1 GERMANY

Déportations 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. Mr. Krakauer relates how he and his wife were helped and hidden during the last years of the war. 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 Württemberg), 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”. 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. 0 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 persécutions, 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 Württemberg 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

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.

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.

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 Württemberg 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. 1 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.”

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...” 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...”

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. 1 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...”

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”. 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.”

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.” 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.”

The Evangelical Church in Germany herself, after the war, pleaded guilty, unequivocally and repeatedly. 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 adde. 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. 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.
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.. 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.”

This is also applicable to the leaders of the CONFESSING Church.

THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES

2 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 seize 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.

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. 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. 1 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.”

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.

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. 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.”

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.”

3 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.’ 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 invited seven other Protestant Churches to a consultation.

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”. 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. 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. The reply of the Synodal Committee, however, was both reserved and evasive.

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”. 12 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. 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.”

Someone was caught distributing this brochure; he was sentenced by a German judge to one and a half year imprisonment. 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.” 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 (Ro, 12; Ga, 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.”

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. 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.” 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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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...”

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. 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...”

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”. Many ministers of religion were fined or imprisoned because of their refusal to display this notice.

b. Mass Deportation

Mass déportations 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 déportations 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 déportations. 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.”

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. None of the other Protestant Churches followed the example of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, nor did the Catholic Bishops. 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...” 1

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?”

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.”

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... 3 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.”

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”.

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’ (Ge, 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. 3 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.”

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.”

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. 3 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.”

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: “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.”

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. 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.”

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.”

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.”

W. Warmbrunn: “The attempt of the churches to caution the Germans in their actions, especially with respect to the persécutions of the Jews, could not be effective, since the course of action in major matters of this kind was determined by the Reich leadership.” “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.”

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’? 3 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.”

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.”

4 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.

a. The Preliminary Phase

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. The number of Jews deported from France is estimated to be approximately 80,000 persons. 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.” 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.”

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. 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 persécutions. 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.”

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”.

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”.

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.

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.”

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. 1

The same applies to the letter sent to Admiral Darlan, also on March 26, 1941:

“We have just convened at Nîmes, 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.”

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.”

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. 4 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.”

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 persécutions, and in the exploitation of other races. The Church is called upon by God to express itself unequivocally on this subject.”

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. 4 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.”

b. Mass Déportations

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. 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. 4 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.”

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’ 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.” 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. 4 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.”

Some days later, the letter was broadcast over the American and British radio, and subsequently reproduced in the foreign press. 4 The déportations continued. By September 1, 1942, the Vichy authorities had handed over 5,000 Jews to the Germans and another 7,100 had been arrested. 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.”

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.

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:

“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 démarches 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.”

Everybody knowing the parable of the Good Samaritan 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 déportations 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.”

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, Chambón-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. 4 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 Chambón, Mazet and Fay-Le-Froid, exhorted their congregations to renewed efforts. The country-people never tried to evade their responsibility. The persécutions 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 Chambón: 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.”

Perhaps France was the only occupied country where an official Protestant organization rendered direct and practical help to the persecuted Jews. The Cimade 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 4 Protestantism, and, above all things, to help those who suffered most.” 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.” 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. In 1941, teams were also placed in the caps at Rivesaltes, Brens, lé Recebedou, and Nexon. In the spring of 1942, the Cimade opened four houses (at Chambón-sur-Lignon, Tarascon, lé 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.

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.

After mass déportations had begun, the members of the Cimade became more and more involved in “illegal” activities. The Secretariat of the Cimade at Nîmes provided false identity cards. “We set up a record by once producing fifty identity cards in one night.” 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.” After the Swiss Government had ordered that refugees who had illegally entered into Switzerland be returned to France 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.

5 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.

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. 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.” “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.” “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. 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.”

6 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.

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”.

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”. 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 déportations, 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.”

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. 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. 5 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:

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:. 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.. Our holy religion repudiates any racial or religious distinctions,
supremacy or inferiority, stating that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’
(Ga, 28), and condemns every tendency to create distinctions on
grounds of racial or religious differences.. 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 60,00 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. 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.

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. 5 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. 5 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:

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.” “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.”

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. 5 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 déportations in order to get rid of competitors who proved a burden to them in their commercial life’. Indeed, as the authors point out, only seventy Jews, most of them married to non-Jews, succeeded in finding hiding places in Salonica...”

Another comment:

“The great bulk of the population, while not indifferent, played the rôle 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.”

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.

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. 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...’”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

7 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.

In December 1941, participants in a conference of Danish pastors 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. 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.”

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.

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”. An article in the Church gazette of Sonderbourg, edited by Dean Halfdan Hoegsbro, stated:

“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.”

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.”

In January, 1943, the Bishop of Copenhagen, Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard, publicly warned against racial hatred. The pro-Nazi press frequently attacked “the Church’s dogged opposition to attempts to initiate anti-Jewish restrictions”.

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...”

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 Swede,220 Jews were secretly moved to the beaches and then ferried by Danish fisherman to safety.

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”. 6 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.” 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. 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. 6 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...” “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.”

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.”

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:...’”

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.”

The Protest

“Wherever persécutions 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 Bibl. 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.’ (Ga, 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.

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 c. 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. 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. 6 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.”

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.”

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.

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”.

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.”

The crucial question, whether the Church was influenced by general public opinion or whether it was the other way round, has been discussed in c.

THE SATELLITE COUNTRIES

8 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.”

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.

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. 7 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...”

“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 prosélytes 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.

9 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. 7 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.

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”.

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.”

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. 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.

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.”

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. 7 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. 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 déportations 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.”

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. 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.

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. 7 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.”

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.

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. Pa 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’. 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. 7 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.”

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.”

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 hérésies.

10 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. 8 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.

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... 8 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.”

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.”

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. 8 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.”

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, déportations from the occupied Greek and Yugoslavian territories starte,363 Jews were deported from these regions.

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.

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...”

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...”

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’ (Ga, 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. 8 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. 8 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: 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.. The restricting decrees regarding the Jews must be both eased and not be
enforced too strictly.. 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,...”

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.

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.”

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. 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 déportations 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:

“... 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’.”

Contrary to the situation in Rumania, the Church leaders in Bulgaria could indeed claim to express the feelings of “the majority of our people”, 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. “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 ; 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.” “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.’...”

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.’”

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.

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.”

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:

“... 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...”

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.

11 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.

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. 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.”

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.

In the summer of 1941, the Hungarian government ordered an inquiry into the citizenship of all the Jewish residents of Northern Hungar,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. 9 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.”

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 Déportations

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 aérodromes 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. 9 Concerted pressure was exerted on Regent Horthy to stop the déportations. 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 déportations 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. 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.”

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 9 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.

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.”

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.

On May 9, 1944, Bishop Ravasz called on Prime Minister Sztojay and protested against the atrocities committed against the Jews.

“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”.

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 déportations 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.”

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.

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. 0 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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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. 0 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.

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 déportations 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’. 0 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.”

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’.”

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.”

The déportations 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”. This appeal may have had more direct, practical effects than the short note that was read out from the pulpits.

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 déportations. 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.” 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.”

On De, 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.”

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.”

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.”

THE NEUTRAL COUNTRIES

12 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.”

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:

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.. 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.... 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.. 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.

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: “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. 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 déportations 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.. 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.. 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.” 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.”

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.”

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: “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.”

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 positio. 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.. 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.. 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. 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.”

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.

c The Admission of Refugees

Like the Government of the Netherlands, the Swiss Government had already closed the Swiss borders before the war. 1 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.” 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. The Federation of the Protestant Churches as well as other organizations turned to the Federal authorities. 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.”

On August 30, 1942, at the meeting of the “Young Church” which has been mentioned before , 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.”

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. 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.

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. 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: 1 ’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.”

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”. 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...’”

Many Church leaders publicly recommended this collection. Prof. Karl Bart did so in the following words: “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?”

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 De, 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 Sep, 1942, that being a Jew was no reason for admittance, mostly was not observed. 1 The decree of De, 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 Sep, 1942. “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. 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.

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.” 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. In October, 1943, the Church Council of Zurich addressed the following message “To the Reformed People of Zurich”:

“... We are able only through rumours to gain a vague impression of the dreadful reality. And because it is beyond the powers of our imagination, we are in danger of closing our hearts and trying to suppress any awareness of the fact that daily, hourly, indeed every single moment, thousands suffer, bleed, starve, despair, die. We also let ourselves be misled by a falsely understood neutrality, which freezes our feelings towards the distress of foreigners, or causes in us a moral apathy towards injustice and inhumanity, sometimes even making us adopt the catchwords and evil slogans of anti-Semitism and racial hatred, and persuading us to accept ideals which are hostile to the Gospel of love to God and to ones neighbour... All humane people are haunted by descriptions of the sufferings to which members of the Jewish people have been exposed during these past four years of war, this following centuries of being slandered, ridiculed, beaten and persecuted throughout the Christian era! Expelled from home and work, forcibly separated, children tom from the arms of their mothers, mothers from the arms of their children, anew they are uprooted just when they had supposed they had found a protecting refuge. They have been tossed towards an uncertain destiny, which all too often only spelled destruction, misery, starvation, beatings, despair and death. Indeed, no other nation has been so overwhelmed by storms of persecution and deluged by sufferings, as has been the people of Israel. Who as a Christian, or as a Swiss, can fail to be oppressed by the distress of the Jewish people, or to be confronted by questions unsolvable by the words guilt and atonement, because we have certainly sufficient cause to ask questions about our own guilt in this matter and to apply to ourselves Christ’s word: ‘Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ Such an admission can result only in one thing: the emergence of a deep sympathy and a desire to help wherever and however we can, to grant refuge to the homeless, to shelter the exposed, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to visit the imprisoned, to support the weak, to comfort the mourning; in accordance with the example of the good Samaritan and the teaching and promise of our Master: ’In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me’...”

In November, 1943, the “Social Study Committee of the Swiss Union of Reformed Pastors” published the following Statement: “... With shame and sorrow we see this purposeful turning away from Christ in a monstrous effort to exterminate entire races and peoples. The Christian conscience cries out against this. We therefore appeal to all those in responsible positions in the world, to save what still may be saved. We demand that the Swiss Government which maintains diplomatic relations with all governments in the world, devise with them and with the International Red Cross, a plan of rescue. In the name of Jesus we demand that our authorities put a stop to the driving back of refugees to their death, until final measures are taken, and to grant them a safe, Christian asylum. Our thanks go to the people of Switzerland for their cordial hospitality, even though it is hampered by authority!...”

In my opinion this is the sharpest protest against the official refugee policy of the Swiss government that was ever published during the second world war.

At the end of 1943, it was ordered not to send Jewish refugees back if they objected. Thus Jews who fled Italy after its occupation by the Germans, were to be admitted; however, in the case of a real ‘run’ one might have to stop admitting them for some time. It is, in my opinion, undeniable that the protests of the Churches and Church” leaders contributed to alleviating the measures against the refugees and their ultimate cancellation in practice. In the meantime, unspeakable sufferings had been inflicted on refugees who had been sent back and fell into the hands of their mortal enemies.

d. Aid to Refugees

We already mentioned some of the activities of the “Swiss Protestant Relief Society for the Confessing Church in Germany”, for instance the Annual Conference held on November 17, 1941, and its participation in the general collection for Aid to Refugees, held during October-November, 1942. In order to show the spirit in which this refugee work was done, we record the following letter which was sent by the Executive Council of the Society to the Swiss-Israelite Union of Congregations, on June 22, 1943:

“You have ordered a call to an Assembly of Mourning, for next Sunday, 27th June, 1943. You will then recall the horrible decrees to which Jews in Europe are subjected, and the unspeakable hardship and oppression under which people nowadays suffer and die. Together with you we are deeply shocked at the mass murder that has engulfed European Jewry. Only with dread and horror can one read of the number deported from Germany, France, the Netherlands, Rumania and Greece. We fight against allowing suffering to become a familiar routine, and against blunting of concern on the part of our people of Switzerland at such distress. To us these dry figures represent human beings, who have lived, suffered and died. Their mass graves and their ashes will, till the coming Day of the Lord, be a shocking accusation against a Europe which forgot God. As Christians we cannot let the Assembly of Mourning of the Swiss-Israelite Union of Congregations pass without a cordial word of sympathy and participation. Deeply moved, we shall join our thoughts with yours in intercession. We know that each murder and every act of violence is rooted in the godless thinking of godless minds. The unkind word and the unappreciative gesture are signs of poisoning of the minds. The fact that this poisoning could assume such terrible proportions in ‘Christian’ Europe, where especially the Jewish people are victimised, shames us and gives us cause for severe self-accusation. So little have we Christians understood Jesus Christ and so far apart from him have we lived, that godless thinking was able to create this insane racial hatred and merciless cruelty in our midst, raging as a demon against the Jews. On your day of mourning we join hands with you in sympathy and sorrow. At the same time we confess our guilt before God and mankind. We regret every word of contempt, we Christians ever uttered against Jews. We regret that we have shamed Jesus Christ by our self-righteousness and our hardness of heart. We regret that we Christians were not more loyal to our Master and thus failed courageously to struggle, in time, against every expression of anti-Semitism. On this day of your mourning we implore the Almighty for his mercy, for the sake of Jesus Christ, with the publican’s prayer of penitence: ’God be merciful to us sinners’. On your day of mourning we pray that God’s mercy may be upon you, and the deep consolation of His promise from the precious Old Testament, which also has comforted us again and again: ’And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at first. And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me. And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity hat I procure to it’ (Jeremiah 33, 7-9). 22 ’The Lord thath sent me to bring good tidings, to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn’ (Isaiah 61, 1-2). ’Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me’ (Psalm 23, 4). ’For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee’ (Isaiah 54, 10).”

Strong powers in Switzerland objected to the admission of refugees. Therefore the “Protestant Relief Society” undertook action in two different but interdependent fields: influencing public opinion, and rendering practical aid. Books and pamphlets were published and distributed. Rev. Paul Vogt was appointed ‘Refugee pastor’, and was later joined by two other ministers. They launched the “Place of Refuge Operation”, asking members of the Church to provide places in their homes to Jewish refugees who were unable to work: pregnant women, mothers with little children; people ill, invalided or old. Another way to help for the local churches was to pay the maintenance (120 Franc per month) of a refugee being cared for in one of the houses of the homes of the Society.

“Help was not just rendered to Protestant refugees; the majority of them were Jewish... We are convinced that we may not exploit the difficult situation of our proteges by trying to convert them. Rather, we respect the religious conviction of the Jews, whose care has been entrusted to us. 2 Therefore two Refugee homes were opened for observant Jews;... one accommodating 35 refugees, the other 26. Plans for a third refugee home were prepared. In order to reunite married couples and families, houses were rented in which a total of 111 persons were accommodated. Up till the end of 1943, 348 persons were helped and places for another 219 persons were in preparation.”

On October 1, 1944, 868 refugees who were unable to work were accommodated by the Protestant ‘Place of Refuge Operation’. 739 of them were Jewish, 115 Protestant, 8 Catholic (mixed marriage) and 6 without religion. One hundred and seventy-nine places, especially for children, were reported to the Committee for Aid to Children.

Far be it for us to belittle the efforts of Rev. Paul Vogt and others, who did what they could. Yet the number of refugees who were helped is small in relation to the terrible need that existed. Moreover, in Switzerland, people did not risk their lives or freedom by taking in a Jewish refugee, as happened in many other countries.

e. The Deportation of the Hungarian Jews

On July 4, 1944, the following circular letter was sent by Prof. Karl Barth, Prof. Emil Brunner, Dr. W.A. Visser ’t Hooft and Rev. Paul Vogt to pastors in Switzerland:

“We send to you, enclosed, two messages from Hungary and a covering letter dated June 19, 1944, which came from reliable sources and reached Switzerland through diplomatic channels. The messages have shocked us deeply. Out of a sense of responsibility we feel it our duty to convey these messages to you. We do not doubt that you will read them and let them circulate within your own group. They are also known to the competent authorities.”

There followed a wave of public protests. We quote some of them.

On July 9, 1946, the Church Council of the Canton Zurich urged that the following message be read from every pulpit:

“The present day truly has revealed enough frightful things, but in the last weeks one piece of news has reached us which far exceeds anything that we have heard for years. Reliable witnesses inform us of terrible persecution of the Jews in Hungary. In a few weeks between three and four hundred thousand people have been sacrificed, and who knows how many more there will be. Many are dying of exhaustion or hunger, but the majority meet their death by gas. In one single place, at Birkenau, four crematoria are in use, in which every day six thousand people can be gassed and burned and incinerated. Hitherto Hungary had more than a million Jews. A number of towns already have been cleared of Jews. Persecution is said to be impending in the capital, if it has not already begun. We do not know what can have induced the government to take these dreadful measures and at whose door the responsibility for this dreadful deed must lie. What can we do? It is not for us to pass self-righteous judgment on the acts of other peoples, for we are not guilt-free. It does not lie in our power to order the cessation of atrocities. The Swiss Protestant Church Federation addressed an urgent request to the Federal Council and to the International Red Cross that they would do everything possible to rescue the Jews still living in Hungary. We invite congregations to make solemn intercession for all those who must tread this dark road simply because they belong to another race. Let us also pray for our sister-Evangelical Church in Hungary, that strength and guidance be granted to her at a time when her people is taking upon itself such a terrible load of guilt. Let the word of the Psalmist be our prayer: ’Keep not Thou silence, O God: hold not Thy peace, and be not still, O God’.”

The Council of the Evangelical Church of Canton Glarus, on July 12, issued a circular letter to all local ministers, drawing attention to the horrible reports of the extermination of Hungarian Jewry and stressing that, in all probability, reality would prove even more horrible than those reports implied. After having mentioned the appeals made by the Federation of Churches to the Federal Council and the International Red Cross, the circular letter continued: “We fully realise that at present we are incapable of stopping the demonic powers by any human means. Only God can do that, and we invoke His aid. We request you to inform your congregation of these horrors in a fitting manner, and in your prayers to intercede with God on behalf of those that are threatened. Finally, the Church Council hereby issues a call to leave all vengeance and retaliation to Him who has proclaimed: ’Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord’.”

At about the same time, the following Proclamation was issued by the Council of the Synod of Bern:

“Added to the untold miseries that the Jews have had already to suffer in various countries, the terrible mass murders of the Jews in Hungary which, according to reliable information were carried out recently, surpass all imagination and defy any description. The inhuman removal of people of all ages who, solely on account of their racial origin, no longer are considered fit to exist, is a monstrosity unparalleled in history, as well as a grievous sin and guilt before God. As Christians who have received light and life, salvation and mercy from Jesus Christ, we feel a painful indignation in the face of such methods of extermination. We declare that such destruction of our fellow-men was conceived by a spirit and will which came from below, and which will bring a curse and doom on humanity. A deep sympathy unites us with the countless victims. We thank our brethren of the faith in Hungary for their courage in standing up, in time, against these monstrosities in spite of great difficulties, and we urge them to continue to do everything in their power to stop these horrible mass murders. We call on Christians in our own country to fight all hatred and thirst for revenge among people of different origin and race, and to resist all prejudices and offensive slogans wherever they may appear. Let us not tire of intercession on behalf of the ancient people of the Covenant, of Israel.”

In August, 1944, the following circular letter was published by the Church Council of Canton Graubunden:

“Ecclesiastical and other proclamations and directives draw our attention to the fate of Hungarian Jewry. No pen is able to describe, no soul can sense, and no Christian mind can imagine what is being done to these unfortunate people. The human mind is powerless to grasp the horrors, day by day enacted with cool determination and limitless hate. Shocked cries, objections and protests, to those in authority have remained ineffective. Brotherly help to those threatened by death is not possibl Only one thing remains to the Christian, of which he cannot be deprived: prayer. Dear brethren, prepare the people, before offering your public prayers, by referring to the sufferings of the Jewish people of whom the Son of God was born. Tell openly from the pulpits how many hundreds of thousands are being exterminated in gas chambers and crematoriums, while further multitudes tremble in desperation, because the hour is at hand when they too will be herded like cattle, deported and slaughtered. Tell how human dignity is degraded, how man’s rights are trampled upon, so that all Christian feelings have received a deadly wound. Remember in your prayers at church the unfortunate who are persecuted, urging all members of your congregations likewise to remember them in their prayers at home in solitude. The prayer of the merciful heart availeth much. Through it God’s presence may become real in distant gas chambers; consolation and indestructible faith may shine in their horror-stricken eyes and upon their deadly-pale faces. Such prayer may also have the power to reawaken petrified consciences, and to paralyse the hands engaged in deadly tasks. The prayer should be said in repentance over unbrotherly words also spoken in our country about Jews now and in the past...”

13 SWEDEN

The political situation of Sweden was comparable to that of Switzerland: each country tried to preserve its neutrality, was afraid of a German attack, and sometimes gave in to German demands. Yet Sweden expressed its willingness to receive all the Jews from Denmark, whilst Switzerland closed its borders. We should, however, bear in mind that to Switzerland, owing to its geographical position, the challenge of the refugee problem was much greater than to Sweden. The Swedish Church denounced the persecution of the Jews more sharply than did the Swiss Churches. Apparently Swedish Church leaders were not afraid of offending Germany. But in Sweden there was no press censorship, as was the case in Switzerland.

On November 29, 1942, Manfred Bjorkquist was consecrated first Bishop of Stockholm. Along with the Bishops of the Swedish Church, there were also present representatives of the Church of Denmark and the Church of Finland. The Quisling Minister for Church Affairs in Norway sent an indignant letter to Archbishop Eidem, because he had not been invited to send a representative to the consecration. Dagens Nyheter, commenting on this report, wrote:

“What happened in Norway recently is sufficient explanation, if it is confirmed that Sweden’s Archbishop did not reply to the letter. Archbishop Eidem’s warning at Lutzen on November 6th against national self-sufficiency and arrogance provides an adequate answer. When now for the first time we see these things happening near at hand we are aghast at this self-sufficiency and arrogance; this complete contempt for human values.”

The last sentence refers to the deportation of the Jews of Norway.

On the first Sunday in Advent, 1942, the following Proclamation was issued by the Swedish Bishops:

“Hatred blinds and hardens. Hatred leads to destruction. Hatred is the most frightful and monstrous of the dark powers which now are dominating an unhappy earth. Jesus Christ condemns hatred in all its forms without exception. His words and deeds, His life and death, all mean an absolute judgment upon hatred. Whatever stands in contradiction with the royal command of love, which is the sum of the will of God, is sin, sin against the living God. Men may trample upon the commandments of the All-Highest. But God Almighty lives. And whoever turns away from Him has deserted the springs of life and is walking in the way of death. If we really want to be Christians, we must in all seriousness take up the fight against hatred, against all hatred. We must be strictest towards ourselves, so that we may not leave the smallest room in our heart for the evil spirit of hatred. So far as our voice reaches, we must, each in his own circle, stand up for love in word and deed, and fight hatred and the deeds of hatred. With horror and dismay we have learned in the last two days how an un-Christian racial hatred, which has spread over many lands in the world like a mortal pestilence, has now expressed itself in shocking acts of violence in our immediate neighbourhood, on our Scandinavian peninsula. Human beings are being subjected to the greatest sufferings, not because they have been legally convicted of misdeeds they have not even been accused of such things by regular legal procedure but solely because they belong by descent to a certain race. 2 We have been deeply moved to hear the courageous Christian admonitions which our oppressed Norwegian sister-Church has directed to those in power in their country, not to rebel against the clear Word of God by doing deeds of violence in blind racial hatred. Everything that lies in our power to assist the poor people affected by this hatred is being done. That is our elementary duty as Christians and as human beings. But even if we cannot do much to help the unfortunate, we can and must bear them and their needs upon our hearts. We Bishops of the Swedish Church call all our fellow-Christians in Sweden, in the Name of God, to include these our tortured brethren of the race of Israel in our faithful and constant intercessions, and to make daily prayers to our Father in Heaven for the many who are suffering violence and disaster at this time.”

At a service of intercession in Göteborg Cathedral on the first Sunday in Advent, Dean Nysted said:

“Everything we have heard of the nameless sufferings of the Jewish people in past times dwindles to nothing in comparison with the fate that has overtaken them in recent years. We have read with disgust of the slave hunts of former times and the cargoes of slaves which were carried like cattle to America. Who could have dreamt anything so frightful as that such a ship would sail along our coasts last week, laden with men, women and children, who have no other fate to expect than that of the slaves or cattle for slaughter, and that not because of any crime of which they have been convicted but because they are of Jewish descent. The Church of Sweden must not keep silent when such a thing happens at our frontiers. If we were to keep silent, the stones would cry out. We are shocked to the depths of our hearts when we think of the sufferings of these unhappy people. We tremble at the dragon’s teeth of hatred which are senselessly being sown... What harvest must grow from such seed? We stand powerless. What is being prepared for the Jews who have remained in Norway? Can our authorities do anything to save them? We implore them to consider this question seriously and without delay.”

In a broadcast sermon, Bishop Aukn of Strangnas commented upon the events of the time:

“Violence is triumphing, and the commandments which form the bases of our human common life are remorselessly being trampled upon. Every day brings new pictures of horror. Recently we received the news that the frightful plague of racial persecution has descended upon our Scandinavia... There are probably no limits to the depths to which people who are blinded by hatred may sink. 2 But at the same time a wonderful thing is happening: in the midst of this darkness we are witnessing a bold and firm steadfastness which remains unmoved even when it leads to persecution and martyrdom. Such events have opened the eyes of many people who were subject to the prejudice that we have only to reckon with material factors and the resources of outward force. They bear witness to the power of the Holy Spirit, to the power of Christ, which works in secret and is unconquerable. If we in our Swedish Church are able to begin the new Church year as a free Church in a free country, that lays upon us a great responsibility: to stand up in unshakable faithfulness for the holiness of the laws of God, when the most elementary demands of justice are trampled upon.”

At a Meeting of Protest, held in Stockholm on the same Sunday, Dr. Natanael Beskow said:

“Here we are not concerned with neutrality or politics, but with humanity or inhumanity. Nothing of that kind must ever happen in Sweden. Indifference in face of a crime is in itself a crime.”

The meeting passed the following Resolution:

“In the name of Christianity and democracy, humanity and justice, we protest against the mass déportations of Jewish citizens from our nearest neighbour country, not for crimes committed but because of their race. We do this for the sake or our Northern community, but we are angry and distressed that Northern men have been able to commit this deed of shame. We protest in the name of international law, for without security in law all human order collapses, whether it be called old or new.”

Svenska Morgonbladet reported that it had received expressions of sorrow and sympathy from the leaders of various Church congregations. Bishop John Cullberg said at Strangnas:

“After what happened earlier in Norway, the latest telegrams about the persecution of Jews are not surprising. But we are profoundly shocked. The Norwegian Church has, through its statements, already interpreted the Christian conscience’s protest against these atrocities. It must be loudly proclaimed that we in Sweden support this protest. 2 With bleeding hearts, we think of the martyrs. And what should we say of their tormentors? All we can say is: ’Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’.”

Although leading men within the Swedish Free Churches already at an early stage had separately expressed their feelings in the press regarding the persecution of the Jews in Norway, the Free Churches’ Co-operation Committee wished to emphasize their mutual standpoint:

“God is the Father of all, and all men are called to receive the advantage of the adoption of sons, independent of race and birth. Racial persecution is thus a sin and a rebellion against God. The Jew is our neighbour, and we wish to love him as ourselves. Facing what is happening in Norway, we feel grief and distress. We are onlookers at a situation where our neighbour is being treated as something sub-human. We cannot remain silent witnesses to this We wish that our deeds could bring help, to undo what has been done. Our hope is that God will turn evil to good. We wish to join in the appeal of the Bishops of the Swedish Church, in the name of God, for intercessions for our tortured brethren of the race of Israel, and to make daily prayers to our Father in Heaven for the many who are suffering violence and disaster at this time.”

Under the subject heading “Christian Gathering”, a meeting was held on December 6, 1942 at Hedvig’s Church at Norrkoping. This meeting was arranged by clergymen. Speakers were Vicar Thysell, Pastor Einitz Genitz and Vicar Knut Ericson. We quote the following from Vicar Thysell’s address:

“The information concerning 1,000 Jews driven from their homes, robbed of their property and transferred to Germany to meet a most cruel fate, has shaken us thoroughly and deeply. Those Jews were loyal Norwegian citizens: they had done nothing wrong. They were punished because they were Jews, without trial or verdict. 3 The people of Norway were the first to speak up and protest through their Church. The brave and strong words from Norwegian Church leaders, themselves oppressed and persecuted, have moved us profoundly. Now we, too, must speak. There are occasions when it would be denying truth to remain silent. We bear a special responsibility towards God and humanity when such things are happening around US. We Swedes are best able to represent the world’s conscience in this case, and we feel that we also owe our Norwegian brethren a clear and unequivocal declaration on our stand. We also have another responsibility in this case, one that lies even nearer to us: our responsibility towards the Jewish brethren, who belong to our own people. The contamination of anti-Semitism has also reached our own country. Infamous and false propaganda is being spread from plague centres within our own borders. We have hitherto belittled this danger. Now we see to where it is leading. It is time for us to wake up! We must also at this hour think of the mass persecution of Jews which is taking place in other countries. From available information it appears that the anti-Semitic wave is still rising. The threat now also concerns half-Jews. Our taking a stand might seem meaningless to all of these. We cannot stop violence. It may, however, in a secret way, bring a ray of consolation and hope into despairing hearts. We have named our meeting ‘Christian Gathering’. That our consciences react to the outrage which is happening, is the result of the spiritual values of life which we have received from Christ and the Prophets of Israel from the very people who are now being persecuted in so many countries. On those basic values rests our Nordic judicial culture. We pride ourselves on Sweden being a constitutional state. Here no one can be sentenced and punished except on the basis of justice. Here, right is not equal to might. Above the power of the state stand those eternal truths of our relation to God and each other, which have been revealed to us and which, in our consciences, appear as indefeasible values of life. Arnulf Overland says: ’Some things are greater than you. There are mountains with snow. There are dearer things than your life; you shall fight for it’. The dearest thing we have are those values of life that Christ gives us. The persecution of the Jews is not the only proof but the most horrible of all of a denial of these values of life. We are here to-day to confess our belief in these eternal foundations for human society, which God himself has laid. We believe in God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Father, who has called us all, independent of race and all other differences, to receive the adoption of sons and to live in communion with Him and each other. We wish to adhere to this Christian evaluation of man. And we reject as hostile to God and anti-Christian that brutal conception of man, and that contempt of mankind, which forge the acts of violence in anti-Semitism. We regard the brotherhood of humanity as holy, and brotherly action as our goal. We feel it our obligation to act towards our Jewish brethren in accordance with Jesus’ rule of life: ’All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them’. 3 Do we seriously mean them to be our confession of faith? Do we dare uphold it, as our Norwegian brethren have done, even if our faith should be tried as gold is tried in fire? Whatever happens, we need not fear, if we follow Jesus Christ, the eternal King. The weapons of iniquity are doomed annihilation. Christ stands on the side of the persecuted. His spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Righteousness and Love, is strongest of all. The day of freedom shall again dawn for the persecuted and oppressed.”

It is remarkable that earlier déportations of Jews in countries such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, did not prompt the Swedish Church leaders to raise their voices, though the number of deportees was much greater than that of the Jews deported from Norway. It seems likely that what was happening in Western Europe was less known in Sweden than what was happening in Norway. Moreover, human beings generally are more moved by cruelties committed on their doorstep, than by what happens further away. The Proclamation of the Swedish Bishops expressed “horror and dismay” because “an un-Christian racial hatred... has now expressed itself... in our immediate neighbourhood, on our own Scandinavian peninsula”.

As far as we know, the Swedish Church did not issue a Protest against the persecution of the Danish Jews. In fact, events in Denmark took place so rapidly that a Protest would hardly have done any good. The pressure of the Swedish Archbishop (and others) on the Swedish Government to make public their willingness to receive all Danish Jews, was important. It appears that this step, indirectly, saved many lives. Dr. Lenì Yahil relates the following:

“The Swedish Foreign Office contacted Richert, the Swedish envoy in Berlin, on the same day, September 29 , and again on the next day, September 30, in order to plan with him the appeal to the German Foreign Office. It was decided that Richert would ask the Germans whether there was a basis to the rumours about an impending deportation of the Jews from Denmark, and that he would stress the fact that such a deportation would cause great indignation in Sweden. Moreover, he was to propose that all Danish Jews be transferred to Sweden and concentrated there in a camp and that the Swedish Government would be responsible that ’they would not be able to undertake any activity that might be harmful to Germany’. 3 It became evident that the Swedes did not intend to take any further action. [Niels] Bohr, Ebbe Munk and their friends, however, were of a different opinion. As we know from entries in Ebbe Munk’s diary and from his letters to Christmas Moeller in London, it was the Danish group with the active support of prominent Swedish circles which brought about the publication by the Swedish Government of the appeal to the Germans. On October 2, the day following on the night of the persecution in Denmark, Bohr had an interview with the Foreign Secretary, Guenther. It seems that already on the preceding day the Danes had tried to persuade the Swedes to publish their appeal to the Germans in the hope that such a publication might prevent the deportation. Since this had not been done, Bohr requested the Swedish Foreign Secretary to repeat his appeal to the Germans and to propose to them that the boats on which the Jews were concentrated, be directed to Sweden instead of to Germany. Guenther proposed this to the German Ambassador Thomsen, who called on him at 9 o’clock in the evening on that day. A reply to this proposal was never received. Through Kammerherr von Kruse, the Danish Ambassador in Stockholm, and with the active support of Prof. Stefan Hurvitz, an audience with the King of Sweden was arranged for Bohr, in the afternoon of the same day. During this audience Bohr proposed to the King that the Swedish appeal to Germany be published. The King did not reply, but at the end of the audience the Foreign Secretary was called in. That same evening the Swedish radio broadcasted an announcement about the steps taken by Sweden in Berlin. The announcement stressed that the Swedish Ambassador, on behalf of his Government, had declared that Sweden was willing to receive all the Danish Jews. We know that this announcement encouraged the Jews as well as their Danish helpers to organize the mass escape. In his letter to Christmas Moeller, dated October 12, Munk told that the Swedish Government only agreed to publish the announcement, after the Arch-bishop, professors and other prominent persons had declared that they were prepared to sign an open letter to the Government about the subject.”

The King of Sweden was present when, in May, 1944, Archbishop Eidem delivered his opening address to the General Assembly, to which 2,600 parish-delegates and guests from all over the country had come. Archbishop Eidem said:

“... Our Christian conscience must keep constantly on the alert in the face of all that is happening in the world around us. Might is not right. Power is not justice. Torture is not permissible in any circumstances. Innocent people must not be made in any way responsible or punished for the acts of others. Houses and entire communities must not be purposely destroyed in order to intimidate or cripple an enemy. 23 People of a particular racial and national group, such as the unhappy people of the Jews, must not be persecuted and martyred because of their membership in that race or national group. All such actions are not only barbarism but sin... It is indeed no wonder that a frightful harvest of hatred and vengefulness is growing from the sowing of such seeds on our poor earth. As Christians we are called to take up the fight against hatred in every shape and form in this world, which now seems to be a free field for unleashed evil forces; and we must conduct this fight first of all in our own hearts, but each man also in the place where he lives. And we must not grow tired or weary in this fight.”

It would be interesting to know how far the King was influenced by this stand of his Archbishop when, shortly afterwards, he appealed to Regent Horthy on behalf of the Hungarian Jews.

It is my impression that the Church of Sweden also undertook steps on behalf of the Jews about which we know nothing, and perhaps never shall. Concerning two steps, we do know at least something. Firstly, the secretary of the Church of Sweden’s Committee for Foreign Affairs, Rev. Johansson, communicated to me: “It is true that Archbishop Eidem paid a visit to Hitler himself, but no details are officially known”. Secondly, the German Ambassador in Slovakia, Ludin, informed the German Foreign Office in a letter dated January 3, 1945, that the Archbishop of Uppsala had addressed the Slovak Prime Minister (Tiso) with a plea for the transfer of “the unfortunate Jewish brethren” to neutral territories. We have, however, not succeeded in retrieving a copy of Archbishop Eidem’s letter.

COUNTRIES AT WAR WITH GERMANY

14 GREAT BRITAIN

a. The First Period

Few voices were publicly raised in England during the years 1940 and 1941. In 1940, the Battle of Britain apparently occupied the national attention so much that people tended to forget everything else. If any statements made by ecclesiastical leaders were issued in 1941 (except the statement of the Church of Schotland, mentioned below), I have failed to find them. The Beckley Social Service Lecture is delivered annually in connection with the Methodist Conference in Great Britain. Its purpose is to review certain major problems in the field of social service from the point of Christian responsibility. In the year 1940 the Rev. W. W. Simpson, now secretary of the Council of Christians and Jews, was invited to deal with the refugee problem and the fight against anti-Semitism. His lecture was published in book-form.

In May 1940, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland issued the following statement:

“The General Assembly deplore the continued persecution of Jewish minorities in Central Europe, and deeply regret that the situation has worsened in Hungary. The General Assembly warmly appreciate the vigorous protest against the new anti-Jewish legislation made by the Hungarian Reformed Church, and assure the Committee and the missionaries themselves of their sympathy with all endeavours to minister relief and comfort and hope to suffering Jews, so far as it may be in their power to do so.”

I regret that I have not succeeded in finding any confirmation of the “vigorous protests” made by the Hungarian Reformed Church. In May 1941, the Assembly anew expressed:

“their deep sympathy with the Jewish people in their tragic sorrow, and, realising the gravity and intricacy of the problem, approve the settling up of a Sub-Committee to survey the whole situation, and they resolve to appoint six members ad hoc to assist in this survey.”

This expression of sympathy was repeated in May, 1942, whilst the General Assembly also warned “their faithful people against the growing menace of anti-Semitism.”

We record the statements issued by the Presbyterian Church of Ireland during the second world war in this chapter, as most of the members of this Church live in the Northern part of Ireland which is under the sovereignty of Great Britain. In June, 1942, the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland issued the following “Resolution anent the Jewish People”:

“That the following resolution, adopted at a recent conference in connection with the Presbyterian Alliance, be given the warm approval of the General Assembly: ’That this Conference of representatives of the Presbyterian Churches of Great Britain and Ireland, held at Edinburgh on the 28th day of January, 1942, having considered the position of the Jews in the problem of post-war reconstruction, deplores any denial to persons of Jewish descent of the right of equal treatment before the law and of other rights due to their status as ordinary citizens, and urges that all Governments shall take immediate steps to restore to the full status of human dignity such Jewish people as have been deprived of it, and, in particular, that all legislation unjustly diminishing the rights of Jews, as such, shall be repealed at an early date; recognising also that liberty of conscience is an essential part of civil liberty, and that a free exchange of religious convictions is a necessary condition of all understanding between races and nations, the Conference urges on all Governments the recognition of the unfettered right of every individual to free choice in religious faith and to the public profession and preaching of it so long as these rights do not run counter to public law and order. The Conference urges His Majesty’s Government, in conjunction with other allied and friendly nations, to provide for some scheme of emigration for Jews who cannot find a home in Europe.”

b. Mass Massacres. The Fate of the Refugees

On June 26, 1942, Reports of the massacre of Jews in Poland were broadcast by the B.B.C. The Chief Rabbi, Dr. Hertz, based a special Sunday evening broadcast on the reports. On July 8, 1942, the Archbishop of Canterbury inveighed, on the European service of the B.B.C., against “so terrible a violation of human and Divine law.” On October 15, 1942, the Bishop of Chichester spoke in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury:

“The torture and the ceaseless and systematic deportation of the Jews form some of the darkest chapters in the tragic history even of that people, and the latest report which has reached this country tells of the deportation, in terrible circumstances, of thousands of Jewish refugees from Vichy France, where they had thought they were safe from the oppressor, to Occupied France and thence to Eastern Galicia, leaving behind them between five thousand and eight thousand children of whom many are now orphans, while large numbers do not know their parents or their own names, and all are waiting for the charity of Britain, or America or Switzerland to give them sanctuary.”

Also in October, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent the following Message to the Jewish Bulletin:

“The situation of the Jews is unique, and yet has lasted for many centuries. They are a people conscious of close and real unity, and yet they have no motherland. Other people have survived and maintained their identity when there was no national State to which they could be loyal; but there was always a homeland inhabited by the people who remembered their days of independence and hoped for its restoration. For the Jews there has been no such a homeland. Their eyes might turn to Palestine; but though there were Jews among the population there, they did not form the bulk of it. The Jews as a people have been homeless. They have lived among the other peoples of the earth, and they have been loyal citizens of the nations which have made them welcome. But if their hosts turn against them they have no remedy. In earlier periods this has happened from time to time. In our day it has happened on a scale without parallel. Their sufferings are appalling and entirely undeserved. It should be our aim to assist them in all ways in our power; for their need is desperate. 3 But there is more in their claim than a plea for sympathy. One of the tests of a people’s civilisation is its capacity to treat well a defined minority. To fail in this is to revert to the ethics of the wolf-pack; and to succeed is the evidence of moral stability. In the case of the Jews our task is the easier because the moral principles which we profess are largely drawn from that sacred literature which we share with them. We should be standing together in loyalty to those principles against all who repudiate or ignore them. Anti-Semitism is evidence of a barbarous outlook and a religious apostasy.”

In the same month, the Free Church Federal Council sent a letter to the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Hertz, expressing “the deep feelings of indignation and sympathy with which the Free Churches of this country regard the cruel persecution from which the Jewish race is suffering through the tyranny exercised by the Axis powers”. The message continued:

“We assure you of our continued prayers to Almighty God that its sufferings may speedily be brought to an end, and that all peoples may once again enjoy freedom of worship, preaching and teaching according to conviction without incurring civil disability or penalty in any form.”

On October 29, 1942, an audience of 10,000 assembled in the Albert Hall to voice their protest against “the ruthless policy of extermination decreed by the Nazis and their satellites against the Jewish population in all territories under their sway”. The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the chair.

“Speaking about the déportations from France, the Archbishop mentioned the fact that children from two years upwards are now also being deported. ’There is something familiar about that,’ he said, ’but when the earlier Nazis massacred the Innocent of Bethlehem it was on those of two years and less that destruction fell; and that in a smaller number.’...

The Archbishop concluded by saying that:

“he was grateful for this opportunity to share in the effort to express our horror at what has been and is being done, our deep sympathy with the sufferers, our claim that our own Government should do whatever is possible for their relief, and our steadfast resolution to do all and bear all that may be necessary to end this affliction.”

Dr. I. S. Whale, Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, speaking in the name of the Free Church, declared that anti-Semitism in all its forms was “an outrage against that sanctity of law which is one of the most precious gifts of ancient Israel to modern Christianity”. Bishop Matthew spoke on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. The following resolution, moved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, was unanimously adopted:

“This meeting, representative of British public opinion and of the United Nations fighting in the cause of freedom, places on record its profound indignation at the unparallel atrocities which have been and are being committed daily by the German Government and its satellites against the unarmed citizens of countries under the Nazi yoke. It records its horror at the deliberate policy of extermination which the Nazis have declared against the Jews wherever they are to be found, and extends its profound sympathy to the families of the unhappy victims of a systematic terror carried out by wholesale massacre, the murder of innocent hostages, the inhuman separation of children from their parents and other unspeakable cruelties and atrocities. This meeting expresses its heartfelt admiration for the heroism and gallantry of the fighting forces of the United Nations now leading us to victory, and desires to convey its deep sense of gratitude to those people in the occupied territories who, despite the terror, have done so much to help and succour their Jewish fellow-victims.”

On November 10, 1942, the Archbishop of Canterbury, inaugurating a new Parliamentary session, drew once more the attention to the extermination of the Jews, that “horror which is going on almost at our door”. Contrasting “what is still our standard of living” with the ordeals of the afflicted, “packed in cattle trucks... sixty in each...given little food” so that “on one occasion they all died of starvation”, he inquired “whether it is thought possible that we may be able to do something to bring relief to these sufferers”. He mentioned as a shining example “the amazing generosity” of the Swiss whose “frontier has been technically closed but actually open” and suggested that Britain should give aid to the Swiss in support of refugees who can make their way there. He also recommended the granting of visas to those able to reach Britain:

“I hope that we should not in such a case waste our time in considering whether we have done as much or more than other nations for people who are in this kind of distress; the only question which really matters is whether we have done all we can... Again I hope we shall not waste time by considering whether these people fall into the categories drawn up to regulate such matters. Categories are nothing but administrative headings, and can be altered, if we wish, to include some who do not fall under them...”

The Archbishop of Canterbury again urged the Government, in a letter to “The Times” , to admit to Britain “any refugee who might succeed in escaping”.

c. Retribution for the Persecutors; Intercession for the Persecuted

At the beginning of December, 1942, the Archbishop of York delivered a speech in the House of Lords. The Archbishop said:

“Men, women and children are being ruthlessly put to death by massacre, poison, gas, electrocution, or being sent long journeys to unknown destinations in bitterly cold weather without food or drink. Children that die on the way are cast out from the open trucks to the side of the railway. Such is Hitler’s new order.”

The Archbishop called upon the Government

“...to state solemnly that when the hour of deliverance comes, retribution will be dealt out not only on the cold-blooded and cowardly brutes who order these massacres, but also on the thousands of underlings who appear joyfully to be carrying them out.”

The “Solemn Statement” requested by the Archbishop of York (and many others) was published on December 17, 1942, simultaneously in London, Washington and Moscow, with the assent and support of all the Allied Governments and of the British Dominions. The text was as follows:

“The attention of the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia, and of the French National Committee, has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children. The above-mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom-loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hilarity tyranny. They reaffirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end.”

The Bishop of London, Dr. Fisher (later on to be the Archbishop of Canterbury) voiced in the House of Lords “the whole hearted support for the statement which is forthcoming from Christian circles”. Referring to the appeal made by the Archbishop of York, the Bishop said:

“It would be a satisfaction to the Archbishop and others if it were made clear that retribution will be exacted not only from those who devised and ordered these proceedings, but also in due degree of responsibility from those who carried out joyfully and gladly the orders which were given to them. The deeds were so repugnant to the laws of God and to every human instinct of decency that whoever took a share must receive due retribution for them. He hoped that it would be made clear that we and all our Allies would offer free asylum gladly to all who could escape.”

The Bishop also urged that:

“Neutral countries should be encouraged to grant sanctuary to refugees by a guarantee that for every Jewish refugee from Nazi tyranny they would receive, the United Nations would undertake to share in the cost of maintenance and would make possible the resettlement after the war of refugees in a permanent and abiding home.”

At the end of January, 1943, the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Wales issued, “in the name of the Bishops of the three provinces”, a statement in which they again stressed the two main points in the Bishop of London’s speech in the House of Lords in December, 1942, namely: support of the Declaration made by the Allied Governments that “those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution and the demand to provide a sanctuary for the victims. The “Appeal to the Government” reads as follows:

“The Bishops of England and Wales have been profoundly stirred by the declaration made in both Houses of Parliament on behalf of His Majesty’s Government on December 17th, 1942, describing the barbarous and inhuman treatment to which the Jews are being subjected in German-occupied Europe. They note that the number of victims of this policy of cold-blooded extermination is already reckoned in hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children. They note further that the extermination already carried out is part of the carrying into effect of Hitler’s oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe, which means in effect the extermination of some six million persons in the territories over which Hitler’s rule has been extended. The Bishops of England and Wales declare that the sufferings of these millions of Jews and their condemnation, failing immediate rescue, to a cruel and certain death, constitute an appeal to humanity which it is impossible to resist. They believe that it is the duty of civilised nations, whether neutral or Allied, to exert themselves to the utmost possible extent to provide a sanctuary for these victims. They therefore urge the Government of the United Kingdom to give a lead to the world by declaring its readiness, in consultation with the Dominion Governments, to co-operate with the Governments of the United and neutral nations in finding an immediate refuge in territories within the British Empire as well as elsewhere for all persons threatened with massacre who can escape from Axis lands, or for those who have already escaped to neighbouring neutral countries and can make room for other refugees to take their place.”

That not everyone agreed with the demand for retribution becomes evident from a speech given by the Archbishop of York at a city meeting in Leeds, on March 14, 1943. The Archbishop had been told that he was unchristian in asking for retribution. Objections were evidently made to the Archbishop’s request that “refugees from this horror can find a refuge wherever the British flag flies”. Apparently there was the feeling that there might be spies amongst the refugees; that the territories under the British flag would be flooded by a mass immigration of Jewish refugees, and that this would create insurmountable problems after the war. The Archbishop said the following:

“...The persecution of the Jews is, however, unique in its horror. It has the characteristics which make it stand by itself in the long history of cruelty and tyranny. It is a deliberate policy of extermination directed against, not a nation, but a whole race. Neither their nation, nor their profession, nor their character will save Jews from this sweeping sentence. They are doomed without trial, without crime, without the possibility of defence, simply because they belong to the race from which the prophets came, and of which our Lord and His disciples were members. They are condemned to death to satisfy the blood lust of a cruel and wicked megalomaniac who by fraud and violence now holds the greater part of Europe in his grasp... What can be done? 1. Let the German people know what is being done in their nam. Let the German people also be told solemnly and repeatedly that sure
retribution awaits not only the master criminals who have ordered these
horrors, but also their brutal underlings who are carrying them out,
often apparently with zest.
I have been told that I am un-Christian in asking for retribution. Have those who thus criticise never read that the Christ said that rather than a man should offend one of these little ones it were better that a millstone should be hanged about his neck and he be cast into the sea. I ask for this broadcasting of the Allies’ determination to punish, in the hope that it may stay the hands of at any rate some of the criminals. Fear is sometimes effective when mercy makes no appea. We must make it plain that refugees from this horror can find a refuge
wherever the British flag flies. Every precaution will have to be taken
against spies. And the refuge will only be promised for the period of
the terror. Few will be able to reach our shores. But give them this
hope of refuge.. Support the Government in the efforts they are now making, with other
allied powers and the neutrals, to help the Jews now in danger and to
provide succour for their refugees. We must do all we can in the name of Christianity and humanity to save at any rate a remnant from these foul murderers. Victory is the only sure road to their deliverance. The war becomes increasingly a crusade not only to preserve freedom and justice, but also to overthrow and shatter cruelty and tyranny in their most savage and hateful forms.”

At the end of 1942, a statement was issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, urging that special intercessions be offered in all churches on the first Sunday of the New Year:

“We do not doubt that in all congregations prayer is throughout this time being offered for the Jews of Germany and the occupied countries, who are suffering so terrible an affliction and over whom the threat of extermination is hanging. It is a bitter grief that our nation can do so little to help, but short of victory in the war there is no way in which we can ourselves effect anything comparable with the need, and the massacre goes on day by day. We should be united in constant prayer to Almighty God that this monstrous evil may be checked and the Jews delivered from their tormentors; and as a focus for such united prayer we urge that special intercessions be offered in all churches on the first Sunday of the New Year.”

Seven “representative German Lutheran Pastors in England” commented, in a letter published in “The Times”, as follows:

“On the first Sunday of the New Year when the Gospel appointed to read in all German Lutheran Churches is the story of the murder of the innocent (St. Matthew 2, 16-18), we ministers of the German Lutheran Church in England feel in duty bound to call our congregations to solemn prayer and intercession for the Jewish people in their unparalleled sufferings. It was the anti-Jewish legislation as applied to the ministry which brought the Lutheran Church in Germany to its first witness against idolatry and barbarism and caused it to become a ‘Confessing Church’. Some of us wish that the protest then made had been stronger, more general, more frequent; but it is not for us who now live in safety to criticise those who under fire have done their utmost not to bow to Baal. While they are silenced by the terrors of persecution, we know that they would want and expect us to speak on their behalf and in the name of all who confess themselves Christians in Germany. 4 In fellowship with them and in solidarity with the people of whom Christ our Lord was born, in solemn protest and deep repentance we recall the words of the Old Testament: ’Open thy mouth, judge righteously and plead the cause of the poor and needy’. (Pro, 8-9).”

d. Practical Steps Demanded; the Bermuda Conference

Many times Church leaders in Great Britain demanded that their Government should take practical steps for the rescue of the Jews of Europe. Some of their statements on this subject have already been recorded in the preceding paragraph. In a letter to “The Times”, the Bishop of Chichester recommended that Germany should be officially requested to let Jews emigrate to neutral countries. In Parliament, an all-party committee of members of both houses was formed to prod the Government into action. Its first meeting, on January 27, 1943, was addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. On February 4, 1943, at the annual meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews, the Archbishop of Canterbury referred to “the deep concern felt by all sections of the British public at the reports of mass extermination of Jews and others at the hand of the Nazis”. He outlined “the steps which he had taken as one of the Joint Presidents of the Council, and in association with the leaders of the other sections of the Christian community, in the hope of securing some measure of relief to the victims of this persecution.”

On March 23, 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the following Resolution to the House of Lords:

“To move to resolve, that, in view of the massacres and starvation of Jews and others in enemy and enemy occupied countries, this House desires to assure His Majesty’s Government of its fullest support for immediate measures, on the largest and most generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security, for providing help and temporary asylum to persons in danger of massacre who are able to leave enemy and enemy-occupied countries.”

The Archbishop said:

“...We are wisely advised not to limit our attention in this connection to the sufferers of any one race, and we must remember that there are citizens of many countries who are subject to just the same kind of monstrous persecution, and even massacre. None the less, there has been a concentration of this fury against the Jews, and it is inevitable that we should give special attention to what is being carried through, and still further plotted against them... “We are told that the only real solution is rapid victory. No doubt it is true that if we could win the war in the course of a few weeks we could still deliver multitudes of those who are now doomed to death. But we dare not look for such results, and we know that what we can do will be but little in comparison with the need. My whole plea on behalf of those for whom I am speaking is that whether what we can do be large or little it should at least be all we can do.”

The Archbishop then told of the deportation of Jews from Moravia, Germany, Rumania, and Holland, and of the slaughter of Jews in Poland. He continued:

“I believe that part of our difficulty in arousing ourselves and our fellow-countrymen to the degree of indignation that it would seem to merit is the fact that the imagination recoils before it. It is impossible to hold such things at all before the mind. But we are all agreed in this House on the main purpose of this Motion, to offer our utmost support to the Government in all they can do; but with all sympathy for members of His Majesty’s Government, I am sure they will forgive some of us who wonder whether quite everything possible has really already been done.”

The Archbishop recalled “the solemn statement of the United Nations made public on December 17”, and contrasted “the solemnity of the words then used, and the reception accorded to them, with the very meagre action that had actually followed”.

“It is the delays in the whole matter while these horrors go on daily that make some of us wonder whether it may not be possible to speed up a little. One must admit that some of the arguments hitherto advanced as justifying the comparative inaction seem quite disproportionate to the scale of the evil confronting us.

As reasons for no further action, “the great part that has been taken by this country and other countries in the relief of the refugees” was pointed out. “That, of course, would be relevant if the people in the other lands were suffering great discomfort or great privation, but when what you are confronted with is wholesale massacre, it seemed to most of us not only irrelevant but grotesquely irrelevant.”

The Secretary of State for the Colonies had given a promise with regard to the admission of Jews to Palestine, on February 3, but on February 24 no attempt to move these persons had yet taken place. The Archbishop made a plea that action should be taken as promptly as possible to carry out the promises given by the Colonial Secretary. He also urged, “that we should revive the scheme of visas for entry into this country”.

“We want to suggest the granting of blocks of visas to the Consuls in Spain and Portugal and perhaps in Turkey to be used at their discretion. We know of course that the German Government will not give exit permits. What matters is that we should open our doors irrespective of the question whether the German door is open or shut, so that all who can may come... It is of the greatest importance to give relief to those neutral countries because there is at present a steady stream or perhaps more accurately a steady trickle of refugees from France both into Spain and into Switzerland. The numbers that those countries, already suffering a good deal in shortage of food and with their standard of life so far below our own, will be able to receive are of course limited. If we can open the door at the other side and bring away from Spain and Portugal and (if transport is available but probably it would not) from Switzerland and also from Turkey those who are able to make their escape there, we shall render it far more probable that the channels through which that trickle percolates will not be blocked... Then, once more, it is urged, that we should offer help to European neutrals, to encourage them to admit new refugees, in the form of guarantees from the United Nations to relieve them of a stipulated proportion of refugees after the victory, or, if possible, sooner; that we should offer direct financial aid... There is one point I would raise more tentatively... It is that through some neutral power an offer should directly be made to the German Government to receive Jews in territories of the British Empire and, so far as they agree, of the other Allied Nations on a scheme of so many each month. Very likely it would be refused, and then Hitler’s guilt would stand out all the more evidently. If the offer were accepted there would of course be difficulties enough, but it would be the business of the Germans to overcome these so far as concerns the conveyance of the refugees to the ports, and efforts could be made to secure help from Sweden and other neutral countries for shipping from the ports... Some of us have wondered how far the possibility has been considered of receiving any considerable number, particularly of children, in Eire and whether the Government of Eire have been consulted about this... 4 “It is said that there is a danger of Anti-Semitic feeling in this country. No doubt that feeling exists in some degree, and no doubt it could very easily be fanned into flame, but I am quite sure it exists at present only in comparatively small patches. It is very local when it exists at all, and therefore it receives a degree of attention beyond what it deserves. But if the Government were to decide that it was wise and practicable to put in action any of the proposals that I have laid before your Lordships, it would be very easy for the Government, by skilful use of the wireless, to win the sympathy and confidence of the people for their proposals, especially if a large number of those who were brought out were children and were being delivered from almost certain death... The whole matter is so big and other claims are so urgent that we want further to make the proposition that there shall be appointed someone of high standing for whom this should be a primary responsibility... My chief protest is against procrastination of any kind. It was three months ago that the solemn declaration of the United Nations was made and now we are confronted with a proposal for an exploratory Conference at Ottawa. That sounds as if it involves much more delay. It took five weeks from December 17 for our Government to approach the United States, and then six weeks for the Government of the United States to reply, and when they did reply they suggested a meeting of representatives of the Government for preliminary exploration. The Jews are being slaughtered at the rate of tens of thousands a day on many days, but there is a proposal for a preliminary exploration to be made with a view of referring the whole matter after that to the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. My Lords, let us at least urge that when that Conference meets it should not meet for exploration only but for decision. We know that what we can do is small compared with the magnitude of the problem, but we cannot rest so long as there is any sense among us that we are not doing all that might be done. We have discussed the matter on the footing that we are not responsible for this great evil, that the burden lies on others, but it is always true that the obligations of decent men are decided for them by contingencies which they did not themselves create and very largely by action of wicked men. The priest and the Levite in the parable were not in the least responsible for the traveller’s wounds as he lay there by the roadside and no doubt they had many other pressing things to attend to, but they stand as the picture of those who are condemned for neglecting the opportunity of showing responsibility. We at this moment have upon us a tremendous responsibility. We stand at the bar of history, of humanity and of God. I beg to move.”

After the Archbishop of Canterbury had spoken, Lord Rochester spoke “as a Methodist layman”:

’...No one can preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and remain indifferent to social institutions which contradict that teaching. Wherever the Churches find practices which are contrary to Christian doctrine, whether they be such diabolical and horrifying practices as these we are more especially considering this afternoon, or others, it is no more than their bounden duty to denounce them... We are concerned with all persecuted minorities, but the Christian necessarily feels an intimate responsibility in regard to the Jews, since Christ ‘according to the flesh’ came out of Israel. Almost every page of the New Testament shows how close was the association between religious Judaism and the first followers of Christ... ’I must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.’ And woe to us if we leave any stone unturned in seeking to aid and succour those of our fellow human beings who are suffering this cruel Nazi stumbling-block of offence. The Nazis have indeed debased themselves even unto hell, but let us remember’ the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,’ as we recall those words in the 57th chapter of Isaiah: ’Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people’. I support the Motion of the most reverend Primate, and I would urge the redoubling of our efforts to succour ‘one of the least of these’, as we recall the latter part of the 25th chapter of St. Matthew.”

It is remarkable that, contrary to what one might have expected, it was the Archbishop who made the practical suggestions and the “Methodist layman” who cited texts from the Bible. It is a pity that one expression in the Archbishop’s motion ("immediate measures, on the largest and most generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security”) provided the Government with an excuse to do practically nothing. In order to understand the Archbishop’s words, one should, however, try to realize how manifold were “the requirements of military operations and security” in those days. 4 Obviously the Archbishop was well-informed about the persécutions on the continent of Europe. He had received (as he himself stated in his speech) reports from the World Jewish Congress, Geneva, and from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Dr. Riegner, of the World Jewish Congress, sent an aide-memoire to the British Ambassador in Bern “on behalf of the secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and of the Jewish Congress”. The covering letter, dated March 22, 1943, stated: “We should also appreciate it if His Majesty’s Government would see fit to pass on the main contents of this aide-memoire to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the British Section of the World Jewish Congress”. But if the aide-memoire was passed on, it must have come too late for the meeting in the House of Lords. The speech of the Archbishop in the House of Lords deserves careful study. It sheds an important light on the attitude of the Government regarding the Jewish refugees.

The Archbishop mentioned the proposal for an exploratory Conference at Ottawa. The country (Canada) in whose capital the conference was to be held, however, had not been informed, and thus the conference was held at Bermuda, on 19-29 April, 1943. The statement issued at the end of its deliberations merely promised recommendations which were not disclosed and the setting up of an inter-governmental organization to handle the problem in the future. The verdict on the allied Governments that “History will record the Bermuda Conference as a monument of moral callousness and inertia” is not too severe.

The British Council of Churches, made up of the official representatives of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches, met in London on April 13th and 14th under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The following resolution was passed on anti-Semitism:

“The British Council of Churches warmly welcomes the statements made by the leaders of many Christian Churches expressing fellow-feeling with the Jewish people in the trials through which they are passing and the desire to aid them in every practicable way. In particular the Council notes with admiration and thankfulness the statements on this subject which have issued from Christian leaders in enemy-occupied countries. The Council affirms that anti-Semitism of any kind is contrary to natural justice, incompatible with the Christian doctrine of man and a denial of the Gospel. Malicious gossip and irresponsible charges against Jews, no less than active persecution, are incompatible with Christian standards of behaviour. The Council welcomes the decision to hold in Bermuda a Conference in which the British and American Governments will seek jointly to find practical ways of rendering immediate and continuing assistance to Jews and other imperilled people. The Council considers that every possible step ought to be taken to rescue from massacre the Jews in enemy and enemy occupied territories. It is convinced that both Christian and Jewish people in this country would give strong support to a lead from His Majesty’s Government in offering sanctuary in Great Britain for a considerable number of children and adults, additional to those received before September, 1939, and would be ready to make sacrifices so as to provide hospitality for them during the war. The Council further asks that the Bermuda Conference will suggest measures for rendering the requisite material assistance for the maintenance of refugees who reach neutral countries, and will give assurance to those countries of readiness to cooperate in plans for post-war settlement of the refugees in other parts of the world.”

In May, 1943, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland stated:

“The General Assembly protest anew against the atrocious persecution of the Jews in Nazi-occupied countries, and in the name of Christ condemns the inhumanity and sacrilege of anti-Semitic policy. They warmly approve of the steps taken by the Government to assist refugees, and respectfully urge it to continue and extend its efforts as far as possible. They assure the Jewish people of their deep sympathy in their grievous distress, and earnestly commend them to the prayerful concern and compassion of the Church.”

The Assembly of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland passed the following Resolution (also in May, 1943):

“They call upon His Majesty’s Government to promote, in concert with the Governments of the United States of America and other associated nations, effective measures for enabling Jews and other victims of German brutality to escape and find refuge. 5 In their view the strong abhorrence and detestation of the persecutors, which are felt throughout the civilised world, and of their purpose of exterminating the Jews, should be followed by energetic action, not only to bring to justice in due course the instigators and perpetrators of the massacres, but to give immediate aid, welcome and asylum in this and other free countries to those in peril, even though some risk to our own country may be involved. To this end they ask that restrictions regarding age, country of origin or means of support should not be put in the way to liberty and safety. They ask the Churches to show and inculcate a friendly and helpful attitude to such refugees, to pray for the deliverance of those who cannot escape beyond the reach of their barbarous enemies, and to resist as un-Christian all tendencies to anti-Semitism.

On June 10, 1943, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland adopted the following Resolution:

“The General Assembly has learned with great satisfaction that His Majesty’s Government is prepared to collaborate with the United States of America in providing asylum for as many victims of German hate as can escape or be rescued from the danger which threatens them, and to consult with the Dominion Governments and the Governments of neutral countries with regard to united action, so that as many of the threatened people as ever possible may be helped. In view of the tremendous urgency of the situation, the General Assembly requests His Majesty’s Government to carry out their promises to provide immediate and effective relief for those in such dire peril.”

Churches and Church leaders had, as quoted so far, expressed their desire and hope that the Government would take practical steps for aiding refugees. The Bishop of Chichester, however, expressed his disappointment in a letter to the Editor of “The Times”:

“The Foreign Secretary is about to make a statement in the House of Commons on the result of the Bermuda Conference, and the policy of His Majesty’s Government with regard to refugees. It will be almost exactly five months after the declaration of December 17, condemning the wholesale massacre of the Jews by the Nazis ‘in the strongest possible terms’. It is a historic moment in the record of our dealings with the persecuted and the oppressed. It is quite certain that if the British and American Governments were determined to achieve a programme of rescue in some way commensurate with the vastness of the need, they could do it. Nor can there be any doubt about the response which would be given in Britain to a clear lead based on the principles of humanity. 5 There are difficulties. But so far as shipping is concerned, these should be greatly reduced as a result of the victories in North Africa. The need of a big camp to which those now in neutral countries could be sent must be patent to everybody. And the case for a revision of the regulations to allow many more to enter the United Kingdom is overwhelming. The guilt of ‘this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination’ lies with the Nazis. But can we escape blame if, having it in our power to do something to save the victims, we fail to take the necessary action, and to take it swiftly?”

A few days later the Bishop of Chichester published the following letter in “The Times”:

“In the House of Commons on Wednesday Mr. Peake referred to my letter printed in your issue of May 18. His principal charge was ’that the Bishop made no attempt to indicate what was the programme of rescue which he suggested’. He added that he had searched Hansard for the House of Lords ever since December 17, but had failed to find any speech by myself on the subject. I was present at the debate opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury on March 23 and was prepared to speak. But owing to the number of speakers, representing all shades of opinion, on that occasion I, with others, stood down. It is not, however, true to say that I have made no suggestions as to a programme of rescue. In a letter in your columns on December 28, 1942, I referred to the suggestion made by Sir Neill Malcolm in his letter of December 22, and made further suggestions, such as the obtaining of facilities from the protecting Power for the transportation of Nazi victims from Germany and German occupied territories to the nearest frontier, with a view to entry into places of refuge; a guaranteeing to neutral Governments willing to give sanctuary to such victims of an evacuation of as many as possible after the war; and the establishment of reception areas in lands outside Europe. I am also a member of the Parliamentary Committee, and I support the 12-point programme for immediate rescue measures drawn up by the National Committee for Rescue from Nazi Terror, and widely published. I am glad to hear of the extension of categories of individuals eligible for visas, which forms a portion of the first of these points. I entirely agree that a programme of rescue must be a programme of victory. But this is not inconsistent with a determination by the Government to do everything possible for temporary sanctuary. There is a great difference between the spirit of a Government which says, ’We are resolved to do everything in our power, we wish we could do more, but such and such steps shall be taken at once in spite of all the difficulties’, and the pessimistic attitude which simply repeats, ’We are filled with burning indignation at the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis against these people. We are determined to punish the guilty when the war is over. But for the present these people are beyond possibility of rescue.”

On July 28, 1943, the Bishop of Chichester strongly supported the plea for urgent government action in a speech in the House of Lords which was very critical of official policy and action. He contended that:

“...in the matter of the systematic mass murder of the Jews in the Nazi-occupied territories of Europe, which was the reason why the Bermuda Conference was called, there has been a deterioration in the determination to grapple with the problem.”

After quoting earlier promises made on behalf of the Government, he criticized the achievement of this Conference.

“...On April 19-29 the Bermuda Conference took place. It began in a spirit of pessimism. Its official pronouncement at the end said that the delegates ‘had examined the refugee problem in all its aspects’. The Jews were not mentioned. Agreed confidential recommendations were made which were designed to lead to the relief of a substantial number of refugees of all races and nationalities. Not a word was said about ’temporary asylum’...”

Particularly the Bishop emphasized the obligation to give priority to the persecuted Jews, and the responsibility of both neutral countries and of the Allied Governments to find temporary asylum for Hitler’s victims.

“... It is in the face of this systematic murder, especially in the last twelve months, that I and so many others plead with the Government to act in a new way. With the appeal of the stricken people ringing in our ears, we would be false to our tradition if we failed to do everything we can.”

e. Towards the End

As far as we know, few statements were issued during the last period of the war. Significant was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s warning, on De, 1943, that “the sufferings of the Jews be kept in full view of all people so that the spirit of indignation and compassion in them will not die out”.

“It is one of the most terrible consequences of war that the sensitiveness of people tends to become hardened, “Dr.Temple said. “We could hardly live these days if we felt the volume of suffering of others in the world as acutely as we felt in peacetime”. “There is a great moral danger in the paralysis of feeling that is liable to be brought about. It is most important for our own moral health and vigor that we express horror at the persecution of the Jews.” Dr. Temple said the persecution of Jews on the Continent, and particularly in Poland, “almost baffles imagination and leaves one horrified at the power of the evil that can show itself in human nature.”

Another warning came from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (May, 1944):

“The General Assembly express their profound sorrow at the lamentable condition of the Jews in Europe, and in the name of Christ renew their reprobation of the inhuman atrocities committed against them. They assure the Jews of their deep concern and sympathy, commend them to the brotherly offices and prayerful compassion of all Christian men and women, and warn the members of the Church of Scotland against the growing danger of anti-Jewish prejudice and propaganda. They respectfully urge the Government to continue to offer every facility to enable refugees to escape from the tyranny and oppression of Nazism.”

In June, 1944, the Archbishop of Canterbury, presiding at a meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews, denounced the continued persecution and attempted extermination of the Jews by the Germans, whose activities he described as “one of the most hideous of the elements even in the recent German record”.

Dr. Temple moved a resolution expressing concern at the increasing peril to the Jewish communities involved in the extension of Nazi domination in Central and South Eastern Europe, coupled with satisfaction at the steps taken in North Africa and southern Italy to remove all discriminatory legislation against Jews and other victims of Nazi intolerance. He and many others, he said, had been disappointed that there had not been a greater willingness shown on the part of the authorities to help those who were trying to escape from German-dominated countries...

On July 7, 1944, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed the following message to Hungary through the B.B.C.:

“I am eager to speak to the Christian people of Hungary, so far as I can do so, because of news sent to me through one of the most reliable of ecclesiastical neutral sources and what I hear from that source only confirms what is reported also through other channels. The report is that a wholesale round-up of Hungarian Jews is taking place under orders from the German Government, and that those who are carried off have little chance of survival. According to this report, the Jews are being deported daily. Already the Eastern provinces have been cleared of Jews. Now the process is beginning in the Western districts including the capital. The conditions of travel are such that on arrival many already are dead; others are killed and cremated at Auschwitz. If the Christians of Hungary know the facts I am perfectly confident that they are also doing everything they can to save these doomed people by hiding them and helping them to escape. But it may be that inside Hungary the facts are concealed. It is for this reason that I feel bound to tell you of them, and beg you to do your utmost, even taking great personal risks, in order to save some if you can. Then you will earn in very special degree the words of approval and thanks: ‘In as much as ye did it unto one of these My brethren ye did unto Me’ (Matthew, 25, 40). I speak as a Christian who cannot help to Christians who can. For the honour of our common Christianity I implore you to do your utmost.”

15 THE UNITED STATES

a. The Time of America’s “Neutrality”

It would have been possible to record the statements in this paragraph under “The Neutral Countries”. The United States officially entered into the war in December, 1941. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on De and Hitler declared war upon the United States, on De, 1941. Until that time, it was at least pretended that the United States was neutral and the spirit of isolationism was still strong. Before 1942, strong statements against anti-Semitism were issued by Protestant Churches in the U.S.A., especially by the Federal Council of Churches. After Hitler’s declaration of war, however, the statements took on an additional clarity: “Anybody spreading anti-Semitism is helping Hitler just as much as if he were a paid agent of the Reich.” Anti-Semitism became “treason against God, treason against the country.” On the evening of December 14, 1939, a mass meeting was held at Madison Square Garden, New York, for the purpose of registering a protest against the treatment of the Jews in Poland and other areas under the Nazi regime. The meeting was attended by 20,000 people. Expressing the sympathy of Christians, Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, General Secretary of the Federal Council of Churches, pointed out, that Christians as well as Jews were suffering in Poland and other parts of Europe and that “Christians have a direct stake in what is happening”. In conclusion, he said:

“Out of the calamity in Europe, there emerges one by-product for which we may be thankful the new sense of fellowship between Jew and Christian in America. Nothing so quickly unites men as a cry of desperate human need. I do not believe there has ever been a time when Christian hearts in America beat in such sympathy for their Jewish neighbours. There are differences of religious conviction between Jew and Christian at one point a momentous difference but we share together the priceless spiritual heritage of Israel. As His Holiness Pope Pius XI truly and nobly said, ’Spiritually we are all Sémites’.”

The United Church of Christ issued the following statement in 1940:

“One of the most disturbing currents in America to-day is anti-Semitism. Under the cover of an attack upon the Jews a covert attack is being made on Christianity. The manipulators of anti- Jewish propaganda are not concerned with the alleged evils they denounce; but they are concerned to destroy the teachings of the Bible that God, the Lord and Creator of all men, is a holy God and the prophetic morality of the Old Testament. They attack under cover of anti-Semitism God the Lord who is not bound to any nation but is Lord of all nations. They attack justice, righteousness, mercy and the divine command for holiness. They attack the law which Christians and Jews alike acknowledge as God’s requirement. Twentieth century anti-Semitism reveals its true character in its demand on the Church to surrender the Old Testament and to deny that the God of Abraham, of Moses and the Prophets is the Father of Jesus Christ. 5 Anti-Semitism is flatly contradictory to the express teaching of St. Paul. In Romans 11, St. Paul reminds the Gentile Christians, just as we need to be reminded today, that Israel is the stem on which Gentile Christians have been grafted. ‘You owe,’ he wrote, ’your position to faith. You should feel awed instead of uplifted.’ And again, ’So far as the gospel goes, they (the Jews) are enemies of God, which is to your advantage; but so far as the election goes, they are beloved for their father’s sake. For God never goes back upon his gifts and call.’ St. Paul discovered in anti-Semitism a pride which needed to be rebuked. ‘You owe your position to faith’; that means, not something we have by right of possession, not something we can take for granted, not any kind of inherent superiority at all. Faith is the gift of God. Moreover, God has not repudiated Israel. They are still beloved. Anti-Semitism is not only one form of human pride; it is repudiation of the declared purpose of God. We recommend that General Synod declare its condemnation of anti-Semitism and urge upon the members of the Church in the name of Christ the duty to serve in love the brothers of Christ according to the flesh.”

The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the United States published the following Resolution, in December, 1940:

“We express as Christians our sympathy with the Jewish people in this hour of calamity for so many of their group in Europe. We deplore the existence of anti-Semitism in America and declare our opposition to it because it is contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christ. We call upon His followers to create Christian attitudes toward the Jews. This should be a matter of primary concern for every Christian Church in every community.”

On September 19, 1941, the Executive Committee of the Federal Council adopted the following statement:

“On many previous occasions we have expressed our abhorrence of the religious and racial intolerance which afflicts our world today. We have especially emphasized our opposition to unjust and unchristian attacks upon the Jews. In so doing we have been whole-heartedly supported by similar utterances officially made by the highest governing bodies of the great dominations which cooperate in the Federal Council of Churches. 5 Recent evidences of anti-Jewish prejudice in our own country compel us to speak again a word of solemn warning to the nation. Divisiveness on religious or racial grounds is a portentous menace to American democracy. If one group be made the target of attack today, the same spirit of intolerance may be visited on another group to-morrow and the rights and liberties of every group thus be put in jeopardy. We condemn anti-Semitism as un-American. Our nation is a free fellowship of many racial and cultural stocks. It is our historic glory that they have been able to live together in mutual respect, each rejoicing in the rich contribution which the others have made to the common good. Anti-Semitism is an insidious evil which, if allowed to develop, would poison the springs of our national life. Even more strongly we condemn anti-Semitism as un-Christian. As Christians we gratefully acknowledge our ethical and spiritual indebtedness to the people of Israel. No true Christian can be anti-Semitic in thought, word or deed without being untrue to his own Christian inheritance. In behalf of the Christian churches which comprise the Federal Council we voice our renewed determination to unite in combating every tendency to anti-Semitism in our country. We recognize that a special responsibility rests upon us who belong to the numerically strongest group, to be staunch advocates of the rights of minorities.”

In 1941, the following “Manifesto to our Brethren and Fellow Citizens of Jewish Race and Blood” was signed by one hundred and seventy Protestant ministers representing one hundred and sixty-six churches and twenty-four denominations in the City of New York:

“With genuine anguish of heart we behold how in many places across the world today cruel forces of oppression and persecution are being released upon men and women and children of Jewish race and blood. With profound concern we note from time to time within our own beloved nation the manifestation of a spirit of anti-Semitism. The conscience of Protestant Christendom, as recorded at the great ecumenical conference held at Oxford, England, during July of 1937, expressed itself in no uncertain terms when with unanimous voice it affirmed that ’against all racial pride, racial hatred and persecution and the exploitation of other races in all their forms, the church is called by God to set its face implacably and to utter its words unequivocally both within and without its borders. There is a special need at this time that the church throughout the world brings every resource at its command against the sin of anti-Semitism.’ With this pronouncement we are in complete accord of heart. Therefore, we would disavow any words or action promoted by the spirit of anti-Semitism, which emanate from sources that purport to be Christian. Such words and actions label themselves unchristian. 5 We call upon our Christian brethren to guard their hearts, their minds, their lips, their hands from emotions, thoughts, words or deeds that partake of ‘the sin of anti-Semitism’. To that end we command to them the quest for ‘the fullness of Christ’ within their lives. We call upon our fellow citizens to remember that anti-Semitism is a threat to democracy and a denial of the fundamental principles upon which this nation is founded. We extend to our brethren and fellow citizens of Jewish race and blood our solemn assurance that by the constraint of our deepest Christian conviction we shall oppose unceasingly ‘the sin of anti-Semitism’ and we shall strive continuously for the realization of that brotherhood which humanity needs, democracy requires and Christianity demands.”

b. At War with Germany. Co-operation with Jewish Leaders

The Executive of the Federal Council addressed the following “Message for Race Relations Sunday” (Feb, 1942) to its members:

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word even this: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Ga, 14. Let us translate this pattern into a social program. Our pronouncements must now be supported by our practices. Where attacks are made upon Jews or the sinister spirit of anti-Semitism appears, we must protest in the Name of Christ and the Church... Where any racial minority within our borders is exploited or barred from equal opportunity, we Christians must take a stand for the sake of our faith. We must, furthermore, create a genuine fellowship that will prevent the development to such injustice towards any group. Our love for the Church requires that it be pre-eminently the abode of fellowship. The Church, by reason of its origin in the universal Christ, must be a brotherhood of all peoples, remembering that in Him there is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. Therefore, let every follower of Christ search in his own soul to see if any enemies of brotherhood are lurking there. Let him examine his own daily relationships. Let us all in this awful and creative hour march resolutely forward, not faithless nor fearful, but confident in the future when democracy and brotherhood are one. “If a man say I love God and hateth his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen.” 1 John 4, 20.

In September and October, 1942, the General Secretary of the Federal Council, Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, visited France and Switzerland. The Director of the World Jewish Congress at Geneva, Dr. Gerhart M. Riegner, stated:

“With regard to our knowledge of the Nazi plan of total extermination of European Jewry, I wish to state that the first report on this plan reached me in the last days of July 1942 and I communicated it to Rabbi Wise in New York and Mr. Silverman in London during the first days of August 1942 (through diplomatic channels). Dr. Wise received the message during the last days of August 1942 and asked Mr. Cavert to use his visit to Geneva at the beginning of September 1942 to find out from us whether deportation really meant extermination. After having spoken to one of us I believe to Prof. Guggenheim he confirmed this in a cable to the United States.”

On De, 1942, at the great Biennial Assembly of the Federal Council, the following Resolution on Anti-Semitism was adopted:

“The reports which are reaching us concerning the incredible cruelties towards the Jews in Nazi occupied countries, particularly Poland, stir the Christian people of America to the deepest sympathy and indignation. It is impossible to avoid a conclusion that something like a policy of deliberate extermination of the Jews in Europe is being carried out. The violence and inhumanity which Nazi leaders have publicly avowed toward all Jews are apparently now coming to a climax in a virtual massacre. We are resolved to do our full part in establishing conditions in which such treatment of the Jews shall end. The feelings of the Jewish community throughout the world have recently been expressed in a period of mourning, fasting and prayer. We associate ourselves with our Jewish fellow-citizens in their hour of tragic sorrow, and unite our prayers with theirs. We confess our own ineffectiveness in combating the influences which beget anti-Semitism in our own country, and urge our constituencies to intensify their efforts in behalf of friendly relations with the Jews. We urge that all plans for reconstruction in Europe shall include measures designed to secure full justice for the Jews and a safe and respected place for them in western civilisation. For those who, after the war, will have to emigrate from the war-ridden lands of Europe, immigration opportunities should be created in this and other lands. We recommend that the officers of the Federal Council transmit this action to the Jewish leaders in person.”

On De, 1942, the Synagogue Council of America published a New Year message it had addressed to the Rev. Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, and to Mgr. Michael J. Ready, general secretary of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The message was signed by Dr. Israel Goldstein, president of the Council.

“American Jews,” the message said, “share with their Christian brothers the sense of having been privileged to bear burdens not only in answering the call of our nation’s defence needs, but also in heeding the call of human needs overseas. “To the Jews of Hitler-ridden Europe the year 1942 has been the most catastrophic in their tragedy-laden history. Helpless women, aged and children, and defenceless men have been slaughtered wholesale and a whole people has been marked for extermination. Among no other people is such a toll being taken. If the executioner’s hand is not soon stayed, all the Jews whom it can reach will perish.” The message said the greeting was “preferred to you and to the great body of Christians whom you represent”, and expressed hope for an Allied victory and a just peace in 1943.

On January 6, 1943, the heads of the six Jewish organizations which comprised the Synagogue Council of America, under the chairmanship of Rabbi Israel Goldstein, met in conference with official representatives of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. The purpose of the meeting was to afford an opportunity to discuss together what the Christian Churches could do to assist the Jews of Europe.

Desiring to express its sympathy in something more than resolutions, the Federal Council arranged for the conference with the Jewish leaders. Several fruitful suggestions emerged as to ways in which the Churches might help to develop stronger support for the needs of refugees from Europe, a measure of relief in the form of food for at least some of the Jews in Europe, and a safe and respected place for Jews in the post-war world.

c. Practical Steps Demanded; the Bermuda Conference

“On March 1, 1943, a great demonstration, one of the largest ever held in the United States, took place in Madison Square Garden at the initiative of the Congress and under the joint auspices of the American Jewish Congress, the American Federation of Labour, the CIO, and the Church Peace Union. Twenty-two thousand people crowded into the great hall, while 15,000 stood outside throughout the evening listening to the proceedings through amplifiers. The demonstration was addressed by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Dr. Stephen S. Wise, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia, Senator Robert F. Wagner, William Green, and others. The British Section transmitted cable messages from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the late Cardinal Hinsley, whose last public utterance it was before his death a week later. The meeting laid down a 12-point program for the rescue of European Jewry prepared by World Jewish Congress experts. The effect was immediate. On the following day, Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles declared that a note had already been sent to Great Britain on February 25 offering the cooperation of the United States in organizing an intergovern-mental meeting for study of methods to save ‘political refugees’ in Europe. The meeting came to be known as the Bermuda Refugee Conference...”

On March 1, 1943, the Executive Committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America appealed to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain “to consider offering financial assistance to Jewish refugees who have escaped to neutral countries from Nazi held territory, and the possible establishment of temporary places of asylum for those evacuated from Europe”.

The committee urged that the proposals be considered at the forthcoming conference in Toronto of representatives of the two governments on the Jewish problem. The suggestion was part of a three-point program calling for a report by the council’s department of research and education on the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime and setting aside May 2 for observance in churches as a “Day of Compassion” for the Jews in Europe. The committee’s action was a sequel to the adoption at the council’s biennial meeting in Cleveland in December of a statement setting forth the organization’s determination “to do our full part in establishing conditions” in which harsh treatment of Jews should end. The proposals outlined by the committee for consideration of the British and American representatives at Toronto were: 6 “To offer financial assistance for the support of refugees that neutral governments (for example, Switzerland, or Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey) may receive from areas under Nazi control, as a result either of infiltration across their borders or of negotiations with the Axis powers, with the expectation that, after the war, such refugees would be repatriated in their own countries. “To provide places of temporary asylum to which refugees whom it may be possible to evacuate from European countries may be removed, these refugees to be supported in camps for the duration of the war, with the understanding that they will then be repatriated in their own country or be provided with permanent homes in other ways.” At the same time the committee urged Christians throughout the country “to give their moral support to whatever measures afford promise of rescuing European Jews whose lives are in jeopardy.” The committee invited all Christians to “join in united intercession on May 2 for the victims of racial and religious persecution as a special occasion for the expression of Christian sollicitude.”

The practical steps proposed by the Executive Committee of the Federal Council to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain were similar to the steps proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords at about the same time, and to the Aide-memoire sent by the Secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress (Geneva), to the American and British Governments. Not withstanding all this, the Bermuda Conference became “a monument of moral callousness and inertia”.

d. Different Churches Speaking on Different Occasions

The following is a chronological record of statements made by Churches or Church leaders in the United States from May, 1943, until the end of the second world war.

Henry St. George Tucker, Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church and president of the Federal Council of Churches, in a statement on the observance by the Council of a “Day of Compassion” for persecuted European Jews, said that there had been found a “rising tide of concern among Christians” over their fate.

Dr. Tucker said it was the first time Christian churches had set aside a specific day for a “united expression of their sympathy with a suffering and persecuted Jewry”.

“What is happening to the Jews on the Continent of Europe is so horrible that we are in danger of assuming that it is exaggerated,” he said, and cited a recent survey by the council of evidence that he said indicated that under the Nazis a policy of deliberate extermination of Jews was carried out. “The survey shows that the actual facts are probably more, rather than less, terrible than the reports,” he continued. “The Christian people of America vigorously protest against this brutal and cruel persecution. But protest is not enough.” Two remedial measures have been set forth by the council: First financial assistance for support of refugees reaching neutral countries from Nazi-occupied areas, and second, provision of temporary asylum to which refugees evacuated from European countries may be removed.

On October 20, 1943, American religious leaders denounced “the recent acts of terror in Denmark” and expressed sympathy for the Jews in that country. The Rev. Dr. P.O. Bessel, president of the Augustan Synod, Minneapolis, said that the synod was shocked at the German barbarism in Denmark, but was happy about Sweden’s firm stand in offering refuge to the persecuted Jews. The Rev. Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary of the Federal Council, said that “the American churches have been thrilled by the news that the Danish Church has refused to be cowed into silence in the face of the Nazi attack upon Jews in Denmark”.

The following article in “The New York Herald Tribune” shows how strong anti-Semitic influences in the United States were, in 1943:

BISHOP OXNAM ASSAILS BEATING OF JEWISH BOYS

Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, of the Boston area of the Methodist Church, denounced today the alleged beating of Jewish boys as an apparent expression of incipient Fascism and, in a statement, demanded, “who is flooding the nation with anti-Semitic literature, and why?” 6 Declaring that “the beating of Jewish boys is not the work of hoodlums,” Bishop Oxnam expressed hope that Jews, Catholics and Protestants could unite “in demanding that these beatings stop and that steps be taken to discover and destroy the dangerous forces that lie back of them.” The Bishop’s statement followed the placing of charges before Governor Leveratt Saltonstall that Jews had been made the victims of ruffians over a period of months in the Boston area. The Governor, acting upon a petition of which Bishop Oxnam was one of the signers, has appointed five prominent citizens of various faiths to an advisory committee on anti-Semitism. “The beating of Jewish boys must stop,” the statement said. “The beaters must be apprehended and punished. The beating of any boys by gangs is bad enough at any time. The beating of boys of a particular race is worse. But the real menace lies in the apparent fact that these beatings are an expression of incipient Fascism, that they follow a similar pattern, and that, in one case, at least, the beaters wore black shirts. “Who is flooding the nation with anti-Semitic literature, and why? Who finances these movements? Why is it that the anti-Semitic leaders now under Federal indictment have attacked such religious organizations as the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the Methodist Church and other Protestant religious bodies? Why has Franco, the Fascist dictator of Spain, been extolled? Bishop Oxnam, in an interview with “The Boston Traveller”, said that the recent outbreaks of racial violence in the Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan districts of Boston follow a pattern. “I was in Germany when these things began there. It is the same pattern in which organized gangs beat up a scapegoat race whether they be Jews or any one else,” he asserted. He asserted that Fascism is prevalent in Brooklyn now, and predicted that it would show itself in Detroit and sections of the Pacific Coast before long. “I think Brooklyn, New York and Boston are currently the most difficult centres, however,” he added.

In Dec., 1943, a Senate resolution proposed the creation of a special commission “to bring about the rescue of the surviving Jews of Europe”. Eight Protestant leaders sent “a Christmas Appeal for speedy adoption of the Resolution” to Vice President Henry A. Wallace, Senate majority and minority leaders and members of the House and Senate committees involved.

Asserting that “more than 2,000,000 European Jews have been slaughtered by the Nazis, the message added that “we cannot approach Christmastide without declaring that too many of us have been found wanting in the will to rescue these suffering people.” 6 “Let no possible sanctuary be closed, whether in America or elsewhere,” the appeal said. “Let each door of refuge be kept open. This is the Christian way.”

The message was signed by Bishop William T. Manning (Protestant Episcopal); Archbishop Athenagoras (Greek Orthodox); Bishop William J. McConnell (Methodist), and others.

On Ja, 1944, fifteen hundred persons attended a rally against anti-Semitism at Carnegie Hall. Dr.Henry Smith Leiper of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, chairman of the meeting, asserted that anti-Semitism was “treason against God, treason against the country”.

“Anybody spreading such slander,” he said, “is helping Hitler just as much as if he were a paid agent of the Reich.” Dr. Leiper and several others spoke out against what they said was the desire on the part of many to approach the problem of anti-Semitism with too much caution. Dr. Leiper said that exactly this idea prevailed in Germany in 1932, but did not halt the rise of fascism.

The biennial convention of the United Lutheran Church in America adopted, on Oc, 1944, the following Resolution:

“Recognizing that the Jewish problem has been made one of the central elements in the present assault on civilization, the United Lutheran Church in America, viewing with concern the manifestations of a rising tide of anti-Semitism in American life, begs its members to consider their Jewish brethren in the spirit of Luther, who spoke kindly things of them as ’blood brothers of our Lord’, to use every available means to assure the Jewish people of their communities of the efforts of our church for the preservation of their rights, and to offer prayers on their behalf.”

We do not record all the statements issued by Protestant Churches in the United States over the years 1943-1944. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the United Presbyterian Church in North America issued a statement in 1943; the American Baptist Convention, the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the General Synod of the United Church of Christ issued a statement in 1944. Most of these statements condemned anti-Semitic and anti-Negro prejudices. e. The Churches in the U.S.A. that kept Silent

Three important Protestant denominations in the United States did not speak out unequivocally against anti-Semitism and the persecution and extermination of the Jews: the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and the American Lutheran Church. John G. Mager comments:

“... It might have been felt that since a large proportion of the membership of the Synod was of German origin or descent, it would have made for ecclesiastical suicide if the official organ of the Synod made pronouncements against a country to which many were bound by ties of blood, culture and sentiment...”

It must be borne in mind that the Lutheran Churches in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Slovakia clearly expressed their horror at German anti-semitism, and they did so under much more difficult circumstances. This should dissuade us from wrong platitudes such as: “Lutherans tend to be anti-Semitic”.

Recently it has been suggested that “the causal chain that links Christian belief and faith to secular anti-Semitism begins with orthodoxy commitment to a literal interpretation of traditional Christian dogma”. My knowledge of the situation of Churches in America is limited. Therefore I would not venture to suggest that there is a causal chain between the orthodoxy of a Church in America and its failure to denounce anti-Semitism. Moreover, in other countries, like the Netherlands for example, such a connection does not appear to exist. 6 It is noteworthy, however, that the three great Protestant Churches in the United States mentioned above, which failed to issue a clear statement against anti-Semitism, were not members of the Federal Council. Moreover, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) are not members of the World Council of Churches, to this day. These Churches apparently did not feel challenged by the protest issued by the Assembly of the Church of England, in 1935, as was the Federal Council; they did not receive the information provided by the General Secretariat of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, during the war. Ecclesiastical isolationism is very dangerous indeed, especially in a time of crisis. They were probably afraid of watering down their own principles by co-operating with other Churches and this lack of co-operation and communication probably contributed to the fact that they did not fulfil the word of the Bible: “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy”. (Pro, 8-9).

16 THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

The war years were the testing time of the World Council. Contacts with Great Britain and the United States were relatively frequent until the end of 1942, when the whole of France was occupied by the Germans. Since it proved impossible to hold fully representative meetings, the Provisional Committee met and continued to meet in three groups one in Geneva under the leadership of Dr. Boegner (later of Dr. Koechlin), one in Great Britain under Archbishop Temple, and one in New York under Dr. John R. Mott. 6 The fact that the World Council had offices in New York, London, and Geneva, proved a blessing, for each office had its area of contacts with Churches which the other could not reach. When the second world war broke out, the World Council of Churches was still “in process of formation”, and it had not as yet an adequate apparatus at its disposal. But the General Secretary, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft, and the Director of the Department for Refugees, Dr. Freudenberg, had their contacts with the World Jewish Congress in Geneva, and with Church leaders in Germany and the occupied countries. They could thus pass on valuable information to the Churches in the free world, and stir them to action.

a. Letters Sent to the International Red Cross

On October 29, 1941, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft sent the following Memorandum to the President of the Mixed Relief Committee of the International Red Cross, Prof. Dr. Karl Burckhardt:

Memorandum on the Situation in Poland

I. “We have received some information about the situation in the General government of Poland from a reliable and objective observer who has been travelling there during recent weeks. According to him, there exists a great difference between city and country. In the large cities, especially in Warsaw, the Polish and, to a greater extent the Jewish population, is suffering famine. Typhus is spreading in and outside the ghetto of Warsaw. Our spokesman heard of 2,000 cases in the ghetto alone. The mortality of infants less than three years old is amounting to 26%... We know of only one modest relief activity: American Poles have, in co-operation with American Mennonites, the German Red Cross, the Polish and the American Relief Committee (Hoover), organized a soup-kitchen, where they weekly distribute to the distressed population of Warsaw, fish purchased in Danzig for D,000. This feeding, which is merely a drop in the ocean, reaches Poles as well as Jews. Moreover, a despatch of medicine from the United States is expected to arrive in Lisbon one of these days.

II. The greatest wave of déportations of German Jews and Christians of Jewish origin to Poland has been going on since the middle of October. Seven thousand Jews were deported from Berlin to Litzmannstadt on the nights of October 18/19 and 19/20. 20,000 Jews of the Rhineland are already there, or are en rout,000 are to be transported from Prague. Déportations from Vienna have already been going on for some time. A number of Jews from Breslau is believed to be engaged in labour in the Bohemian Riesengebirge. 7 According to our spokesman, the able-bodied men who have been deported to Poland are constructing roads behind the Eastern front whilst the able-bodied women are employed in ammunition factories. In Litzmannstadt hut camps are said to be provided as temporary lodging, but we have no particulars about this. The deportees were allowed to take only a handbag and 10 RM. with them. Sufficient protection against the cold will be out of the question. One may assume that these measures are the beginning of the complete deportation of the Jews and Christians of Jewish origin from the Reich and the Protectorate. This concerns people the majority of whom, owing to their mental powers having been overcharged for many years, will be unfit to cope with these new hard measures.

III. In view of its Christian responsibility the Provisional Ecumenical Council of the Churches cannot heedlessly close its eyes to this misery of the refugees in Poland. As it practically can no longer carry out its own relief work, it feels all the more its duty to intervene with the competent bodies towards quick relief action. The Jewish organizations, generally speaking, are no longer in a position to undertake effective steps on behalf of their co-religionists. The Jewish question touches the centre of the Christian message: neglect of the Church to raise its warning and protective voice here, and do all in its power to help, would be disobeying its God. It is, therefore, the duty of the Christian Churches, and especially of their Ecumenical representative, the Provisional Ecumenical Council, to intervene on behalf of the persecuted.

IV. Therefore the Provisional Ecumenical Council of the Churches appeals to the competent bodies of the Red Cross with the request to pay special attention to the situation in Warthegau and the General government of Poland. We urge that the Red Cross speedily send a delegate, if possible a medical man, to the regions in question. This delegate would have to investigate, especially in the large Polish cities, the most urgent needs of the Polish as well as of the Jewish population, thus ascertaining the medical, sanitary and clothing requirements. Such a survey should include not only the Warthegau (especially Litzmannstadt) but also the region of Lublin where the Jews from Germany, Austria and Bohemia who were deported in the winter of 1939/1940 are said to be living. We hardly know anything about their fate but it is most certainly very critical. The Provisional Ecumenical Council is prepared to request urgent support from its member Churches, especially those in the United States, for a relief action organised by the International Red Cross.”

Dr. Visser ’t Hooft stated in the covering letter that he had also sent a copy to the President of the Red Cross, Dr. Huber, and that he would be grateful for a speedy reply.

On June 3, 1942, the Secretary of the Ecumenical Commission for Refugees, Dr. A. Freudenberg, sent the following letter to the Mixed Relief Committee of the International Red Cross:

“An absolutely reliable correspondent requests us, to communicate to the organizations of the Red Cross the following: ’A serious lack of restoratives, digitalis etc. is prevalent in the Jewish ghettos in the East, especially in the camps of Yzbica and Piaski near Lublin, and also in Riga, Wilna, Kowno, Warsaw and Lodz. Many people who had been admitted to the hospitals because of diminishing strength and under-nourishment or other reasons, must now perish there owing to a lack of these restoratives. They could be saved if one could supply them with strengthening food. I have been implored to inform the International Red Cross about this, so that it may render aid wherever possible.’ This information, indicating that the deportees and the Polish Jews are suffering terribly from famine, has been confirmed by others As most of them are destitute, numerous cries of distress have reached us both directly and indirectly. Therefore we join in the request of our correspondent, and implore the organizations of the International Red Cross to continue to relieve the fate of these unfortunate people in every possible way.”

On December 3, 1942, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft again wrote to the President of the Mixed Relief Committee of the International Red Cross, Prof. Dr. Karl Burckhardt. The letter reads as follows:

“We refer to our letter of 29th October, 1941, in which we submitted to you a Memorandum concerning the persecution and the misery of the Jews in Poland. Since then the situation has deteriorated in an alarming way. No doubt you have been informed of the mass executions of which the Polish Jews and the Jews in Poland deported from the European countries, are the victims. To the information that has reached other organizations, we can add the contents of a message received from a very distinguished German personality whose reliability we can guarantee. The message informs us that at one place in Poland, 6,000 Jews men, women and children are being shot every day. These executions are made in three groups, each of 2,000 persons, and this has already been going on for weeks. 7 In our Memorandum of 29th October, 1941, we remarked that the Jewish question touches the centre of the Christian message. Therefore we feel compelled to raise our voice anew on behalf of these people who are being threatened with extermination. We therefore permit ourselves to renew our suggestions of last year, that the International Committee of the Red Cross take urgent steps to send delegates to the areas in question. There is reason to hope that such steps, even if they do not directly have the desired result, would encourage certain circles in Germany to combat the mass executions more energetically. Though from the letters received from Theresienstadt in Bohemia it is not possible to ascertain the real conditions existing in this reception centre, we would be grateful if the requested action could also include that city.”

The letter mentions “certain circles in Germany”. These were groups of resistance with which the Secretariat of the World Council of Churches was in contact, especially the “Kreisau Circle” and Dietrich Bonhoeffer with his friends.

b. Co-operation with the World Jewish Congress

A unique aspect of the activities of the World Council of Churches regarding the persecution of the Jews was the close co-operation between Dr. Visser ’t Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg on the one hand, and the Director of the World Jewish Congress at Geneva, Dr. G. M. Riegner. Dr. Riegner stated: “... My correspondence with Dr. Freudenberg starts already in November, 1940, and during certain periods we have been in nearly daily contact”. In the same letter to Dr. Visser ’t Hooft, Dr. Riegner wrote:

“I remember that you and the World Council have also played an important part in convincing the Swiss authorities of the deadly danger threatening the Jews in all occupied countries and trying to obtain from them a more liberal attitude in admitting refugees. I remember distinctly, though I do not find any trace in writing, that I have put at your disposal several times very detailed information and reports which you have been good enough to communicate on behalf of the World Council of Churches to the Swiss authorities. If I am not mistaken, at least on one occasion you have personally intervened with Federal Councillor von Steiger in such matter.”

Dr. Riegner commented on this point as follows:

“I am still convinced that these interventions of the World Council have been at certain moments of great value. In the course of the discussions which I had during the last year with either Dr. Visser ’t Hooft or Dr. Freudenberg, I became convinced that these representations have most probably been made by Dr. Alfons Koechlin, (Base]), the former head of the Protestant Federation of Switzerland and one of the Presidents of the Provisional World Council at that time. Dr. Koechlin, of course, received the material from Dr. Visser ’t Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg.”

Jews and Christians also co-operated together in breaking the wall of silence. The Secretary of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, Dr. McCrea Cavert, visited Dr. Visser ’t Hooft in Sept., 1942. Dr. Riegner reports about this visit:

“With regard to our knowledge of the Nazi plan of total extermination of European Jewry, I wish to state that the first report on this plan reached me in the last days of July I 942 and I communicated it to Rabbi Wise in New York and Mr. Silverman in London during the first days of August 1942 (through diplomatic channels). Dr. Wise received the message during the last days of August 1942 and asked Mr. Cavert to use his visit to Geneva at the beginning of September 1942 to find out from us whether deportation really meant extermination. After having spoken to us I believe to Prof. Guggenheim he confirmed this in a cable to the United States.”

In the same letter to Dr. Visser ’t Hooft, Dr. Riegner stated:

“Some of the very forceful speeches by Dr. Bell and other dignitaries of the Anglican Church in the House of Lords were based on reports which we have communicated to them.”

A telegram was sent by Dr. Visser ’t Hooft to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Federal Council of Churches in the United States. Its contents were as follows:

15.000 Berlin Jews brought to assembling centres Some hundreds shot. Total evacuation Berlin in execution. Similar news other regions prove extermination campaign at climax. Please back Allied rescue efforts suggest rapid proposals exchange against German civilians and guarantees of re-emigration money food supply enabling European Neutrals to grant transitory asylum.

On March 23, 1944, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg sent a telegram to the Bishop of Chichester, Dr. Bell:

Most anxious destiny 800,000 Hungarian Jews among whom numerous Christians stop suggest you contact Mr. Silverman World Jewish Congress, I Harley Street W.I. and support suggestions cabled by Riegner to Silverman stop suggest also interest Church of Scotland.

We know of another joint approach made by the Secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and the World Jewish Congress. The following Aide-memoire was sent to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, and to the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations:

Aide-memoire

The Secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress have taken note with great satisfaction of the aide-mémoires exchanged between the Governments of the United States of America and Great Britain on the present situation of refugees in Europe, and of their decision to meet at Ottawa with a view to a preliminary exploration of ways and means for combined action by the representatives of their Governments. Having studied the suggestions and proposals contained in the aide-mémoires of the two Governments, the Secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress beg to express their views on the above-mentioned topic. While welcoming most warmly the determination of the Allied Governments to bring help to the persecuted people of all races, nationalities and religions, fleeing from Axis terror, they wish to emphasise that the most urgent and acute problem which requires immediate action, is the situation of the Jewish communities under direct or indirect Nazi control. The Secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress have in their possession most reliable reports indicating that the campaign of deliberate extermination of the Jews organised by the Nazi officials in nearly all countries of Europe under their control, is now at its climax. They therefore beg to call the attention of the Allied Governments to the absolute necessity of organising without delay a rescue action for the persecuted Jewish communities on the following lines: 1. Measures of immediate rescue should have priority over the study of post-war arrangement. The rescue action should enable the neutral States to grant temporary asylum to the Jews who would reach their frontiers. For this purpose a definite guarantee by the Governments of the United States of America and Great Britain, and possibly by other Allied Governments including the British Dominions, should be given to the neutral States, that all refugees entering their territories would be enabled to be repatriated or to re-emigrate as soon as possible after the end of the war. In view of the special characteristics of the Jewish problem, in view of the attitude adopted in the past by many European governments, and furthermore, in view of the present attitude of absolute political neutrality adopted during the hostilities by the neutral countries, it may be stated that the giving of assurance for the prompt repatriation of refugees upon the termination of hostilities, would in the present circumstances not be considered as a sufficient guarantee by the neutral States. Only explicit and comprehensive guarantees of remigration of the refugees, given by the Anglo-Saxon Powers as a reinforcement of any assurances of repatriation which may be given by the Allied Governments in exile, can lead the neutral countries to adopt a more liberal and understanding attitude towards the Jewish refugees. 7 These guarantees should provide for the granting of facilities concerning the supply of food and funds for the maintenance of refugees during their stay in the neutral countrie. A scheme for exchange of Jews in Germany and the territories under German control for German civilians in North and South America, Palestine, and other countries, should be pressed forward by all possible means. We should like to stress the fact that the number of nationals of Axis countries living in Allied countries particularly in North and South America exceeds by far the number of nationals of Allied countries living in Axis countries. We feel that in spite of the great difficulties which we do not underestimate, a workable scheme of exchanging Jews for Germans would constitute an important method of rescuing a considerable number of persecuted people from the countries under Nazi control. In view of the immediate urgency of the situation, the admission of Jews to the scheme of exchange should be granted en bloc to the greatest possible number, as conditions no longer allow time-wasting and in many cases fruitless individual investigations. This scheme might include war-time security measures. Concrete proposals should be submitted without delay to the Governments representing Allied interests in Germany by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain. The International Red Cross Committee may also be approached by the Allied Governments and asked for support in this matter.

Dr. Riegner sent this aide-memoire to the British Ambassador in Switzerland “on behalf of the Secrétariats of the World Council of Churches and of the World Jewish Congress”. Dr. Visser ’t Hooft forwarded it to the Ambassador of the United States, requesting in his covering letter, dated March 19, 1943, that the aide-memoire should be forwarded to the American Government, to the Federation of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and to the American branch of the World Jewish Congress. He also stated that he had sent a copy to Mr. Allan Welsh Dulles with whom he had “quite recently had the pleasure of discussing the matter”. Mr.Dulles was the representative of the “Office of Strategic Services” of the American Government, at Bern. The sending of this aide-memoire was, I think, the first time in history that an important organization of Churches officially approached Governments, jointly with an important Jewish organization.

c. Aid to Refugees

In 1938, the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches was formed. Its first ordinary session took place at Saint-Germain (near Paris), in January, 1939. It was at this meeting that the Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, unequivocally proposed that the Council create a special department to deal with refugee problems. He himself had been a pioneer in this work. He felt that “the time had come to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans”. He meant not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also the others, albeit there being a special responsibility towards members of the Christian Church. Soon afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the first secretary of this new department for aid to refugees. The Ecumenical Commission for Refugees rendered aid to refugees in the camps of France at the end of 1940. It was also engaged in first aid to the people in the camp of Gurs. Later on, France remained the main field of activities.

“The Christian aid included Christians as well as Jews. There was co-operation with Jewish organizations in many respects. Thus, for instance, the Commission for Refugees could act as the intermediary for financial aid to Jewish families and children who were in hiding in Belgium, Holland, Hungary and other countries.”

The Churches in three countries rendered financial aid: first and foremost Switzerland, but also Sweden and the United States.

“Switzerland donated Sw. F,000 in 1941; the United States donated only Sw. F,000 and Sweden Sw. F,000. The United States soon realized the importance of the aid to refugees and in the following year the Churches in the United States donated Sw. F,000 and later Sw. F,000. Obviously they really did understand the significance of this work. I think that this was also due to the fact that Dr. Cavert (the then General Secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.) visited us. Later on I myself went to the United States and was able to explain to them the importance of the matter.”

When, in the summer of 1942, Lava1 began to hand over the Jews of the unoccupied area of France to the Germans, members of the French Protestant Youth Organization Cimade brought many refugees to the Swiss frontier. Switzerland, however, was not willing to grant asylum to them. The Ecumenical Commission for Refugees, “closely co-operating with other organizations”, succeeded in assuring the admission of “many hundreds” of these refugees. Another endeavour to save lives failed. The Committee had, with the help of American Christians, succeeded in obtaining entrance visas into the United States for 1,000 Jewish children from France, but the occupation of Southern France by the Germans foiled this plan.

Dr. Visser ’t Hooft was personally active in an “illegal” organization which helped Dutch Jews to pass through France to Switzerland. He helped its leader, Jean Weidner, with money from a collection for this purpose amongst Dutchmen living in Switzerland. The former secretary of the Jewish Committee of Coordination in Switzerland, Mr. H. H. Gans, relates the following incident as regarding to the granting of passports and certificates of citizenship granted by South-American Governments to Jews in French concentration camps:

“...We had declared... that the beneficiaries would not try to use their new ‘citizenship’ after the war. But probably owing to their fear of an invasion of new citizens after the war, some countries dared not postpone the nullification until after the war... The Spanish Ambassador immediately passed on this fatal message (to the Germans) and 300 ‘South-Americans’ were deported from Vitel. The World Congress informed me at night. Consternation was great. 7 I contacted Dr. T. Lewenstein [the then Chief-Rabbi of Zurich and Dr. Visser ’t Hooft. Together we sent a telegram to the Queen. There was an immediate reaction: Her Majesty’s Ambassador at Buenos Aires was ordered to intervene. Very shortly after this, an entirely favourable result was obtained.”

Mr. Gans also stated that once he paid a large amount of money on behalf of persons hidden in Holland, through the kind offices of Dr. Visser ’t Hooft. From Holland came the confirmation: “The organization thanks you very much for the money transferred from Switzerland.” The testimony of Mr. Gans also speaks of the matter of sending gift parcels to the Jews in concentration camps:

“No parcels could have been sent and no other help could have been rendered, if we had not been supported continuously by Dr. Visser ’t Hooft, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva... His contribution to the Dutch resistance movement will certainly be described by others. Suffice it here to point out the general importance of the presence of such a man in Switzerland, and the fact that busy though he was, he never refused to see me whenever I asked for an interview, and that happened almost every day. No detail of our relief work was unimportant to him.”

It appears that neither Dr. Visser ’t Hooft nor Dr. Freudenberg were formalistic in their activities. They understood, in contrast to so many in and outside occupied Europe, that “illegal” acts were, in those special circumstances, morally justified. Thus money was “illegally” transmitted to Jews in hiding; and refugees were supported who had entered into Switzerland “illegally.” What has been said about Church leaders in Bulgaria, can be applied to Dr. Visser ’t Hooft and Dr. Freudenberg: they were gravely concerned, and thus they were available whenever their help was requested.

In June, 1944, the Ecumenical Commission for Aid to Refugees published the following statement: The Fate of the Jews in Hungary

“The Ecumenical Commission for Refugees exists in order to give material and spiritual aid to refugees of all faiths. Its main task is therefore to relieve the suffering of the refugees rather than to protest against the treatment meted out to them. But there are situations in which the only aid we can give is in the form of a solemn and public protest. To-day this is the case. Trustworthy reports state that so far some four hundred thousand Hungarian Jews are deported in inhuman conditions and, in so far as they have not died on the way, brought to the camp of Auschwitz in Upper Silesia where, during the past two years, many hundreds of thousands of Jews have been systematically put to death. Christians cannot remain silent before this crime. We appeal to our Hungarian Christian brethren to raise their voice with us to do all they can to stop this horrible sin. We appeal to Christians of all countries to unite in prayer that God may have mercy on the people of Israel.”

17 TERRITORIES IN WHICH THE CHURCHES REMAINED SILENT

The heading of this Chapter must be regarded with some reservation, firstly because I may have failed to find statements which were issued, and secondly because even the admission by a Church that it did not speak out, cannot always be trusted. In fact, I have in my possession a letter from the official representative of an important Church in Europe, stating that his Church had not publicly protested against the persecution of Jews; yet later on much material was found proving that it had done so. It is notable that the Churches which, as far as we know, kept silent, were minority Churches, with the exception of the Lutheran Church of Finland which was, however, not directly confronted with the challenge of the persecution of the Jews.

a. Austria

On March 12, 1938, German troops entered Austria; it was then absorbed by the German Reich. The Jews in Austria were subjected to all the horrors which the Jews in Germany suffered.

The legend that Austria was the first victim of Hitlerian aggression, to which official endorsement was given by the victorious Allies, is slow to die. In fact, the people in Austria were more national-socialist than in Germany proper: the frenzy with which the “aggressor” Hitler was received by the Viennese is proof enough of this. Many of the leaders of the Third Reich were Austrians, as for instance Seyss-Inquart, Kaltenbrunner, Globocnik and Rauter. Hitler himself originally came from Austria.

Little is known about the attitude of the Protestants in Austria with respect to anti-Semitism during the war. In 1966, the General Synod of the Lutheran Church adopted a “Message to the Congregations on Jews and Christians”. The message stated that:

“...Unfortunately, however, the Christian conscience of our people has not been strong enough to withstand a hatred based on racial differences. This is an alarming sign of the demonic powers of darkness to which we have been exposed and which have not been sufficiently resisted by our Church. Because the Church was entrusted with the Word of reconciliation and the message of peace, its guilt is much greater than that of all other groups. We must acknowledge and confess this guilt. The miracle of God’s forgiveness makes our repentance possible...”

b. Belgium

Professor W. Lutjeharms, who teaches Church history at Brussels, communicated to me why, in his view, the Protestant Churches did not publicly protest against the persecution of the Jews during the war. Part of the reasons he advances are, in my opinion, also applicable to minority Churches in other lands. 8 1. The Protestants comprise less than half percent of the total populatio. The Protestants nowhere formed a sufficiently concentrated group among
the population.. The Protestants in those days had very few representatives in cultural
and political circles.. The Protestant voice was not heard outside its own group before 1940;
hardly at all over the radio and certainly not through daily newspapers.. The Protestant Churches represented a distinctly foreign flavour: many
pastors and members were foreigners.. An official public protest would neither have impressed the authorities
nor the population. The Protestants could only act effectively on the
personal level. In this respect pastors as well as lay members time and
again risked their lives, to help Jews as much as they could.

There remains the question, why the small Protestant Churches in Belgium undertook official and public steps in 1933, and not, for instance, in the years 1935 and 1938. It is possible that such steps were undertaken, but that they were not sufficiently published, and thus forgotten (Cf. above, point 4).

At least 25,000 Jews were deported from Belgium. Individual Protestants have rescued Jews but these activities are outside the scope of our subject.

c. The Protectorate

Czechoslovakia was deprived of Sudetenland in the Munich pact of September 29, 1938. On March 14, 1939, Slovakia declared its independence. On March 15, 1939, German forces occupied Prague; Czechia as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia became part of the German Reich. 8 An estimated number of 71,000 Jews were deported, and perished. Apparently no Church in Bohemia-Moravia publicly protested. It is true, of course, that there hardly was any address to which they could send a protest, except the Government in Berlin which would probably have paid even less attention than it paid to the protests of the “Confessing Church”, the members of which were Germans and not Czechs. However, a public protest, read out from the pulpits, could have stirred up the members of the Czech Churches and would have encouraged them to help the Jews. In a letter to me, dated November 12, 1965, it was stated by Dr. Viktor Hhjek, Chairman of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren:

“Individual members of our Church have tried to help Jewish families in different ways and have indeed helped them. This has always been dangerous, and the persons involved suffered often from the German occupying force. But the pressure of this force was so heavy that it was out of the question to undertake anything publicly and officially.”

The Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren recognized, in 1945, that “our Church did not have enough courage or power to withstand the fury of the enemies of Christ directed against the Jews.”

d. Poland The atrocities committed against the Jews in Poland are beyond description. At the end of 1939, 3,300,000 Jews lived in Poland; of these 2,900,000 were murdered. Moreover, most of the Jews arrested by the Germans, in other occupied countries and in the German Reich itself, were deported to Poland and perished there. Thus it was in Poland that the vast majority of the six million was murdered.

There is little to relate about the reactions of the non-Catholic Churches in Poland; there hardly exist such Churches at all. I received two replies to my circular letter; the first is from Dr. Andrzej Wantula, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I quote the following from his letter:

“During the war, our Church was liquidated by the Germans and the majority of the pastors imprisoned, the remainder working in a newly founded German Church. Our Church, therefore, could not carry out any activities. Individual pastors privately have helped the Jews. I myself, in my former parish, have tried to relieve the position of the Jews and partly succeeded in this. These, however, are individual cases, which are outside the scope of your interest.”

The second reply came from the Executive of the small “Polish-Catholic Church”. I quote the following:

“Our Polish-Catholic Church was exposed to many persécutions, under the National-Socialist domination during the second World War. However, we protested many times, against the persecution of the Jews, also publicly whenever this was possible. In addition to material help, we provided the persecuted Jews with baptismal certificates, enabling them to obtain ration cards and identity cards. In this way they were protected from further persecution. We cannot, unfortunately, send you any proofs, e.g. documents, letters or photostats concerning our activities, as all the material was destroyed during the war.”

It is difficult for me to believe that the Polish-Catholic Church has “protested many times and publicly”, if one is to understand that these protests were made in writing, and officially sent to the German authorities. But perhaps pastors of this Church expressed their protest in their sermons, and if this is so, it was at least something, especially in Poland.
The activities and attitude of the head of the Greek-Catholic Church in Galicia, the Metropolitan Andrew Sheptitsky, whose Church is united with Rome, is outside the scope of our subject and is thus not related here.

e. Finland

Finland refused to give up her 2,000 Jews. “We are an honest people,” declared Witting, the Finnish Foreign Minister. “We would much rather die with the Jews than give them up.” I received the following reply to my circular letter:

“...Finland was never actually occupied by the German army, with the exception of the Northern region... Finland remained a sovereign country and it was, as far as I know, the only country within the German sphere of influence where Jews were protected against German claims. It seems to be very difficult to ascertain whether the Church had any direct involvement in this. It must remain, therefore, more or less an academic question, since nothing actually happened, in spite of the hesitation of the Government during some critical days.”

f. Italy

There are hardly any non-Roman Catholic Churches in Italy. Best-known is the Waldensian Church. The Waldenses themselves have been severely persecuted throughout the centuries. The right of free worship was granted to them by the Constitution of 1848. This “pre-Reformation Protestant Community” has 25,000 members. Official declarations against anti-Semitism of such a small minority Church could hardly expected, though the majority of the Waldenses had been strongly anti-fascist.
g. Russia

The Orthodox Church was the established Church in Russia, until 1917. Under the Communist regime many Church leaders were imprisoned or murdered; many church buildings were closed, some turned into museums. The Constitution of 1936 allows the Church freedom of worship, but not of propaganda. Printing of Bibles was not permitted. Anti-religious propaganda, however, was systematically carried out. In the wake of the German invasion (June, 1941), the Patriarch of Moscow declared himself loyal to the Russian cause and to the Soviet government. Anti-religious measures were relaxed to some degree. As far as we know, no public declaration against anti-Semitism was issued by the Orthodox Church, nor by any of the smaller Christian communities in Russia. It is estimated that 1,500,000 Jews perished in the Nazi-occupied part of Russia.

18 IN CONCLUSION

I have tried to give the answers to some questions related to our subject, but there remain many unanswered questions. It is beyond the scope of this investigation, to analyse the influence of Luther’s attitude towards the Jews upon the German Protestants. Suffice it to say, that many anti-Sémites quoted from Luther’s brochure “Concerning the Jews and their Lies” (1542), and not from his earlier: “Jesus was born a Jew”. (1523) The anti-Jewish sermons of St. Chrysostom, preached at Constantinople at about the turn of the 4th century, are well-known. We have not investigated as to how far these sermons had an influence upon the Eastern Churches in our time.
Another question: What exactly was the influence of the Lutheran conception of the “two dominions” through which God rules this world (the spiritual one, or the Church, and the secular one, or the “worldly authorities”) on the attitude of the Lutheran Churches towards the persecuted Jews? Why did the Lutheran Churches in Denmark, Norway, Slovakia and Sweden denounce anti-Semitism whilst the record of the Lutheran Churches in America is poor in this respect? The people, according to Luther, have not the right to resist the authorities; only princes have. Was there a notable difference between the Lutheran Churches and the Churches of Calvinist origin regarding their attitude towards the “ungodly government” of Hitler in the 20th century, just as such a difference is said to have existed in the 16th century? What about possible differences between continental and Anglo-Saxon Protestants regarding their theological conception of the Jews, between Protestant Churches in the West and Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe, between non-Roman Catholic Churches and the Church of Rome? How far did the conception of St. Paul about the people of Israel, as expounded in Romans 9-11, encourage the Churches to stand up for the Jews, or how far did the opinion that the Church has “replaced” Israel as the people of the Covenant, prevent Churches from taking action? We have hardly touched on practical questions such as the dilemma of whether “to speak or to save” ("reden oder retten"). It would be easy to make up a much longer list of unanswered questions, but it is difficult to establish facts even though they happened in our lifetime, and it is even more difficult to interpret them correctly. I can only hope that the documentation provided by this book will stimulate others to further study and investigation.

I hope that I have succeeded to some extent in showing how complicated the situation was, and how careful we ought to be if we try to answer the question, how far Christian leaders and Churches fulfilled or failed to fulfil, the commandment which they profess to consider divine: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. However, I do not suggest that to understand all is to pardon all. To me, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft’s conclusion seems to be well-balanced:

“We may conclude this section by pointing out that while many Christians failed in their duty to resist in word and deed the inhuman racialism of National Socialism, there were a not inconsiderable number of Church leaders and simple Church members who rendered a clear witness to the reality of the Christian faith. The Christians who were involved in the struggle know better than anyone how often the Churches and they themselves failed to do what ought have to be done. Thus the Churches in Germany spoke not only for themselves, but for others who had been in a similar situation when after the war they confessed publicly their sense of guilt in this respect.”

It is difficult to draw conclusions. Mostly generalizations are dangerous. I myself have the impression that public opinion tends to overrate the practical help rendered by individual Christians. Only a minority of professing Christians willingly risked their lives in order to help and save their Jewish neighbours. The Bible condemns such a lack of self-sacrificing love. When, however, human beings judge, particularly if they are people who themselves did not have to undergo the test, they should remember the Jewish saying: “Judge not thy neighbour until thou art come in his situation.”

On the other hand, public opinion possibly tends to underestimate the official activities of Churches against anti-Semitism, because they are not generally known. The attitude of the Churches with regard to the persecution of Jews under Hitler’s reign of terror was far from uniform. The picture is neither completely black, nor purely white. White and black are mingled. Thus the name chosen for this publication is “The Grey Book”. The darkness of the holocaust was so great that one can hardly comprehend it. It is understandable that there are people who tend to ignore the lights that were so small, far too small. But “the greater the darkness, the brighter the light, be it no more than that of a small candle.”
In cases where Church leaders or individual Christians did risk their lives, they should remember the words of their Lord: “Is the master grateful to the servant for carrying out his orders? So with you: when you have carried out your orders, you should say, ’We are servants and deserve no credit; we have only done our duty’."(Luke 17, 9-10). On March 23, 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury declared in the House of Lords: “We stand at the bar of history, of humanity and of God”. It is appropriate to conclude this book with the words of Ecclesiastes (12, 13-14): “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”