The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Grey Book, by Johan M. Snoek

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

** This is a COPYRIGHTED Project Gutenberg eBook, Details Below **
**     Please follow the copyright guidelines in this file.     **



Title: The Grey Book

Author: Johan M. Snoek

Release Date: January 23, 2005 [EBook #14764]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GREY BOOK ***


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.)




JOHAN M. SNOEK

THE GREY BOOK

A COLLECTION OF PROTESTS
AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM AND PERSECUTION OF JEWS
ISSUED BY
NON-ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND CHURCH LEADERS
DURING HITLERS RULE

INTRODUCTION BY URIEL TAL

Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke--Assen, 1969


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION (by Uriel Tal)

Part I

 1   PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION
 2   FACTORS LEADING TO PUBLIC PROTESTS
 3   RESULTS
 4   HELP TO CHRISTIANS OF JEWISH ORIGIN
 5   "MERCY-BAPTISMS"

Part II

 6   HISTORICAL EVENTS
 7   GERMANY
 8   THE NETHERLANDS
 9   BELGIUM
10   FRANCE
11   SWITZERLAND
12   DENMARK
13   SWEDEN
14   HUNGARY
15   RUMANIA
16   GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
17   THE UNITED STATES
18   INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF CHURCHES

Part III

19   HISTORICAL EVENTS, 1939-1945
20   GERMANY
21   NORWAY
22   THE NETHERLANDS
23   FRANCE
24   YUGOSLAVIA
25   GREECE
26   DENMARK
27   SLOVAKIA
28   RUMANIA
29   BULGARIA
30   HUNGARY
31   SWITZERLAND
32   SWEDEN
33   GREAT BRITAIN
34   THE UNITED STATES
35   THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
36   TERRITORIES IN WHICH THE CHURCHES REMAINED SILENT
37   IN CONCLUSION
     APPENDIX   I
     APPENDIX   II
     BIBLIOGRAPHY
     PERIODICALS AND REPORTS

                    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>

                                  PREFACE

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>

                                       I

                             GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

                            1 PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION

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?"


                   2 FACTORS LEADING TO PUBLIC PROTESTS

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.


                                  3 RESULTS

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.


                  4 HELP TO CHRISTIANS OF JEWISH ORIGIN

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.


                           5   "MERCY-BAPTISMS"

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>


                                    II

                              BEFORE THE WAR

                         6   HISTORICAL EVENTS

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]

                               7   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. 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]


                                  9   BELGIUM

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]


                                  10   FRANCE

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]


                                11   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.
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>

                             12   DENMARK

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]

                             13   SWEDEN

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]


                                  14   HUNGARY

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>

                                  15   RUMANIA

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]

                        16   GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

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]


                             17   THE UNITED STATES

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]

         18   INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF CHURCHES

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>

                                        III

                                   DURING THE WAR

                         19   HISTORICAL EVENTS, 1939-1945

           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>

                        20   GERMANY

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>


                        THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES

                             21   NORWAY

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>

                             22   THE NETHERLANDS

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]

                             23   FRANCE

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>


                        24   YUGOSLAVIA

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]

                        25   GREECE

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.

                             26   DENMARK

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.


                             THE SATELLITE COUNTRIES

                                  27   SLOVAKIA

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.

                             28   RUMANIA

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.


                             29   BULGARIA

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]


                             30 HUNGARY

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>


                        THE NEUTRAL COUNTRIES

                           31   SWITZERLAND

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 ourselv