplie pendant l'oppression nazie en Roumanie (in: "Les Juifs en Europe"; in French), p. 209. Cf. Lavie, op. cit., pp. 108-110.
page 176
403 Safran, op. cit., p. 209.
404 Ibid., p. 210.
page 177
405 Dr. Safran's secretary, Israel Lebanon, related about this meeting: "Rabbi Safran quoted texts from the Old Testament and dwelt on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, etc." (Lavie, op. cit., p. 110).
406 Safran, op. cit., pp. 211 - 212.
page 178
407 Matatias Carp, Le martyre des Juifs de Roumanie (in: "Les Juifs en Europe"), p. 204.
page 179
408 International Press & Information Service, Geneva, May 1942, No. 16.
409 Ibid.
410 For the "German Christians", see above, on p. 36.
page 180
411 Bishop Mueller's letter to me, dated Dec. 2, 1965.
412 Dr. Safran's letter to me, dated April 18, 1966.
page 181
413 Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 474-475.
page 182
414 Yad Vashem Archives, 013/7-1. On the original there is a marginal note in handwriting: "I have read and investigated and shall take into consideration the contents of the above. 15. 11. 1940."
415 B. J. Arditi, Les Juifs de Bulgarie sous le regime Nazi 1940-1944 (Tel-Aviv, 1962; in Hebrew), pp. 201-202.
page 183
416 Ibid., p. 92.
417 Robinson, op. cit., p. 258; Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 474-484 . Cf. "Bulgarian Atrocities In Greek Macedonia and Thrace", A Report of Professors of the Universities of Athens and Salonica (Athens, 1945), p. 47: "The whole Jewish population of Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace, about 9,000 persons, were taken away in the night of the 3rd of March, 1943… Three or four days later …they were handed over to the Germans."
page 184
418 Yad Vashem Archives, 03/963, pp. 40-43 (in Hebrew).
419 Yad Vashem Archives, 03/1707 (in Hebrew).
page 188
420 Misho Leviev, Nashata Blagodarnost ("Our Gratitude", in Bulgarian; Sofia, 1945), pp. 81-86. Eleven Metropolitans signed, according to their dioceses.
page 189
421 Arditi, op. cit., p. 202.
422 Hilberg, op. cit., p. 483.
page 190
423 Yad Vashem Archives, No. 03/1707 (in Hebrew). Mr.Moshonov was a goldsmith
who supplied the King's palace with jewelry and had free access to the
palace.
Also see: Ely Barouch, Iz Istoriata na Bulgarskoto Evrejstvo ("From the
History of Bulgarian Jewry", Tel Aviv, 1960; in Bulgarian), p. 146:
IUGo, 'the Metropolitan began, 'and tell your people that the King
solemnly promised before the Prime Minister and before me, that the Jews
of Bulgaria will not be expelled from the country. Go and transmit to
them this information; reassure them and let they believe in the good
principle that the Lord never forgets his children.
Go in peace.'It was with those words that the Metropolitan Stephan received
the delegation of Rabbi Daniel Ben Zion, Rabbi Asher Hananel and Menachem
Moshonov, on May 24, 1943, when the Jews of Sofia were gathered together
in the synagogue Yutch-Bunar in order to beseech mercy and salvation from
God, as it had become known to them that Bulgarian Jewry would also be
deported to be murdered in Poland. Cf. Arditi, op. cit., pp. 216-217.
424 Cf. p. 186 in this chapter.
page 191
425 Literally: "bake your head"
page 192
426 Solomon Samuel Mashiach in his article "Who saved us?", published in the newspaper "Narodno Delo (Sofia, No. 467, July 4, 1958; in Bulgarian). Quoted by Barouch, op. cit., pp. 147-149.
427 Arditi, op. cit., p. 374. Cf. Matthew 7, 2.
428 Leviev, op. cit., p. 88.
Cf. Arditi, op. cit., p. 289: "When the Metropolitan Kyril was convinced
that the local authorities and the representatives of the Government were
not inclined to help the Jews, he sent a telegram to the King, in which
he declared that he would cease to be the King's loyal subject and that
he would act as seemed right to him and according to the dictates of
his conscience as a religious man, if the instructions for expulsion
were not cancelled."
page 193
429 Leviev, op. cit., pp. 88-89.
page 194
430 Testimony of Joseph Geron (in Hebrew); Yad Vashem Archives, No. 03/1707.
431 Cf. above, on p. 183 (note 2).
page 195
432 For the historical data in this chapter, see: Robinson, op. cit., pp. 265-269; Hilberg, op. cit., pp. 509-554; Tenenbaum, op. cit., pp. 321-332; Livia Rothkirchen, The Attitude of the Vatican and the Churches in Hungary towards "The Solution of the Jewish Question" (in: "Ha Ummah" (The Nation), Quarterly, Jerusalem; in Hebrew), 1967, No. 21, pp. 79-85.
433 For the first and second anti-Jewish law, see above, pp. 64-65.
434 Albert Bereczky, Hungarian Protestantism and the Persecution of the Jews (Budapest, 1946), p. 10. Also see: Jeno Levai, Black Book on the Martyrdom of Hungarian Jewry (Zurich, 1948), p. 25.
435 Dr. Mathe's letter to me, dated Aug. 24, 1967.
page 196
436 Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 12 - 13.
page 197
437 Levai, op. cit., pp. 92- 93; Bereczky, op. cit., p. 14.
438 Ibid.
page 198
439 Bereczky, op. cit., p. 14; cf. Levai, op. cit p 93.
440 Levai, op. cit., p. 117; cf. Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 15-16.
441 Levai, op. cit., p. 117; cf. Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 16-18.
page 199
442 Levai, op. cit., p. 217.
443 Bereczky, op. cit., p. 16.
page 200
444 ibid., pp. 19-21; Levai, op. cit., 217-218.
page 201
445 Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 21 - 24; Levai, op. cit., 218- 220. Bishop Ravasz and the Lutheran Bishop Bela Kapi had together prepared the draft. The Protest was signed by all the Bishops of the Reformed and the Lutheran Churches (Levai, pp. 218, 220).
page 202
446 Levai, op. cit., pp. 220-221; Bereczky, op. cit., p. 24.
447 Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva. The report was dated: Budapest, June 26, 1944.
page 203
448 Levai, op. cit., pp. 221 - 222; Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 24- 26.
page 204
449 Levai, op. cit., p. 222; Berezcky, op. cit., pp. 27-28.
450 Levai, op. cit., p. 223; Bereczky, op. cit., p. 28.
451 Dr. Mathe's letter to me, dated Aug. 24, 1967.
452 Cf. p. 256.
page 205
453 Levai, op. cit., pp. 360-361; Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 34-35.
page 206
454 Levai, op. cit., p. 361; cf. Bereczky, op. cit., pp. 35-37.
455 Bereczky, op. cit., p. 37.
456 Ibid.
457 Rothkirchen, "The Attitude of the Vatican…", p. 85. Quoted from: Erno Munkhcsi, Hogyan tortent' Adatok es okmhyok a magyar zsidesAg Tragediej Ahoz (Budapest, 1947; in Hungarian), p. 146.
page 207
458 For the press censorship in Switzerland during the war, see: Dr. Carl Ludwig, Die Fluchtlingspolitik der Schweiz seit 1933 bis zur Gegenwart (Bericht an den Bundesrat zuhanden der eidgenossischen Rate, Zu 7347), pp. 141, 142, 247, 289.
page 208
459 "Schweiz. Evang. Pressedienst" (E.P.D.), Nov. 12, 1941.
page 209
460 E.P.D. , Nov. 19, 1941. Cf. "International Christian Press & Information Service" (I.C.P.I.S.), Geneva, Nov., 1941. Also see: Alfred A. Hasler, Das Boot ist voll (Zurich, 1968; second impression, in German), pp. 131-133.
461 E.P.D., Nov. 19, 1941; cf. I.C.P.I.S., Nov., 1941.
page 210
462 E.P.D., Sept. 2, 1942. Cf. Hasler, op. cit., pp. 147-150.
463 E.P.D., Oct. 29, 1942.
page 211
464 Ibid., May 24, 1942.
page 212
465 Ibid., July 15, 1942. Cf. "The Spiritual Issues of the War", Aug. 6, 1942.
466 I.C.P.I.S., NO. 34, Oct. 1942.
467 Cf. the Report: "Schweiz. Sammlung fur die Fluchtlingshilfe, Oct.-Nov. 1942" (Erstattet von der Schweiz. Zentralstelle fur Fluchtlingshilfe), p. 15.
page 213
468 Cf. above, on p. 56.
469 Ludwig. op. cit., pp. 204-205.
470 Ibid., p. 209. Cf. Arieh Tartakower and Kurt R. Grossmann, The Jewish Refugee (New York, 1944), p. 294: "Thus the Council of the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches appealed to the Federal authorities in August, 1942, urging that the right of asylum be not denied to non-Aryan refugees who recently arrived in Switzerland, and that liberal methods be applied to those who may yet come. Again, in September of that year, when the wave of deportations of Jews from France, Belgium, and Holland reached its crest, the Swiss National Protestant Church, in a pastoral letter concerning a nation-wide fast which was read from every pulpit, declared: '…We forsake our first love if we forget that our country must remain, as far as possible, a haven of refuge for the persecuted and refugees. To abandon this role is to betray our spiritual heritage, is 'to lose our soul in order to gain the world?. In particular, we cannot remain indifferent to the lot of the people of Israel, in whose midst our Saviour was born and who are today the object of measures whose cruelty and iniquity are the shame of our age…?"
471 Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 208-210; cf. E.P.D., August. 26, 1942; Hasler, op. cit., pp. 138-139.
page 214
472 See above, on p. 210.
473 E.P.D., Sept. 2, 1942. Cf. Hasler, op. cit., pp. 122-125. Also see Ludwig, op. cit., p. 373: "In autumn 1942, when we had 10,000-12,000 refugees, it was declared that the lifeboat was fully occupied and the possibility of accepting refugees exhausted. At the end of the war Switzerland harboured 115,000 refugees." Cf. the reply of Federal Councillor von Steiger (Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 393-394).
page 215
474 Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 222-224.
475 Cf. Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 214-222.
page 216
476 E.P.D., Oct. 29, 1942.
477 Cf. the Report "Schweiz. Sammlung fur die Fluchtlingshilfe, Oct.-Nov. 1942 ", p.8.
478 ibid., p. 40. Cf. Hasler, op. cit., pp. 186-187. Alsosee: Ludwig, op. cit., p. 228: "The result of the collection (about Fr. 1,500,000.-) organized by the Swiss Central Office for Aid to Refugees and vigorously supported by the 'Young Church', showed that a large proportion of the Swiss people was moved by the fate of the refugees.
page 217
479 "Schweiz. Sammlung fur die Fluchtlingshilfe…", p. 31. For another statement made by Prof. Karl Bart, see Hasler, op. cit., pp. 129-130.
480 Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 228-229.
page 218
481 See above, on pp. 214 - 215.
482 Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 229-231.
483 "Bericht des Schweiz. Kirchl. Hilfskommittee fur Evang. Fluchtlinge uber das Jahr 1943", p. 1.
484 Ludwig, op. cit., pp. 245-246.
485 E.P.D., June 16, 1943. Cf. Ludwig, op. cit., p. 245.
page 219
486 Ibid., Oct. 20, 1934.
page 220
487 Ibid., Nov. 11, 1943.
488 Ludwig, op. cit., p. 268.
489 Schweizerisches Evangelisches Hilfswerk fur die Bekennende Kirche in Deutschland.
page 222
490 E.P.D., June 22, 1943.
491 The following books were published : "Judennot und Christenglaube" (Zurich, 1943); "Soll ich meines Bruders Huter sein?" (Zurich, 1944); "Aus Not und Rettung" (Edited by Paul Vogt, Zurich, 1944). Some of the brochures published were: "Das Heil kommt von den Juden" (Oktober, 1938); "Thesen zu den Nachkriegsfragen der Fluchtlingshilfe"; "Vergesst die evangelische Freiplatzaktion nicht!" (1944); "Nicht furchten ist der Harnisch" (a circular letter sent monthly to regular supporters of the Refugee Aid); "Fluchtlingshilfe als christliche Diakonie" (by Paul Vogt, 1944). Rev. Vogt also pleaded the cause of the refugees in sermons and lectures (Hasler, op. cit., pp. 150-152, 206, 227-229, 301).
492 "Freiplatzaktion".
493 "Bericht des Schweiz. Kirchl. Hilfskomitees fur Evang. Fluchtlinge uber das Jahr 1943", passim.
page 223
494 ibid., pp. 6-7.
495 E.P.D. , Oct. 18, 1944.
496 Archives World Council of Churches, Geneva (file CCJP).
497 Also see: E.P.D. , July 5 , 1944: "Service of Intercession and Mourning for the persecuted Jews in Hungary"; E.P.D. , July I2, 1944: "Circular letter of the Church Council of Thurgau"; "The Committee of the Synod of Waadtland, Declaration about the persecution of the Jews"; and E.P.D., July 19, 1944: "A Service of Intercession at Schaffhausen".
page 224
498 I.C.P.I.C., July 28, 1944. Cf. E.P.D., July 12, 1944. The Press Department of the German Foreign Office circulated a confidential report ("The Church Council of Zurich condemns the persecutions of the Jews in Hungary") dated July 10, 1944. (Randolph L.Braham, The Destruction of Hungarian Jewry, New York, 1963; 11, p. 770).
page 225
499 E.P.D. July 19, 1944.
500 Ibid.
page 226
501 Ibid., Aug. 2, 1944.
page 227
502 "The Spiritual Issues of the War", December 17, 1942, No. 163.
page 228
503 "International Christian Press and Information Service", Dec. 12, 1942, No. 44-45. Cf. "Spiritual Issues", Dec. 12, 1942, No. 162; and "The New York Times., Febr. 2, 1943.
504 "International Christian Press and Information Service" (I.C.P.I.S.)., Dec., 1942, No. 44-45; "Spiritual Issues… ", Dec. 17, 1942.
page 229
505 I.C.P.I.S., Dec., 1942, No. 44-45.
506 Ibid.
page 230
507 "Spiritual Issues…", Dec. 17, 1942. Also see: "Nordiska Roster mot
Jude-forfoljelse och Vald" (in Swedish; Documents and Commentaries,
edited by Judisk Tidskrift; Stockholm, 1943), p. 17.
508 "Dagens Nyheter", Dec. 5, 1942.
The Free Churches' Co-operation Committee represents the Missionary
Society, the Baptist Church and the Methodist Church in Sweden.
page 232
509 "Nordiska Roster", pp. 15-16.
page 233
510 Dr. Leni Yahil, Test of Democracy (Jerusalem, 1966; in Hebrew, with a summary in English), pp. 228-229.
page 234
511 I.C.P.I.S., May 1944, No. 21.
512 Cf. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Muenchen, 1967), p. 415.
513 Livia Rothkirchen, The Destruction of Slovak Jewry (Jerusalem, 1961),
p. XLIX. The full text: "Ministerprasident Tiso zeigte mich soeben mit
der Bemerkung, 'was seine einzelne Leute denken', ein Schreiben des
protestantischen Erzbischofs von Uppsala an den Slovakischen
Staatsprasidenten.
Der Schreiber interveniert 'fur die armen judischen Bruder' und bittet,
da der Slovakischen Staat unter den derzeitigen Verhiltnissen keine
humane Behandlung gewahrleisten konne, den in der Slovakei konzentrierten
Juden den Uebertritt auf ein neutrales Gebiet zu ermoglichen." (Files of
the German Foreign Ministry, YW/AA-K-327, Inland 11, Geheim, 571-K-2 13007).
page 235
514 William Simpson, Jews and Christians To-day (A Study in Jewish and Christian Relationships), London, 1940.
515 Reports to the General Assembly, 1940, p. 572.
page 236
516 Reports, 1941, p. 555.
517 Reports, 1942, p. 437.
518 Minutes of the Assembly, Thursday, June 11th, 1942.
page 237
519 Ernest Hearst, The British and the Slaughter of the Jews-(I); in: The Wiener Library Bulletin, Vol. XXI, No. I , p. 32.
520 Jasper, op. cit., p. 155.
page 238
521 "The Spiritual Issues of the War" (Bulletin published by the Religious Division of the Ministry of Information, London), No. 155, Oct. 22, 1942. Cf. Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 10.
522 "The Spiritual Issues…", No. 155.
page 239
523 "The Times", Oct. 30, 1942. This and the following articles from "The Times" are taken from the "Podro-collection" (in "The Jewish Historical Archives", Hebrew University, Jerusalem).
page 240
524 Hearst, op. cit., pp. 35-36. The two Archbishops of the Church of England and twenty-four Bishops (Durham, London, Winchester and the next twenty-one in order of appointment to a diocese) are members of the House of Lords.
525 Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 11, 1942.
526 "The Life of Faith" (Weekly), Dec. 16, 1942.
page 241
527 Keesing's Contempory Archives, Dec. 12-19, 1942 , p. 5506.
page 242
528 "Spiritual Issues…", No. 164, Dec. 24, 1924.
529 "Church of England Newspaper LONDON", Jan. 29, 1943. A similar statement was issued by the Executive Council of the World Evangelical Alliance (Ibid., Febr. 5, 1943). Cf. "Jewish Chronicle", Jan. 29, 1943, p 1.
page 244
530 "Spiritual Issues…", No. 176, March 18, 1943. Cf. "The Times", March 19, 1943.
531 "The Times", Dec. 31, 1942.
page 245
532 "Spiritual Issues…", No. 166, Jan. 7, 1943.
533 "Jewish Chronicle", Jan. 8, 1943.
534 Ibid., Jan. 29, 1943, p. 5. Cf. p. 10: "Derby Demands Sanctuary for Persecuted", and: "Mayor of Huddersfield calls Protest Meeting".
535 "Jewish Chronicle", Febr. I2, 1943, pp. 1, 12.
page 248
536 Cf. Luke 10, 30-37 (the Parable of the Good Samaritan).
537 "Parliamentary Debates House of Lords", Vol. 126, No. 41, pp. 811-821.
page 249
538 Luke 17, 1.
539 Isaiah 57, 14.
540 "Parliamentary Debates House of Lords", Vol. 126, No. 41, pp. 832-841.
page 250
541 A copy of this letter is in the Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva.
542 "Unity in Dispersion", pp. 164-165. See for the Bermuda Conference: "The Wiener Library Bulletin", Vol. xv (1961), No. 3, pp. 44-47. Also see: Morse, op. cit., pp. 43-64; Tartakower and Grossmann, op. cit., pp. 420-428.
page 251
543 "Spiritual Issues…", No. 181, April 22, 1943.
544 Reports to the General Assembly, 1943, p. 338.
page 252
545 "The Assembly", May 1943, p. 170.
546 "Minutes of the Assembly", Thursday, June 10th, 1943.
page 253
547 "The Times", May 18, 1943.
page 254
548 "The Times", May 22, 1943.
549 Jasper, op. cit., pp. 156-157.
page 255
550 "The New York Times", Dec. 9, 1943.
551 Reports to the General Assembly, 1944, p. 384. The italics are mine.
552 "The Times", June 15, 1944.
page 256
553 "The Spiritual Issues… ", July 13, 1944. Cf. R.L. Braham, The Destruction of Hungarian Jewry (New York, 1963), 11, p. 343.
554 See p. 257.
555 Ibid.
556 Federal Council Bulletin, January, 1940.
page 258
557 Department of Information of the National Council of Churches of Christ in America. The statement was prepared by the Commission on Christian Social Action and adopted by the following action: "General Synod approves Section IV and declares its condemnation of anti-Semitism. It urges upon the members of the Church in the name of Christ to regard our Jewish brethren according to the standards of Christian ethics."
558 The New York Times, Dec. 13, 1940.
page 259
559 Federal Council Bulletin, October, 1941, p. 6.
page 260
560 Freudenberg, op. cit., p. 53.
561 Federal Council Bulletin, Febr. 1942, p. 7.
page 261
562 Dr. Riegner's letter to Dr. Visser 't Hooft, April 14, 1965 (Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva).
563 Federal Council Bulletin, January, 1943. The italics are mine.
page 262
564 The New York Times, Jan. 1, 1943.
565 Federal Council Bulletin, February, 1943.
page 263
566 "Unity in Dispersion", a History of the World Jewish Congress (New York, 1948), pp. 162-163. The Archbishop of Canterbury described, in his message to the meeting, the Nazi extermination of the Jews as "the most appalling horror in recorded history" (Morse, op. cit., p. 47).
page 264
567 The New York Times, March I7, 1943. Cf. Federal Council Bulletin, April, 1943, p. 15.
568 See above, on p. 247.
569 See pp. 276-277.
570 See above, on p. 250.
page 265
571 The New York Times, May 2, 1943. Also see the article "Day of Compassion Praised by Rabbis" (ibid., May 2 , 1943).
572 The New York Times, Oct. 21, 1943.
page 266
573 New York Herald Tribune, Nov. 3, 1943.
page 267
574 The New York Times, Dec. 12, 1943.
575 Ibid., Jan. 16, 1944.
576 New York Herald Tribune, Oct. 14, 1944.
page 268
577 Cf. Alfred Klausner in the monthly "American Lutheran", Febr. 1965, p. 16: …In the course of research through almost all Lutheran publications in the thirties and forties I have found no direct condemnation of the persecution of the Jews in Germany. . ."
578 In: "American Lutheran", Nov. 1964, pp. 13.
579 Charles Y. Glock and Rodney Stark, Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism (New York, 1966), passim.
page 269
580 See above, p.84.
581 See pp. 274-277
page 270
582 Cf. W.A. Visser 't Hoofd, in: Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Ed.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517- 1948 (London, 1954),
p. 710 ff.
page 271
583 Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva. The original is in German.
page 272
584 Ibid.; the original is in French.
page 273
585 Ibid.; the original is in French. Dr. Visser 't Hooft believes that no written reply was received from the International Red Cross, but he had several discussions with Dr. Burckhardt in which the latter told him what the Red Cross had tried to do unofficially (Communication to me from Dr. Visser 't Hooft).
586 Communication to me from Dr. Visser 't Hooft. For the contacts with the "Kreisau Circle". see: G.van Roon, Neuordnung im Widerstand (Munich, 1967), pp. 142, 146, 190, 247, 302, 308-309, 312, 330-332. For the contacts with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, see: Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Munich, 1965), pp. 243, 291, 726, 728, 818-819, 824- 835, 848-850, 859, 861, 867, and 1004.
587 Dr. Riegner's letter to Dr. Visser 't Hooft, dated April 14, 1965 (Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva).
page 274
588 Dr. Riegner's letter to me, dated Nov. 6, 1967.
589 Dr. Riegner to Dr. Visser 't Hooft, April 14, 1965. Cf. Arthur D. Morse, While Six Million Died (London, 1968), pp. 3-22.
page 275
590 Archives WCC, Geneva. Marginal note: "Date? Probably March, 1943".
591 Archives WCC, Geneva.
The contents of the telegram sent by Dr. Riegner to Mr. Silverman were as
follows: "Most anxious about destiny Hungarian Jewry the only important
section European Jewry still in existence because of recent political
developments stop suggesting world wide appeal of Anglo-Saxon personalities
non-Jewish and Jewish including chiefs of Protestant Catholic Churches
to Hungarian people warning them not to admit application of policy of
extermination of Jews by German butchers or Hungarian quislings and to
help Jews by all possible means in order to prevent their falling into
hands of Germans stop warning should insist upon fact that attitude
Hungarian people towards Jews will be one of the most important tests
of behaviour which Allied Nations will remember in peace settlement after
war stop similar broadcasts should be made every night in Hungarian
language during the next weeks. Geneva, March 21, 1944." (Archives wcc,
Geneva).
page 276
592 For the results - or rather: the lack of results - of the Bermuda Conference, see above, p. 250.
page 277
593 Archives WCC, Geneva.
page 278
594 Cf. "Conversation entre le Dr. Visser 't Hooft, le Dr. Freudenberg et le Dr. Barot, concernant les activitCs Cimade-wcc pendant la guerre" (Geneva, December 14, 1965; mimeographed; in French).
595 Dr. Hans Fraenkel, Die Kirche im Krieg (unpublished manuscript; archives WCC, Geneva), p. 186.
596 Dr. Visser 't Hooft in "Conversation…" (see above, note 1).
page 279
597 Report on Ecumenical Refugee Work since 1939 (Archives WCC, Geneva),
p. 2. Cf. above, on p. 150.
598 OEKUMENISCHER AUSSCHUSS FUR FLUCHTLINGSHILFE, Jahresbericht 1942
(Archives WCC, Geneva), p. 5.
599 Cf. Herbert Ford, Flee the Captor (The Story of the Dutch-Paris Underground and its compassionate leader John Henry Weidner), Nashville, 1966. For the part played by Dr. Visser 't Hooft, see: pp. 79, 85, 95, 97, 199-201, 208, 225 , 227, 277, 279, 340 and 349.
page 280
600 "Rapport van de Commissie van Onderzoek inzake het verstrekken van pakketten door het Rode Kruis en andere instanties aan Nederlandse politieke gevangenen in het buitenland gedurende de bezettingstijd alsmede inzake het evacueren van Nederlandse gevangenen kort voor en na het einde van de oorlog" (Den Haag, 1947; in Dutch), p. 111.
601 Ibid., p.112.
602 Ibid., p.114-115.
page 281
603 I.C.P.I.S. (Intern. Christian Press and Information Service), Geneva, No. 26, June 1944.. The statement was also published in "Jewish News", London, July 18, 1944, p. 224; and in "Basler Nachrichten", June 29, 1944.
page 282
604 Cf. Karl Stadler, Das einsame Gewissen (Vienna, 1966; in german), pp. 262-263. See for the persecutions in Austria: Herbert Rosenkranz, "The Anschluss and the Tragedy of Austrian Jewry 1938-1945"; (in: Josef Fraenkel (Ed.), The Jews of Austria (London, 1967), pp. 479-546.
605 Reformiertes Kirchenblatt fur Osterreich, March, 1966, p. 4.
page 283
606 Cf. Betty Garfinkels, Les Belges face a la persecution raciale 1940-1944
(Bruxelles, 1965; in French), pp. 74-75, 100. Also see: Fernand Barth,
Presence de l'Eglise (La Belgique sous l'occupation), Geneva, pp. 82, 89.
page 284
607 Cf. the "Jewish Telegraphic Agency" (Zurich, July I, 1942): "A systematic campaign against the Christian Churches, attacking them for their attitude towards the Jews, has been launched in the Czech Protectorate by the 'Aryan Society', according to the Prague newspaper 'Ceske Slovo'. It is serious, the paper declares, that the clergy of all churches mostly keeps silent about the Jews. The reason why the greater part of the clergy are not opposed to the Jews is that there exist personal and dogmatic ritual relations between the Church and Jewry. The Christian faith, the paper demands, must be purged of its Jewish ingredients. Baptisms of Jews must be declared invalid and the Old Testament must be purged of everything smuggled into it by Rabbi interpreters."
608 Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva. The statement was dated Dec. 7, 1945.
page 285
609 Tenenbaum, op. cit., p. 339.
610 The "Polish-Catholic Church" does not accept the authority of Rome; it is a member of the World Council of Churches.
page 286
611 Cf. Philips Friedman, Ukranian-Jewish Relations during the Nazi Occupation (in: Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science, New York, 1958/1959, Vol. XII, pp. 290-294); also see: Philips Friedman, Their Brothers keepers, pp.133-136.
612 Robinson, op. cit., p. 292.
613 The Rev. Esko Rintala, Secretary of the Archbishop of Finland, in his letter to me dated Febr. 21, 1966.
614 Some literature: Giovanni Miegge, L'Eglise sous le joug fasciste (Geneva, 1946; in French). Einaudi (Ed.), Lettere do condanati a morte della Resistenza Italiana (Torino, 1952; in Italian); Prearo, Terra Ribelle (Torino, 1948; in Italian); Borgna, La Resistenza nel Pinerolese (Pinerolo, 1965; in Italian).
page 287
615 Friedman mentions that, according to Jewish survivors, Ukrainian priests both rescued and helped Jews. Ukrainian Baptists in Volhynia helped the Jews and in part also concealed them. Cf. Philip Friedman, Ukrainian- Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation (in: Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science, Vol. XII, p. 294).
page 289
616 W.A. Visser 't Hooft, The Ecumenical Movement and the Racial Problem, p. 40.
617 Ethics of the Fathers, 11, 5.
618 Leuner, op. cit., p. 16.
Footnotes Appendix I ——————————
page 292
619 "The Relationship of the Church to the Jewish People" (Geneva, 1964;
mimeographed); pp. 48-52; Cf. Heydenrich, op. cit., pp. 248-254.
620 Heydenreich, op. cit., pp. 256-257. Cf. the comment of Rev. Niemoeller
(Ibid., pp. 257-258).
page 293
621 Frank-Wilkens, Ordnungen und Kundgebungen der Vereinigten Evangelisch- Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands (Berlin/Hamburg, 1966; second imprint), p. 203.
622 Heydenreich, op. cit., pp. 261-262. Prof. D. Gollwitzer criticized this statement as being far too weak (ibid., pp. 262-264).
623 Heydenreich, op. cit., pp. 264-265.
page 294
624 "The Relationship of the Church to the Jewish People", pp. 73-76. Also see: "Wiener Library Bulletin", xv, 1961, No. 3, p. 45.
page 295
625 "Wiener Library Bulletin", XVII, 1963, No. 3, p. 39.
626 "The Relationship of the Church to the Jewish People", pp. 78- 79.
page 296
627 Quarterly Newsletter from the World Council of Churches' Committee on
the Church and the Jewish People, March 1967, p. 17.
628 The Interpreter (published by the London Diocesan Council for Christian-
Jewish Understanding), August, 1964, p. 2.
page 297
629 "Reports to the General Assembly", 1945, p. 389.
630 "Reports", 1947, p. 448.
631 "Reports", 1953, p. 463.
632 "Reports", 1957, p. 528. 633 "Reports", 1962, p. 544.
page 298
634 "The Relationship of the Church to the Jewish People," p. 87.
page 299
635 W.A. Visser 't Hooft (Ed.), The First Assembly of the World Council of Churches (London, 1949), pp. 160-166.
636 W.A. Visser ?t Hooft (Ed.), The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches (Second Impression; London, 1962), p. 148. Cf. the interesting discussion which preceded the adoption of the resolution (pp. 148-150).
page 300
637 "The Relationship of the Church to the Jewish People", pp. 83-84. The total membership of the Churches affiliated to the Lutheran World Federation is 52,762,379.
page 301
638 "Reports and Recommendations of the International Conference of Christians and Jews, Seelisberg, 1947" (Published by the Intern. Council of Christians and Jews), pp. 14-16. In February, 1961, the "International Consultative Committee of Organisations for Christian-Jewish Co-operation" was established. For the history of the "International Council of Christians and Jews" see Rev. W.W. Simpson, Co-operation between Christians and Jews, Its Possibilities and Limitations; in: Gote Hedenquist (Ed.), The Church and the Jewish People (London, 1954), pp. 117-142.
page 302
639 The following publications were consulted:
"The World Alliance of Reformed Churches" (Published by The World
Presbyterian Alliance, Geneva, 1964); "Lutheran Directory", Supplement
1966 (Published by the Lutheran World Federation, Geneva);
J. Grundler, Lexikon der Christlichen Kirchen und Sekten (Vienna, 1961;
in German), Vol. 11;
Guy Mayfield, The Church of England (Oxford, 1958);
Stephen Neill, Anglicanism (London, 1958);
Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Pelican Books, 1963);
J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church (London, 1962);
Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Ed.), A History of the Ecumenical
Movement 1517-1948 (London, 1954);
Figures about the Churches in the United States were received from the
Department of Information of the National Council of Churches of Christ
in the U.S.A.
***** End of footnotes ******
GJS, dec 2004
John Martinus Snoek born 1920, studied theology at the Free University in Amsterdam 1949-1953. Worked and lived with his family 11 years in Israel, (1958-1969) where he served for the Church of Scotland as minister in Tiberias. From 1970-1975 he worked as secretary of the Committee of the Church and the Jewish people with the World Council of Churches in Geneva.
Publications: 1. In English THE GREY BOOK. (1969) see PG e-book #14764 2. In Dutch: The Dutch Churches en the Jews 1940-1945. (1990) ISBN 90242 0949 8 NUGI 631 3. In Dutch: Sometimes, One has to Show One's Color (1992)
Both the Grey Book and the Dutch Churches 1940-1945 are prepared for Gutenberg eText by his nephew Ge J. Snoek, errors and remarks please mail to: g.snoek3@chello.nl.