and unique gifts. Each has made, and seems destined to continue to make,
distinctive and unique contributions to the enrichment of mankind.
All share alike in the love, the concern and the compassion of God.
Therefore, for a Christian there can be no such a thing as despising
another race or a member of another race. Moreover, when God chose to
reveal Himself in human form, the Word became flesh in One of a race,
then as now, widely despised... <98>
Against racial pride, racial hatreds and persecutions, and the exploitation
of other races in all their forms, the Church is called by God to set its
face implacably and to utter its word unequivocally, both within and without
its own borders. There is a special need at this time that the Church
throughout the world should bring every resource at its command against
the sin of anti-Semitism...
The recrudescence of pitiless cruelty, hatred, and race-discrimination in
the modern world (including most notably anti-Semitism) is one of the major
signs of its social disintegration. To these must be brought not only the
weak rebuke of words but the powerful rebuke of deeds.
For the Church has been called into existence by God not only for itself
but for the world; and only by going out of itself in the work of Christ
can it find unity in itself." [243]
An immense effort was made, notably in the Anglo-Saxon world, to bring
home the message of the Conference to the rank and file of the Churches.
The message was referred to by Church leaders when the fight against
anti-Semitism intensified as, for instance, by the 170 ministers in the
city of New York, 1941, [244] and Rev. Bertrand in France, in his circular
letter of June 11, 1942. [245]
Many Church leaders who were present at the Oxford Conference were to
denounce anti-Semitism vehemently and publicly, during the Second World War.
We mention: Dr. Visser 't Hooft, the General Secretary; the Archbishop of
York (Dr. Temple); the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Bell); Archbishop Eidem,
of Sweden; Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard, of Denmark; Archbishop Stephan,
of Bulgaria; Dr. Samuel Osusky, Czechoslovakia; the Rev. Marc Boegner,
France; Prof. Emil Brunner, Switzerland; and Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert,
the United States.
Another statement to be recorded in this chapter was adopted by the World
Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, on its meeting
at Larvik (Norway), in August, 1938:
"The Council appeals to its members to do all they can to awaken public
opinion in their own countries to the great evils involved in the systematic
ostracism and persecution now being directed against the Jewish race and
against thousands of Christians who have kinship with the Jews.
Whilst acknowledging the weakness, hesitancy and failure of Christians
in this matter, it is appalled by the growth of racial and religious
intolerance throughout the world. <99>
It holds it to be a total denial of faith in the fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of men as revealed in Jesus Christ and it calls upon all
Christians to unite their efforts so that in a distracted and divided
world Christ may be made manifest 'Who is our peace. Who made both one
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us'." [246]
* * *
In 1938, two great Ecumenical Movements - Faith and Order and Life and
Work - associated together in forming a Provisional Committee of the World
Council of Churches (in process of formation). The World Council of Churches
was officially constituted in Amsterdam, in 1948.
On November 16, 1938, Dr. Visser 't Hooft, General Secretary of the World
Council of Churches, H. L. Henriod, General Secretary of the World Alliance
for International Friendship through the Churches and Adolf Keller, Director
of Inter-Church Aid sent the following letter to the member Churches:
"At the moment when the terrible persecution of the Jewish population in
Germany and in other Central European countries has come to a violent
climax, it is our duty to remind ourselves of the stand which we have
taken as an ecumenical movement against anti-Semitism in all its forms.
The World Alliance at the meeting of its Executive in Sofia in 1933 and at
its recent Assembly at Larvik in August 1938, and the Conference on Church,
Community and State at Oxford in 1937 have unequivocally expressed the
Christian attitude on this point and called upon the Churches to help
those who suffer from racial persecution.
We suggest that at this time all Churches should take immediate action
based on these statements. The most practical action would seem to be:
1. Corporate prayers of intercession.
2. An approach to the Governments of the various countries requesting that
they should act immediately.
a. in order to allow a larger percentage of non-Aryan refugees to enter
provisionally or definitely into the country concerned;
b. to further without delay the plan proposed by the Evian Conference [247]
for securing a permanent settlement of a large number of actual and
potential non-Aryan refugees.
3. Undertake as a Church the responsibility of the maintenance of some
non-Aryan and Christian families and particularly of at least one
non-Aryan pastor or theological student. <100>
We put ourselves at your disposal for further information on any of these
projects." [248]
We know that Church leaders in the United States made the requested
"approach to the Government". [249]
The International Missionary Council held a large international conference
at Tambaram, Madras, in December, 1938. It reiterated the Vienna (1937)
statement of the International Committee on the Christian Approach to the
Jews on anti-Semitism [250], expressed "its deep concern about the
increasingly tragic plight of the Jews", and urged "that this constitutes
a claim of first importance on the Christian Church". It recommended:
1. That prayer should be regularly made in Christian Churches, and
particularly on Good Friday and the Jewish Day of Atonement, for all Jews
and non-Aryans who are suffering persecution.
2. That individuals, Churches and Christian Councils in countries suitable
for the reception of immigrants should use their influence, wherever
possible, to secure an open door for refugees.
3. That Christian people in all countries should make a special effort to
welcome and help such of their refugee brethren as arrive in their country.
4. That an appeal be made in all churches for help for recognized refugee
funds..." [251]
In January 1939, at the First ordinary session of the Provisional Committee
of the World Council of Churches, the Bishop of Chichester proposed that the
Council create a special department to deal with refugee problems.
"He felt that the time had come to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans. He
meant not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also the others,
albeit there being a special responsibility towards members of the
Christian Church. Soon afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the
first secretary of this new Department for Aid to Refugees." [252]
<101>
III
DURING THE WAR
19 HISTORICAL EVENTS, 1939-1945
1939
Sept. 1 Germany attacks Poland.
Sept. 3-4 Great Britain and France declare war upon Germany.
Sept. 17 Russia invades Poland.
Nov. 30 Russia attacks Finland.
1940
March 20 Finland accepts peace with Russia.
Apr. 9 Germany occupies Denmark and attacks Norway.
May 10 Germany attacks the Netherlands and Belgium.
May 14 Capitulation of the Netherlands.
May 28 Capitulation of Belgium.
May 20-June 4: Evacuation of the British expedition force at Dunkirk.
June 10 Italy attacks France.
June 24 France concludes armistice with the Axis.
Aug.-Nov. The "Battle of Britain": Hitler tries to subdue Great Britain by
air raids.
Oct. 28 Italy attacks Greece.
Dec. 7-11 Victory of Great Britain in North Africa.
1941
April Victory of Germany in North Africa.
April 6 Germany attacks Yugoslavia and Greece.
April 13 Belgrade occupied.
April 27 Athens occupied.
May 10 Rudolf Hess flies to Scotland.
June 22 Germany invades Russia.
Dec. 6 Russian counter offensive; Germany fails to take Moscow.
Dec. 7 Japan attacks Pearl Harbour.
Dec. 11 Hitler declares war upon the United States.
1942
Jan. 20 The Wannsee Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish
Question" in Europe.
June Rommel defeats Great Britain in North Africa and captures El
Alamein.
Aug. 23 Germany's sixth army reaches the Volga near Stalingrad.
Nov. 2 Montgomery breaks through at El Alamein.
Nov. 8 Allied forces land in Morocco and Algeria.
Nov. 11 Germany seizes the unoccupied zone of France.
Nov. 19 Russia launches its counter offensive near Stalingrad.
1943
Jan. 3 End of the Battle of Stalingrad.
April 19-May 16 Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
July 10 Allied forces land on Sicily.
Sept. 3 Allied forces land in Southern Italy.
Dec. The Soviet armies approach the Polish and Rumanian frontiers.
1944
June 6 The beginning of the Invasion.
July 20 Attempt on Hitler's life.
August Russia conquers Rumania.
Aug. 25 Liberation of Paris.
Sept. 3 Liberation of Brussels.
1945
Jan. 17 Russia captures Warsaw.
Feb. 13 Russia captures Budapest.
Apr. 30 Hitler commits suicide.
May 2 Capitulation of Berlin.
May 7 Unconditional surrender of Germany.
<106>
20 GERMANY
Deportations from Austria and the Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia) began
in the winter of 1939/1940. On February 12, 1940, Jews were deported
from Stettin. On July 31, 1941, Heydrich was charged by Goering with the
preparation and execution of the "Final Solution". On October 14, 1941,
the systematic deportation of the Jews from the Reich began.
On January 20, 1942, the Wannsee-Conference on the "Final Solution of the
Jewish Question in Europe" was held. From July, 1942, the selections for
the gas chambers took place in concentration camps such as Auschwitz.
On June 19, 1943, Goebbels declared Berlin to be free of Jews. An estimated
number of 3,000 Jews, however, succeeded in surviving "illegally", until
the end of the war.
It is, as has been explained before, not my intention to record the help
rendered by individuals to Jews. There are, however, indications that
organized help to Jews did not wholly stop with the closure of Rev.
Grueber's office. [253]
Mr. Krakauer relates how he and his wife were helped and hidden during the
last years of the war. [254] Not less than 34 ministers of the CONFESSING
Church were involved in the rescue of these two people. They all had them
in their homes for some days or longer, as staying at the same place for
too long a period was too dangerous.
It appears that there existed a kind of organization of pastors who passed
on persecuted Jewish people from one manse to another. The book also shows
how difficult it was in those days, to help and hide people who had no
identity cards and no ration cards.
Mr. Krakauer stated: "On May 20, 1945, I had the opportunity to speak with
Landesbischof D. Wurm, the highest prelate of the country (of Wurttemberg),
and to thank him for the fact that by his attitude he had made it possible
for his pastors to interest themselves actually on our behalf". [255]
Some Church leaders did not speak out publicly, or, only spoke when it was
too late; the reason may just have been that they were afraid to accept
the personal risk involved. We know of Bishop Wurm's protests, which came
late, even too late to do any good for the Jews in general. <107>
I do not know very much about his "attitude" in the time before he took
official action. The fact that Mr. Krakauer felt that he should thank the
Bishop, throws an important sidelight on the dilemma which Church leaders
sometimes had to face. If they spoke out publicly against the persecutions,
they did not only risk their own freedom and life, but they also risked the
lives of the persecuted Jews whom they secretly tried to save.
Mr. Krakauer's story should certainly be read by anyone who is interested in
the attitude of Protestants in Hitler's Germany toward the Jews.
No public statement whatsoever against anti-Semitism was issued by the
CONFESSING Church in Germany, or by any of its leaders, from the end of 1938
until 1943. In April, 1943, a letter was sent by a group of Christian laymen
to the Lutheran Bishop of Bavaria. The Bishop asked for at least two
signatures to enable him to raise the matter officially, but no one was
willing to sign. However, the letter had an indirect influence because
Bishop Wurm of Wurttemberg read it, and then sent two letters to the
German Government.
Letter of a Group of Christian Laymen:
"As Christians we no longer can tolerate that the Church in Germany should
keep silent in regard to the persecution of the Jews. in Churches where the
true Gospel is preached, all members are equally responsible for supporting
such preaching. We are therefore aware that we also, are equally guilty for
the Church's failure in this matter.
The inclusion of the so-called 'privileged' Jews in this persecution is the
next threat:
the dissolving of marriages which are valid according to God's law, should
cause the Church to protest, in faithfulness to the World of God, against
this violation of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth
commandments, thus, at last, doing what it should have done long ago.
What moves us is the simple commandment to love one's neighbour, as
expounded by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Here He explicitly
precluded any limitation of our love only to members of our own faith, race
or nation.
At this time every 'non-Aryan' in Germany, whether Jew or Christian, 'has
fallen among murderers'; we are challenged as to whether we will act towards
him as did the priest and the Levite, or as the Good Samaritan?
The Duty of the Church <108>
No 'Jewish Question' can release us from this decision. Rather should the
Church declare that the Jewish question is primarily an evangelical question
and not a political one. The politically unusual, and unique existence and
character of the Jews is, according to the Holy Scriptures, based on the fact
that God has chosen this people as the instrument for His revelation.
The Church, just as the first apostles after the crucifixion, must tirelessly
testify to the Jews:
'Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you,
in turning away every one of you from his iniquities' (Acts of the Apostles
3, 26). This testimony of the Church will only seem worthy of belief to
Israel, if the Church is also concerned about the Jews who 'have fallen among
murderers'.
The Church must especially resist 'Christian' anti-Semitism within its borders,
which excuses the actions of the non-Christian world against the Jews, as
well as, the inactivity of the Church in this matter, by saying that a
'deserved' curse lies upon Israel. Let us not forget the apostle's exhortation
to us Gentile Christians: 'Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not
the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee' (Romans 11, 20, 21).
The Church must testify to the State about the purpose of Israel in the plan
of salvation, thus actively resisting every attempt, to 'solve' the Jewish
question, according to a man-made political gospel, which brings about the
annihilation of the Jews. This is an attempt to fight against God and his
first commandment.
The Church must confess that she, as the true Israel, is united with Jewry
by indissoluble ties, both in her guilt and in her right to the promises of
God. She must not try any more to remain in safety while Israel is attacked.
Rather, she must testify that by the attack on Israel, the Church and her
Lord Jesus are also being attacked.
God remains faithful to his Covenant.
The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals the kind of example which should be
given by the Church, in regard to the Jewish question. The phenomenal history
of the Jews, in which the prophecy has been fulfilled: 'they shall be a curse,
and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations'
(Jeremiah 29, 18), proclaims to the whole world that the God who gave the
first commandment, by his dealings with Israel has manifested to the nations
his sovereignty.
The Church must explain this phenomenon. She also must, by her faithful
testimony, make certain that the authorities are not able to avoid the
challenge by obliterating the phenomenon of the Jews.
She must therefore proclaim the message of God, who brought both Israel and
the Church 'out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage' (Exodus 20,
2). Notwithstanding all the unfaithfulness of those He has elected among both
Jews and Gentiles, He remains faithful to his Covenant.
The Church thus proclaims to the authorities that only by faith in Jesus
Christ can they be delivered from their demonic political 'gospel', which
they in their obsession wish to realize, being unrestrained by the law of God.
The Church, therefore, must proclaim the commandments concerning our neighbour
to the authorities in connection with their attitude to Israel, but also the
first commandment concerning their attitude towards God. For the rulers can
only exercise their powers rightly by upholding the law rightly, in obedience
to the first commandment. <109>
A Public Protest Demanded
The protest of the Church against the persecution of the Jews in Germany
thus becomes a specially important example of the witness she is charged
to give against all violations of the ten commandments by any power.
The Church must warn the State, in the name of God, not with political
arguments, as has happened occasionally, that it must 'not oppress the
stranger, the fatherless and the widow' (Jeremiah 7, 6). She must remind
the State of its duty to maintain public justice in an orderly, legal
system based on humane laws; of the commandment to execute punishment in
righteousness; of its duty to protect the oppressed and to respect certain
basic rights of its citizens, etc.
This witness of the Church must be made publicly, either through preaching
or by means of a special pronouncement of the Bishop in his function as
Shepherd and Watchman. Only thus can the Church fulfil her duty towards all
who, either in a legislative or in an executive capacity, participate in
this persecution.
Also the conscience of the stricken Jews and the Christian community, which
is tempted to deny its faith, must be instructed.
So far the Church in Germany cannot be said to have made such a witness, for
nothing that she has said in public has done justice to her responsibility to
preach the truth in this respect. [256]
It is significant that the authors of this letter claimed that as Christians
they no longer could tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent
regarding the persecution of the Jews; that all members of the Church
are equally responsible for supporting such preaching (of the true Gospel)
and that the protest of the Church must be made publicly. Yet, they themselves
refused to sign their own letter.
On January 28 1943, Bishop D. Wurm of Wurttemberg sent a letter to
a "Senior State Official" (Ministerial Director Dr. Dill, of the Ministry
of Interior). We quote the following:
"... Apart from these matters, ecclesiastical in the limited sense of the word,
I would like to raise another delicate and difficult, but unfortunately,
unavoidable point. Wide circles, and not only those in the Confessing Church,
are unhappy at the manner in which the war against other races and nations
is conducted. <110>
From soldiers on home leave we learn how Jews and Poles are systematically
murdered in the occupied territories. Also those who objected to Jewish
predominance in public life (even at a time when the entire press was in favour
of the Jews), cannot assume that one nation is entitled to exterminate another
through measures applied to individuals irrespective of their personal blame.
The putting to death of people without any trial, solely on the basis of
their belonging to a different nationality, or on account of their diseased
health, clearly contradicts the divine commandments, and therefore also every
concept of justice and humanity which is indispensable in a civilised nation.
There can be no blessing on such an attitude. It leads one to consider the
fact that from the time these measures were adopted, the German forces have
not been as successful as they were at the beginning of the war.
Many Germans see in these occurrences not only a disaster but also a sign
of guilt, which will bring its own vengeance. Their moral burden would be
lightened, if a courageous and noble-minded decision were taken by the
Government, which would cleanse the besmirched shield of honour of the German
nation.
The Evangelical Church has not publicly protested before, to avoid
embarrassing the German nation in the eyes of foreign countries. But now that
new and great sacrifices are being demanded of the German people, it should
also be granted relief from its moral burdens." [257]
On July 16, 1943, Bishop Wurm sent a letter to all the Members of the
Government, in which he pleaded for the "so-called privileged non-Aryans".
We quote the following:
"... In the name of God, and for the sake of the German nation, we urgently
request that the responsible leaders of the Reich stop the persecution and
the annihilation of so many men and women, which under German domination
is being carried out without any judicial sentence.
Now that non-Aryans under German domination have to a great extent been
removed, it is much to be feared that individuals, the so-called privileged
non-Aryans, who until now were spared, are now in danger of being treated
likewise.
In particular we emphatically protest against those measures which threaten
to dissolve legal marriages and thus penalize the children born out of these
marriages. These aims are, like other actions of annihilation taken against
non-Aryans, in flat contradiction to God's commandment, and they violate
the foundation of all Western existence and human values in general..." [258]
<111>
On December 20, 1943, another letter was sent by Bishop Wurm, to the Chief
of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers:
"... Not because of any philosemitic sympathies but solely from religious
and ethical considerations, I must declare, in accordance with the opinion
of all positive Christian circles in Germany, that we as Christians consider
the policy of annihilation of the Jews as a terrible injustice, fatal to the
German people.
Killing without military necessity and without trial is contrary to God's
commandments, even though it is ordered by the Goverment. Just as every
conscious transgression of God's commandments, it will recoil sooner or
later on its perpetrators.
Our people in many respects is experiencing sufferings which it has to bear
from the air-attacks of the enemy, as if in retribution for what was
inflicted upon the Jews..." [259]
A Public Protest, issued not by one Church leader but by the CONFESSING Synod
of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union, was the "Interpretation
of the Fifth Commandment":
14. "The sword is given to the State only that it may execute criminals and
for the destruction of enemies in war-time. What it does beyond that, it does
arbitrarily and to its own detriment.
When life is taken for other reasons than those mentioned, men's confidence
in one another is undermined and thus the unity of the people is destroyed.
The divine world order knows no such terms as 'to expunge', 'to liquidate' or
'valueless life' with regard to human beings.
To slay human beings simply because they are related to criminals, because
they are old or mentally afflicted, or because they belong to a different race,
is not the use of the sword sanctioned by the Scripture...
17. In our time, especially, elderly people are more than ever before dependent
on our help. The same is the case with the incurably ill, the weak-minded and
the mentally diseased. We must also not forget those who receive no support
- or almost no support - from public funds.
In such matters the Christian is not concerned with public opinion. His
neighbour is always the one who is helpless and who especially needs him,
and he makes no distinction between races, nations or religions. <112>
God alone has authority over human life. All life is sacred to him, even
that of the people of Israel. Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God,
but neither as human beings nor as Christians are we called upon to pass
sentence on their unbelief..." [260]
The publication of the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment" was an act
of courage but one shudders to read the opinion that "Israel has indeed
rejected the Christ of God". It was only after the war that the Kirchentag
(1961) declared: "Jews and Christians are insolubly linked with each other:
...God hath not cast away his people, which He foreknew". [261] Such
declarations were lacking at the time when they were most necessary.
Several leaders of the CONFESSING Church have severely criticized their
Church, and themselves. Rev. Martin Niemoeller, who himself was imprisoned
from 1937 until the end of the war, stated:
"Nobody wants to take the responsibility for the guilt. Nobody admits to
guilt but instead points to his neighbour. Yet the guilt exists, there is
no doubt about it. Even if there were no other guilt than that of 6,000,000
clay urns; the ashes of burnt Jews from all over Europe.
This guilt weighs heavily on the German people, on the German name, and on
all Christendom. These things happened in our world and in our name...
I regard myself as guilty as any SS man." [262]
Rev. Grueber, who himself suffered in a concentration camp because of his
help rendered to Jews, said:
"In a few meetings of the Confessing Church a call to protest was given.
But protests were made by the few, in comparison with the millions who
co-operated or kept silent, who, at best, played the ostrich or clenched
their fists in their pockets." [263]
<113>
The following is the opinion of Dr. Freudenberg, who was the Director of
the World Council of Churches' Secretariat for Refugees, during the war:
"The attitude of the Christians, also of the adherents of the Confessing
Church, towards the national-socialist persecution of the Jews, shows great
weakness and uncertainty. The anti-Semitic outcry of the environment made a
greater impression than the word of Jesus Christ, the Son of David...
But even the apparently feeble witness of the Church demanded great
confessional courage in the situation of that time. One wrestled to give
many a witness, and one suffered when the right word at the right time was
not given...
It certainly is not accidental that even the Confessing Church, though
offering determined resistance against the introduction of the
Arierparagraph within the Church, only very hesitatingly made its stand
against the anti-Semitic laws and the persecution of the Jews in the State...
The fact that the policy of the State towards the Jews ultimately is the
policy of the Church and that persecution of the Jews is persecution of
Christ, was not acknowledged in time, and when finally it was made, it was
far from adequate.
Moreover, this policy was effectively veiled by the national-socialist
methods of camouflage. At the beginning of the regime one simply could not
believe that the rulers relentlessly pursued a plan for the annihilation of
the Jews and the elimination of the Christian Church from public life...
If we want to evaluate the documents correctly, we must always consider
Hitler's incomprehensible terrorization in the Reich. It may disappoint us
that the matter was not raised more often and more forcibly.
We should, however, bear in mind under which circumstances speaking or
keeping silent took place.
We should keep in mind that only now, after all the atrocities have become
known, has it become customary to make a categorical condemnation of
national-socialism. But this phenomenon was, in general, judged quite
differently, that is to say, much more positively, not only by the Germans
but everywhere in the world, at the time when (some of) these documents
were issued." [264]
The Evangelical Church in Germany herself, after the war, pleaded guilty,
unequivocally and repeatedly. [265]
The verdict seems obvious: even the Protestant group in Germany which
resisted Hitler, totally failed when they should have stood up in the
defence of the Jews. After all this has been said, however, something
should be added.
1. The CONFESSING Church in Germany did speak out against anti-Semitism
in 1936, and, indirectly, also in 1935 and 1938, when already this meant
martyrdom. Churches in other lands, for instance in the Netherlands, did
not speak out in those days. Many Churches outside Germany denounced anti-
Semitism long before 1940, but it cost them little, if anything. <114>
2. The CONFESSING Church, when speaking on behalf of the Jews, spoke against
its own Government and seemingly against national interests. Church
leaders in countries occupied by the Germans also risked their lives when
denouncing German anti-Semitism, but they spoke against the national enemy.
Public declarations of Church leaders in Germany were used by foreign
propaganda media against the Third Reich. [266]
Fortunately, this served to open the eyes of many blind people outside
Germany, but it certainly made things even more difficult for Church
leaders in Germany: many of their compatriots regarded the issue of such
declarations as an act of high-treason.
3. Guenter Lewy, discussing the attitude of the Roman-Catholic Church in
Germany, states:
"The concern of the Gentile populations of these countries (France, the
Netherlands and Belgium) for their Jewish fellow citizens was undoubtedly
one of the key factors behind the bold public protests of the French, Dutch
and Belgian bishops - just as the absence of such solicitude in Germany goes
a long way toward explaining the apathy of their German counterparts." [267]
This is also applicable to the leaders of the CONFESSING Church.
<115>
THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES
21 NORWAY
Only 1,700 Jews were living in Norway. In October 1940, the Jews were
barred from certain professions. In June 1942, registration was ordered
and in October confiscation of Jewish property was decreed.
The Jews received identity cards stamped with the letter J; at the same
time, arrests of Jews began.
On October 25, 1942, all male Jews of sixteen and over were arrested and
interned. On November 25, the women and children were seized. 770 Jews,
including 100 refugees from Central Europe, were deported by boat to Stettin
and thence to Auschwitz. The majority of Norwegian Jews (930) were smuggled
to Sweden. [268]
The Constitution of Norway proclaims: "The Evangelical-Lutheran religion
shall remain the official religion of the State". The majority of Government
ministers must be members of the Church of Norway.
Quisling had received the title of Minister-president on February 1, 1942.
The Bishops of the Church of Norway decided unanimously, on February 24, 1942,
to "cease administrative co-operation with a State which practices violence
against the Church", although maintaining the right to exercise the spiritual
vocation given them by ordination at the Lord's altar.
On April 9, 1942, the Quisling authorities imprisoned Bishop Berggrav and
four other Church leaders. Later on Bishop Berggrav returned from the
concentration camp in which he was held, but remained under house arrest.
<116>
On November 11, 1942, the (Lutheran) Bishops of Norway sent a letter of
Protest to the Minister President Quisling. This Protest was also signed
by the Baptists, the Methodist Church, the Norwegian Mission Association,
the Norwegian Mission Alliance, the Sunday School Union and the Salvation
Army. Following is the text of the Protest:
"The Minister President's law, announced October 27, 1942, regarding the
confiscation of property belonging to Jews have been received by our people
with great sorrow, and was deepened by the decree that all Jewish men over
15 years of age were to be arrested.
When now we appeal to the Minister President, it is not to defend whatever
wrongs Jews may have committed; if they have committed crimes they should be
tried, judged and punished according to Norwegian law, just as all other
citizens. But those who have committed no crime should enjoy the protection
of our country's justice.
For 91 years Jews have had a legal right to reside and to earn a livelihood
in our country. Now they are being deprived of their property without warning;
men were being arrested and thus prevented from providing for their property-
less wives and children. This not only conflicts with the Christian commandment
to 'love thy neighbour', but with the most elemental of legal rights.
Jews have not been charged with transgression of the country's laws, much less
convicted of such transgressions by judicial procedure. Nevertheless, they
are being punished as severely as the worst criminals are punished. They are
being punished because of their racial background, wholly and solely because
they are Jews.
This disaffirmation by the authorities of the Jews' worth as human beings is
in sharp conflict with the Word of God which from cover to cover proclaims
all racial groups to be of one blood. See particularly Acts 17, 26. There are
few references where God's Word speaks more plainly than here. God does not
differentiate among people. Romans 2, 11.
There is neither Jew nor Greek. Galatians 3, 28. There is no difference.
Romans 3, 22. Above else: When God through incarnation became man, He
allowed Himself to be born in a Jewish home of a Jewish mother.
Thus, according to God's Word, all people have, in the first instance, the
same human worth and thereby the same human rights. Our state authorities
are by law obliged to respect this basic view. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution
states that the Evangelical Lutheran religion will remain the religion of the
State. That is to say, the State cannot enact any law or decree which is in
conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession.
When now we appeal to the authorities in this matter we do so because of the
deepest dictates of conscience. To remain silent about this legalized
injustice against the Jews, would render ourselves co-guilty in this injustice.
If we are to be true to God's Word and to the Church's Confession we must speak
out. <117>
Regarding worldly authority, our Confession states that it has nothing to
do with the soul but that it shall 'protect the bodies and corporal things
against obvious injustice, and keep the people in check in order to maintain
civic peace and order'. (Augustana, Article 28). This corresponds with God's
Word which says the authority is of God and established by him, not as a
terror to good works, but to the evil. Romans 13, 3.
If the worldly authority becomes a terror to good works, that is, to the
one who does not transgress against the country's laws, then it is the
Church's God-given duty as the conscience of the State to object.
The Church, namely, has God's call and full authority to proclaim God's law
and God's gospel. Therefore it cannot remain silent when God's commandments
are being trampled underfoot. One of Christianity's basic values now is
being violated: the commandments of God which are fundamental to all
society, namely law and justice.
One cannot dismiss the Church with a charge that it is mixing into politics.
The apostles courageously spoke to the authorities of their day and said:
'We ought to obey God rather than men'. Acts 5, 29. Luther says:
'The Church does not interfere in worldly matters when it warns the
authority to be obedient to the highest authority, which is God'.
By the right of our calling we therefore warn our people to desist from
injustice, violence and hatred. He who lives in hatred and encourages evil
invokes God's judgment upon himself.
The Minister President has on several occasions emphasized that Nasjonal
Samling, according to its program, will safeguard the basic values of
Christianity. To-day one of these values is in danger. If it is to be
protected, it must be protected soon.
We have mentioned it before, but re-emphasize it now in closing: This appeal
of ours has nothing to do with politics. Before worldly authority we maintain
that obedience in all temporal matters which God's Word demands." [269]
The close relationship between Church and State in Norway is reflected in
the protest: "The State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict
with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession".
Important is the reference to Luther; the attitude of the Lutheran Churches
in Germany has been explained by recalling Luther's conception of the two
dominions through which God rules this world: the spiritual one, or the
Church, and the secular one, or the "worldly authorities". The people,
according to Luther, have not the right to resist the authorities; only
princes have. <118>
The Lutheran Church of Norway, however, quoted the Confession (Augustana)
and Luther, in order to stress that it was "the Church's God-given duty as
the conscience of the State to object" (to the anti-Semitic measures).
The letter of Protest won response throughout the country. It was read in
the churches on the 6th and 13th December, 1942.
It was also noted outside the borders of the country. The Swedish newspapers
quoted it in full. The Swedish Lutheran Bishops referred to it in a pastoral
letter which they issued at the beginning of December. [270] In radio London
the Protest was quoted in full.
"Breaking the wall of silence" did not help much, if at all, the Jews of
Norway; but it warned people in Sweden and Denmark, so that they were on
their guard when the Germans tried to apply their 'final solution' to the
Jewish community in Denmark.
Naturally enough, the attitude taken up by the Christians earned them fresh
attacks from the Quisling followers. On December 30, 1942, the Trondheim
paper Adresseavisen concluded an editorial on the 'detrimental Jewish
influence' in Norway with these words:
"... But now all this is forgotten. On Boxing day the Norwegian clergy
read a new pastoral letter from the pulpits, glorifying the Jews and their
activities, sighing and lamenting because the chosen race of Israel is not
allowed to pursue its activities among the Norwegian people as before, but
must be held responsible for its actions." [271]
Nevertheless, in a New Year's message for 1943, which was read from the
pulpits throughout the country, the Provisional Church Council boldly
declared that it would continue to fight Nazism to the end.
The Council called upon the congregations to pray for imprisoned clergymen
and persecuted Jews. It added:
"The appeal which the Norwegian Church and the Christian people recently
sent to the Minister President on account of the atrocious treatment of
the Jews, has not yet been answered. In this case we have clearly seen
what may happen when God's words concerning the worth of man and love are
being trampled underfoot." [272]
<119>
22 THE NETHERLANDS
a. The Preliminary Phase
On May 14, 1940, the Dutch army surrendered to the Germans. Seyss-Inquart
was appointed Reich Commissioner to the Netherlands; Rauter was Chief of
Police and Security; General Christiansen was head of the military
administration. The political situation in the Netherlands was better
than in occupied Poland and Bohemia, but worse than that in most of the
other occupied countries, such as Denmark. The Queen and the Cabinet were
in exile. The German rulers in the Netherlands were ruthless and efficient.
In October, 1940, the first anti-Jewish decrees were promulgated.
In November, Jews were dismissed from public posts. On January 10, 1941,
the decree ordering registration of the Jews was signed. On February 9,
1941, the first raid on the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam was made. On February
25, 1941, a general protest-strike was declared in Amsterdam which paralyzed
transport and industry, spreading to other districts. It was suppressed by
force within three days. In May, 1941, the Jews were banned from parks
and places of public amusement. In July, 1941, identity cards of Jews were
stamped with the letter J. Between January and April of 1942, thousands
of Jews were deported to labour camps. After May, 1942, the Jews had to
wear the yellow star.' [273]
There are people who believe that the record of Dutch resistance against
National-Socialism is outstanding and that the majority of the population
was engaged in rescue activities on behalf of the Jews. To those who believe
this, the reading of Dr. J. Presser's book "Destruction" must be a shattering
experience.
On June 20, 1940, the Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH [274]
invited seven other Protestant Churches to a consultation. <120>
The Churches invited were: The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, the
Christian Reformed Church, the Re-united Reformed Churches, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church, the Re-united Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Brotherhood
of Remonstrants and the Society of Mennonites. Representatives of these
Churches convened for the first time on June 25, 1940. A "Council of
Churches" was established, and later on, became known as the "Inter-
Church Consultation". [275] Most of the public protests were issued by
this Council.
Particularly at the beginning, the attitude of several members of the
"Council of Churches" showed a lack of determination. One of the factors
that led the Council, as well as the Churches themselves, to a more
determined attitude, was the influence of the "Circle of Lunteren".
This group, consisting of ministers belonging to different Churches but
mainly to the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, had followed the plight of the
Confessing Church in Germany with deep sympathy; many of them were
influenced by the clear stand and the teachings of Prof. Karl Barth. [276]
The "Circle of Lunteren" secretly met for the first time in the village of
Lunteren, on August 22, 1940. A letter was sent to the Synodal Committee
of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, urging the Church to give clear advice to the
local churches and to the nation at large, especially regarding increasing
anti-Semitic propaganda. [276] The reply of the Synodal Committee, however,
was both reserved and evasive. [277]
The "Circle of Lunteren" also published clandestine brochures; 50,000 copies
of the brochure "Almost too late" were distributed. It was written by
Rev. J. Koopmans.
He spoke of the danger of following new Messiahs, instead of the Messiah
who came "not from our race, but from the much hated Jewish race". <121>
He especially mentioned the fact that people in official posts were commanded
to sign a document stating that they were "Aryan", and that the vast majority
of those concerned had signed it, perhaps not even realizing its implications
for the Jews. [278] Rev. Koopmans pointed out that it was a grave mistake to
sign the document, and since many people had already signed it, indeed it was
"almost too late". Therefore quick action should be taken if it would not be
too late altogether. Everyone should explicitly declare that he would not
take part in the expulsion of the Jews from public life. The pamphlet closed
with the words:
"Dutchmen, it is almost too late, but still not too late! It is still not
too late to return to the Christian faith and to a clear conscience. It
is still not too late to stand up for our Jewish compatriots, for the sake
of mercy and on the grounds of Holy Scripture. It is still not too late to
show the Germans that their wickedness has not overcome everything, but
that there are people who are determined not to be robbed in this way of
their Christian faith and their clear conscience." [279]
Someone was caught distributing this brochure; he was sentenced by a
German judge to one and a half year imprisonment. [280]
Another clandestine pamphlet was published by the "Circle of Lunteren":
"What we believe and what we do not believe". It was written in the summer
of 1941 and widely distributed. We quote the following:
"Therefore we believe that he who stands up against Israel, stands up
against the God of Israel...
Therefore we believe anti-Semitism to be something much more serious than
an inhuman racial theory. We believe it to be one of the most stubborn and
most deadly forms of rebellion against the holy and merciful God whose name
we confess." [281]
<122>
On October 24, 1940, the Protestant Churches sent a letter to the Reich
Commissioner for occupied Holland, protesting against the discriminatory
regulations against Jewish officials. The letter reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, representing the following Protestant Churches in
questions regarding the relations between the Church and the civil
authority: The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH; the Reformed Churches in the
Netherlands; the Christian Reformed Church; the Re-united Reformed Church;
the Brotherhood of Remonstrants; the Society of Mennonites, feel impelled
to appeal to your Excellency in view of the regulations recently issued
forbidding the appointment or promotion in the Netherlands of officials or
other persons of Jewish blood.
In our view the spirit of these regulations, which bear in a special way
upon important spiritual questions, is contradictory to Christian mercy.
Moreover, these regulations also effect members of the Church itself insofar
as they have adopted the Christian faith in recent generations and who have
been received as perfect equals into the Churches, as is expressly demanded
by the Holy Scripture (Rom. 10, 12; Gal. 3, 28).
Finally, the Churches are deeply concerned since this affects the people
from whom came the Saviour of the world, and for whom all Christians
intercede that they may recognize in Him their Lord and King.
For these reasons we urgently appeal to your Excellency to induce the
authorities to abolish the said regulations.
Moreover, we refer to your Excellency's solemn promise to respect our
national character and to refrain from enforcing on us any ideology alien
to us." [283]
As the Boards of both the Lutheran Churches refused to associate their
Churches with this protest, it was only submitted on behalf of six of the
eight Protestant Churches. The text was made public in an abbreviated form
on Sunday, October 27, in most of the churches. However, the Reformed
Churches in the Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church did not make
the protest public to their congregations. Therefore Prof. H. H. Kuyper,
who was the representative of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,
was sharply criticized and some of the other members of the Council refused
to co-operate with him further. He then resigned on account of his
"deafness", and another was appointed in his place. [284]
<123>
On January 10, 1941, the decree ordering registration of the Jews was
signed by Seyss-Inquart. On February 9, 1941, a general protest-strike was
declared in Amsterdam which paralyzed transport and industry, spreading to
other districts. It was suppressed by force in three days.
The next protest of the Churches was a letter, dated March 5, 1941, and
sent to the Assembly of General Secretaries (an Assembly which, in the
absence of the Ministers of State, represented the supreme Dutch authority
in the Netherlands). The Evangelical Lutheran Church also signed this
protest; thus seven Protestant Churches participated in this action. Here
follows the text:
"The Churches are deeply distressed about the development of events, which
is becoming increasingly clear. The proclamation of the Word of God entrusted
to the Church charges us with the express duty to make its stand for right
and justice, truth and love. It must raise its voice when these values are
threatened or attacked in public life. The fact that these values are being
seriously threatened cannot be denied by anyone who observes the present
situation of our nation.
Clear symptoms of this state of affairs which not only weighs as a heavy
burden on the conscience of our fellow citizens but is also, according to
the deep conviction of the Church, contrary to the Word of God, are incidents
in the public street and the treatment to which the Jewish part of the Dutch
population is being increasingly subjected. There is growing insecurity in
the administration of justice and a continual attack on the freedom
indispensable to the fulfilment of Christian duties.
For this reason the Churches deem it their duty to request the Assembly most
urgently to employ all means at its disposal to ensure that also at this time,
justice, truth and mercy may be guiding principles of Government action.
The Churches humbly consider it their bounden duty to influence the lives
of the people as to inculcate in them these spiritual values.
We trust that you will be prepared to pass on the word of the Churches as
expressed in this document in any way you deem expedient to those who, in the
present period of occupation, bear the ultimate responsibility for the course
of events in our country. We fully realize the extremely difficult task which
faces the Assembly at this juncture, and we pray God that He may give it His
light and His help." [285]
<124>
The Churches intended to inform all the congregations of the nature and
contents of this letter by a short announcement from the pulpits. The
necessary circulars had been prepared in time for the reading of the
declaration on Sunday, March 23, 1941. But on March 20, the secretary of
the Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH and the Chairman of the "Council of
Churches" were arrested. The authorities were sure that the reading of the
declaration would become the signal for an insurrection and that the Churches
would be responsible for a disturbance of public order.
When it was shown that this was a misunderstanding, the two representatives
of the Churches were released. To show that the Churches had not intended
political action, the pastors who could still be contacted were asked not
to read the letter from the pulpit. Thus it was only read in those towns
and villages which did not receive the counter-order until too late. [286]
On March 23, 1941, a Pastoral Letter of the General Synod of the Reformed
Churches in the Netherlands was read from the pulpits. We cite the following:
"In our time the notion is advanced with ever increasing emphasis that it is
not personal relationship to God's Name but belonging to a certain people or
race which determines the meaning of a person's life and which divides mankind
into distinct divisions.
You will always be able to give the right answer to this doctrine (which has
already been accepted by many) if you are faithful to the Holy Scripture.
In repudiation of this doctrine the Church should not present its own ideas
but only convey the powerful Word of God.
You have already shared the anxiety which has filled the hearts of so many of
our compatriots in recent months. This is a matter of course because, as the
Church of Christ well knows from the Gospels, it was in the course of the
history of the Jewish people that Christ was born. Therefore the fact of
belonging to a special race must never limit our love towards our neighbour,
nor the mercy that we owe him." [287]
On January 5, 1942, delegates of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches
together applied to the General Secretary of the Ministry of Justice for an
interview with the Reich Commissioner, Seyss-Inquart. <125>
This was the first time in Dutch history that the Protestant and Catholic
Churches acted together and signed a document of protest. Moreover, this was
a unique proceeding in occupied Europe and considerably increased the impact
of the protests. The National-Socialist daily "Volk en Vaderland" commented:
"What God has been unable to achieve for centuries, the Jewish star has
achieved. Churches which were never able to unite for the greater glory of
God, now conduct a united action." [288]
An interview was arranged for February 17, 1942. Two delegates of the
Protestant Churches and one from the Roman Catholic Church submitted a
translation into German of the Memorandum to the Reich Commissioner which
had previously been given to the General Secretary of the Ministry of
Justice, who had already passed on a copy to Seyss-Inquart. In handing
over the document the delegates declared that they were speaking in the
name of the entire Christian Church of the Netherlands. We quote the following:
"Then the treatment of people of Jewish origin must be mentioned. At the
moment the Churches do not offer judgment on anti-Semitism which, incidentally,
they reject utterly on Christian grounds; nor do they wish to initiate a
discussion on the political measures taken against the Jews in general.
They wish to confine themselves to the fact that a large number of Jews were
arrested in the course of the year 1941 and deported, and that since then an
alarmingly large number of official announcements of death among these
deportees has been received.
The Churches would be neglecting their elementary duty if they did not insist
that the authorities should put an end to these measures. This is a duty of
Christian mercy." [289]
Prof. Aalders, one of the spokesmen, then gave an oral explanation of the
Memorandum. In his reply the Reich Commissioner said:
"... In our treatment of the Jews there can be no talk of mercy; only, at
best, of justice. The Jewish problem will be solved by the Germans and no
distinction will be made between Jews and Jews..." [290] <126>
The results of the interview were negative. Shortly afterwards, Prof.
Aalders was arrested.
The Churches intended to inform all the congregations of the interview from
their pulpits. The German security service, however, threatened heavy
punishment, if this intention were carried out. The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH
protested against this in a letter sent to Seyss-Inquart, dated March 17,
1942. [291] Moreover, a short message was read from the pulpits on April 19,
1942:
"... The Church has protested against the lawlessness and cruelty to which
those of Jewish faith in our nation are being subjected and against the
attempt to enforce a national-socialist philosophy of life which stands
in direct contradiction to the Gospel..." [292]
A full report was sent to all local Church councils, at the same time.
A decree, which initially did not seem so dangerous, actually resulted from
the desire to isolate the Jews from other Dutchmen in order to exterminate
them more easily. It was the regulation to place a notice "Forbidden to Jews"
on public gardens, public baths and cinemas. At the beginning of 1942 it was
ordered that such a notice must be placed on all public buildings. The
Churches refused to obey this order:
"It is absolutely forbidden to place the notice on any church building or on
premises used by the Church. On a building with Christian purposes the notice
in question cannot be permitted as a matter of principle, because it would be
a denial of the Gospel."
In some church buildings concerts were held, which required placing the notice.
But the advice of the leaders of the Church was, that in such cases the concerts
must be cancelled. The advice to sports clubs which were compelled to display
the notice was: "For reasons of principle there is no other way but to stop the
activities". [293]
Many ministers of religion were fined or imprisoned because of their refusal
to display this notice. <127>
b. Mass Deportation
Mass deportations of Jews began in June, 1942. The Jews were assembled in
Westerbork camp; trains to the extermination camps in Poland left every week.
The last large-scale deportations were in the spring and summer of 1943.
In January, 1941, there were 160,000 Jews in the Netherlands, of whom 138,000
were Dutch citizens, and 22,000 foreign Jews. At least 104,000 of them were
murdered.
After the systematic rounding up of Jews had started in Amsterdam, the
representative of the Remonstrant Fraternity proposed to the Council of
Churches, to turn the "New Church", in the centre of Amsterdam, into a house
of refuge for persecuted Jews, and that attired in their robes of office the
ministers of the different Churches should occupy the entrances of the church
and stand or fall with the Jews in the church.
The proposal was not accepted. The majority of the Council believed that it
would be a sublime but useless gesture which might well cause a bloodbath
and at the very least an acceleration of deportations. [294]
The Council decided, however, to send a telegram of protest to Seyss-Inquart,
to General Christiansen, and to the two German General-Commissioners Rauter
and Schmidt.
The telegram read as follows:
"Dismayed by the measures that have been taken against the Jews in the
Netherlands by excluding them from participation in the normal life of the
community, the undersigned Churches have now learnt, with horror, of the new
measures whereby men, women and children, as well as whole families, are being
deported to Germany or countries now subservient to it.
The suffering which this brings to tens of thousands, the recognition that
these measures offend the deepest moral sense of the Dutch people, the
opposition to God's laws of justice and mercy, all this forces us to address
to you the most urgent plea not to implement these measures.
Moreover, as far as Christians of Jewish origin are concerned this plea is
strengthened by the fact that they have been debarred by this decree from
participation in the life of the church." [295] <128>
Thereupon the Germans offered a concession. They declared their readiness
not to deport Christians of Jewish origin. On the other hand, they made it
clear that the sending of the telegram of protest had better not be made
public during church services. This was accepted by the General Synod of
the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH.
The Synod considered that "among decent people one party does not publish
any document if the other party objects".
Another important argument was the fear that all that had been gained in
favour of the Christians of Jewish origin might be lost. [296]
None of the other Protestant Churches followed the example of the DUTCH
REFORMED CHURCH, nor did the Catholic Bishops. [297] The Germans took their
revenge: all Roman Catholics of Jewish origin (amongst whom was the
philosopher Edith Stein) were deported, on July 26, 1942, and perished,
while most of the Protestants of Jewish origin survived. On September 24,
1942, Rauter wrote to Himmler:
"... Since my last report the Catholics among the Christian Jews have been
deported because the five Bishops, with Archbishop de Jong of Utrecht at
their head, did not abide by our original agreements.
The Protestant Jews are still here, and attempts to break through the united
front presented by the Catholic and Protestant Churches have indeed been
successful.
Archbishop de Jong declared at a Conference of Bishops that he would never
again form a united front with the Calvinists and other Protestants.
The storm of protest raised by the Churches when the evacuation began has
thus been greatly undermined and has now subsided..." [298] <129>
Rev. H.C. Touw, the historian of the resistance of the DUTCH REFORMED
CHURCH, asked the questions:
"Did the Synod take the right decision? Or did it succumb to a satanic
temptation? Was it unfaithful to its Lord in order to save the lives of
its own members?" [299]
The question of choosing between "quiet diplomacy" and public protest now
seems to be easy: negotiations with the devil are senseless. We should not
forget, however, that Church leaders who issued a public protest not only
took considerable personal risks, but also took upon themselves the
responsibility for endangering the freedom and life of others.
Noteworthy is the opinion of a group of Christians of Jewish origin who
addressed themselves to the Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:
"Be assured that - if the proclamation of the Word of God (concerning the
persecution of Jews) needs to be more clearly emphasized at this time - those
among us who truly belong to the Lord are willing to be deported to Poland,
confidently trusting in the lord." [300]
In the summer of 1942, regular contact was established between Protestants
in Holland and Dr. Visser 't Hooft, general secretary of the World Council
of Churches, Geneva. Couriers brought copies of protests of the Churches
(and much other information) in microfilm to Geneva, Dr. Visser 't Hooft
sent the microfilms to the Dutch Government in London.
The Churches expressed themselves again in a protest which was sent to
Seyss-Inquart on February 17, 1943, and which was read from the pulpits in
all the churches.
We quote from this protest the following:
"The Churches would be culpable if they failed to point out to the
authorities the sins they committed in the execution of their authority,
and if they failed to warn them of God's judgment. The Churches have already
drawn your attention to the increasing lawlessness, the persecution unto
death of Jewish compatriots... <130>
But it is also the duty of the Churches to preach this Word of God: 'We
ought to obey God rather than men'. This commandment is the touchstone in
all conflicts of conscience, also in those that arise out of the recently
taken steps. Because of God's justice, no one may participate in unjust
actions since thereby he would become equally guilty of injustice." [301]
It was important that this protest was read out in all the local churches
for it frequently happened that Dutch police agents were ordered to arrest
Jews and others. The Churches thus warned the faithful that "no one may
participate in unjust actions". [302]
c. The "privileged categories"; the "other God"
In spring 1943, after nearly all Jewish families had been deported, the
occupying authorities confronted Jews in mixed marriage with the alternative
of being deported or sterilized.
We quote below the protest of the Churches. It was sent on May 19, 1943,
and signed by the delegates of the nine Protestant and the Roman Catholic
Churches, while the Bishop of the Old Catholic Church sent a letter of
adherence to the protest, a month later.
"Following on the many happenings in the years of occupation which have
forced the Christian Churches of the Netherlands to complain to your
Excellency - especially in the matter of Jewish citizens of our county -
something so frightful is now being perpetrated that we cannot but address
a word to your Excellency in the name of our Lord.
We have already protested about several acts committed by the occupation
authorities, which are in absolute contradiction to the spiritual principles
of our people - a people and its Government which, from the very beginning,
have at least endeavoured to live under God's Word.
In the last few weeks the sterilisation of so-called mixed married has begun.
But God who created heaven and earth and whose commandments are for all men,
to whom even your Excellency will have to give account one day, has said to
mankind: 'Be fruitful and multiply' (Gen. 1, 28). Sterilisation is a physical
and spiritual mutilation directly at variance with God's commandment that we
shall not dishonour, hate, wound, or kill our neighbours. <131>
Sterilisation constitutes a violation of the divine commandment as well as
of human rights. It is the latest consequence of an anti-Christian racial
doctrine which destroys nations, and of a boundless self-exaltation. It
represents a view of the world and of life which undermines true Christian
human life, rendering it ultimately impossible.
At the present time your Excellency is de facto the highest political authority
in the Netherlands; you have been entrusted with the task of maintaining
law and order in this country - entrusted not only by the leader of the
German Reich but also by the inscrutable will of the God whom the Church
proclaims here on earth.
The commandments of this God and Judge of all the earth apply to you as much
as to anybody else and all the more in view of your high position. It is for
this reason that the Christian Churches of the Netherlands say to your
Excellency in the name of God and of His Word: It is your Excellency's
duty to stop this shameful practice of sterilisation.
We have no illusion. We are well aware of the fact that we can hardly expect
your Excellency to listen to the voice of the Church, which is the voice of
the Gospel, which is God's voice. But things that cannot be expected of men,
may be hoped for in the Christian faith. The living God has the power to
incline even the heart of your Excellency to repentance and obedience. For
that we pray God, both for the benefit of your Excellency and of our
suffering people." [303]
This time again no official reply was received from Seyss-Inquart.
However, he communicated by a verbal message that all cases which had
occurred up till then, were dealt with on a voluntary basis and furthermore,
that he had transferred the matter to General-Commissioner Rauter to deal
with. Thus the Churches were advised to send any further protest to Rauter.
The Churches turned again to Seyss-Inquart in their letter of June 24, 1943,
in which was written, amongst other things:
"The Churches must, irrespective of the question of who is charged with a
particular matter, consider your Excellency as ultimately responsible for
everything that has happened, and is happening, in our country during the
years of occupation." [304]
The letters had no practical effect. Many hundreds of Jews of mixed marriages
were forced to undergo sterilisation; some, by using bribery or appealing to
patriotic physicians, were able to arrange sham operations or get certificates
of exemption. [305] <132>
German racial policy encouraged the partners of "mixed marriages" to divorce
the "non-Aryan" spouses. By a nominal formality, a partner could part from
the one to whom he was legally married.
The reaction of the Churches to this is laid down in their letter to Seyss-
Inquart of October 14, 1943, which ran as follows:
"Time and again the Christian Churches in the Netherlands have approached
your Excellency in matters concerning the Jews of our country, who long have
been settled in the Netherlands, and who have been integrated into the life
of our people. Your Excellency decided not to listen to the urgent words of
warning from the Churches.
Most of our Jewish compatriots who, until now enjoyed a limited liberty, have
been deported.
For them as well as for the very small group which yet remains, we appeal
urgently to your Excellency, to prevent deportation and allow them privileged
treatment in the Netherlands.
Further, the Churches are seriously alarmed by indications that the German
administration is again paying particular attention to the so-called mixed-
marriages, with the aim of bringing about divorce, at least in a number of
these marriages. This aim may, as happened in the case of sterilisation, be
made to appear more harmless by a pretension that each divorce is a voluntary
one. As before, the Churches beg emphatically to stress to your Excellency
that this way of dissolution of marriage may not be followed.
The Lord Jesus says, and He does not say that to His Church alone, but to the
whole world, and thus also to your Excellency: 'What therefore God hath joined
together, let no man put asunder' (Matthew 19, 6).
Therefore the Churches urgently appeal to your Excellency to let these small
groups which are at present under consideration for the clauses of exemption,
share also in the possibility recently opened for some of them, i.e., to be
exempted from the restrictions that are in force for Jews.
Commotion and indignation cannot diminish if actions are continued which injure
the Dutch people in their deepest religious and moral convictions." [306]
In the autumn of 1943 a pastoral letter was sent to parochial church
councillors of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, to give them the necessary basis
for their opposition in the struggle against national-socialist ideology.
After sections on "Another God" and "Another Morality", there follows the
section on "Anti-Semitism". We quote the following from this section:
<133>
"This 'other god' and this 'other morality' is clearly recognizable in
deliberate anti-Semitism. That the people of Israel should be hated and
persecuted with fanatical passion and systematically annihilated with malice
aforethought, is a phenomenon which has never before appeared in history in
this form; for in the last resort there are no strategic, economic or cultural
reasons to be adduced for this; the basis of anti-Semitism lies deeper, and
this the Church should clearly perceive.
The boundless and unrestrained hatred of the Jews comes from natural aversion
to the 'Jewish God' and the 'Jewish Bible'.
This outrage, this blasphemy, spread as it has in many written tracts and his
been made into the spiritual nourishment of millions (of course under a regime
where the state and the state alone is responsible, and intends to make itself
responsible for the guidance of the people, and where public utterances and
printed statements can thus never be attributed to the whim of private persons
or groups as is the case under a democratic regime), must be an absolutely
clear indication to the Christian Church that Faith, itself, is being attacked
in its deepest foundations.
The Church must not overlook the fact that in this respect, too, its members
urgently need guidance based on the Scriptures. There are still members of
the Church who, while detesting the systematic annihilation of our Jewish
fellow-men and fellow-citizens, yet justify their aversion to the Jews by
adducing the judgment of God." [307]
d. Some Comments and Evaluations
It is to the honour of the Churches in the Netherlands, that they already
protested against one of the first steps taken against the Jews, in October,
1940.
It is regrettable that sometimes the Churches chose to ask for "mercy" on
behalf of the Jews instead of demanding the maintenance of justice. It is
even more regrettable that the Churches never publicly exhorted their members,
to actively help and hide Jews.
Much in the declarations and protests issued, however, shows a deep Biblical
insight, in contrast to protests of Churches in other countries in which the
national-socialist terminology often was used, or national reasons were
stressed rather than the Biblical viewpoint. There have been many comments
on the attitude of the Churches in the Netherlands, and we quote some of
them below.
<134>
Dr. W.A. Visser 't Hooft, general Secretary of the World Council of Churches:
"These documents must be read carefully. They are precious, for those who
composed them and also those who read them from the pulpit were in great
danger; they risked much when giving their witness." [308]
Rev. H.C. Touw, the historian of the resistance of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:
"The Church's struggle on behalf of the Jews was a struggle of mixed failure
and success. Nevertheless this struggle was the most moving, the most dramatic,
and the most persistent part of the resistance of the Dutch Church."
"Just as too many kept silent in the pulpits, certainly too few took
persecuted persons into their houses. Many felt that the Synod had failed to
give sufficient guidance in this respect. It did not issue any exhortations,
nor did it find any way by which to quicken the conscience of the people.
This must be considered a great, collective guilt. Here there is no reason
whatsoever for Christian self-glorification, but there is every reason to be
ashamed." [309]
H. Wielek:
"In April 1942, important declarations showing dignity and courage were
proclaimed from the pulpits of the churches. The activity of the Church did
not slacken. The pastors evinced personal courage; even without Synodal
exhortation they understood how to act. Their sermons did not lack clarity,
particularly in regard to the persecution of the Jews and their persecutors.
Many pastors had to pay for their courageous attitude by a term in a
concentration camp." [310]
W. Warmbrunn:
"The attempt of the churches to caution the Germans in their actions,
especially with respect to the persecutions of the Jews, could not be
effective, since the course of action in major matters of this kind was
determined by the Reich leadership." [311]
"It appears to this writer that groups that excelled in effective resistance
were voluntary organizations independent of state control that were conveyers
of religious or ethical norms. The moral implications of Christian doctrine
motivated the resistance of the Churches." [312]
Rev. J.J. Buskes:
"Why did I let myself be seduced? Yes, indeed, seduced into making compromises.
Why did I not say: 'Thus speaks the Lord'? <135>
It is a painful matter also for others of whom it is said (as of myself)
that they have behaved excellently. For it depends on the standard by which
one judges." [313]
Message of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH to the Church in Germany, March 9, 1946:
"...We publicly confess before God and the world, that in this struggle we
have not been sufficiently faithful, nor willing to accept suffering gladly
and courageously." [314]
23 FRANCE
The armistice was signed on June 22, 1940. It was stipulated that 3/5 of
the French territory would be occupied by the Germans. In the unoccupied
zone a nominally independent regime was established.
Marshall Petain became President; Laval was Vice-president until April,
1942, when he was succeeded by Admiral Darlan. Delegate for the occupied
zone was Ambassador Brinon.
In November, 1942, the Germans occupied Vichy France. Thus we have inserted
this chapter under "Occupied Countries", not under "Satellite Countries".
It should be noted, however, that the Vichy Government maintained diplomatic
relations with the outside world and that it had at least a certain freedom
of action in its own territory, until November, 1942. Laval was in a position
to bargain for the French Jews by sacrificing the foreign Jews in France. [315]
a. The Preliminary Phase <136>
At the end of 1939 the Jewish population of France had reached a total of
about 270,000. After May, 1940, more than 40,000 Jews streamed into France
from Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. [316] The number of Jews deported from
France is estimated to be approximately 80,000 persons. [317] According to
Tenenbaum, the number was 100,000 out of a total pre-war Jewish population
of some 350,000. "This relatively favourable result in comparison with the
other countries is due primarily to the determined attitude of the French
people with regard to their Jewish neighbours." [318]
Chief Rabbi Kaplan shows us the other side of the picture:
"I do not forget, when recalling these dreadful crimes, that priests,
pastors, men and women of all confessions and philosophical doctrines
and of all classes, exposed themselves to the greatest dangers in order
to come to the rescue of the persecuted Jews. Here I wish to mention
particularly, the energetic and courageous protests issued by the eminent
leaders of French Catholicism and Protestantism.
Nonetheless the undeniable fact remains, that Christian ethical education -
inculcated over a long succession of generations - has not prevented the
majority of the people of a nation claiming to be Christian, from becoming
more or less responsible for the abominable Hitlerite persecution." [319]
Many factors played their part. It was easier to go into hiding in France
than, for instance, in the Netherlands. The attitude of the Italians who
held part of occupied France was an important factor: they either found
excuses for their non-cooperation with the Germans or just refused. France
was the first country to be liberated: the invasion started on June 6, 1944.
On September 27, 1940, the decree for compulsory registration of Jews was
promulgated in the occupied zone, including the marking of Jewish stores
with the star of David. A few days later - October 4, 1940 - the Vichy
French Council of Ministers decreed the Statute des Juifs which disfranchised
the Jews in all France.
On March 29, 1941, a "Department for Jewish Affairs" was created by the
Vichy Government. In May, 1941, 3,600 Polish Jews were rounded up in Paris.
In August, there was another raid. The victims were placed in three camps
(Drancy, Pithiviers and Beaune la Rolande). On June 2, 1941, Jewish
registration was made compulsory in both zones. On November 29, 1941,
the Vichy regime decreed that all Jewish organizations were to be dissolved.
<137>
The Protestants in France are a small minority, numbering altogether not
more than 800,000 souls. France is, to my knowledge, the only country where
a small minority group of Protestants publicly protested against the
persecutions. Poliakov stated one of the reasons:
"It must also be remembered that the French Protestants are themselves a
minority and have known centuries of persecution - such trials, when they
are surmounted, sharpen one's sensitivity to injustice." [320]
Another positive factor was the fact that the President of the Protestant
Federation of France, Rev. Marc Boegner, was also one of the three Vice-
chairmen of the Provisional Council of the World Council of Churches.
He had many international contacts. This fact gave an additional impact
to the protests. Rev. Boegner did not only speak in the name of the French
Protestants, but also informed Marshal Petain "of the deep emotion felt
in Swiss, Swedish and United States Churches". [321]
Rev. Boegner relates that he first stayed in Vichy at the end of July, 1940.
A "very highly placed personality" told him: "The Jews have done so much
damage to the country that they need collective punishment". He himself
realized then "where we are going to be dragged and what would be the
responsibility of the Churches". [322]
The establishment of the Department for Jewish Affairs, in March, 1941,
aggravated the situation. German pressure on the Vichy Government became
stronger. Rev. Boegner spoke of this to Admiral Darlan, who tried to calm
him by saying that "it primarily was a matter of saving the French Jews".
A high police officer sought to persuade him that this was a government
matter which was no business of the Churches. [323] <138>
In Lyon, where the National Council of the Reformed Church had convened
before the end of 1940, Rev. Bertrand informed Rev. Boegner that the Council
of the Protestant Federation wanted a written protest without delay. It
was agreed, however, that Rev. Boegner should continue with his oral
interventions for some time longer.
But when the National Council of the Reformed Church reconvened in March,
1941, it was unanimously resolved that the position of the Reformed Church
should be set down in writing without delay. It was on these instruction
that Rev. Boegner wrote two letters. The first was sent to the Chief Rabbi
of France, on March 26, 1941:
"The National Council of the Reformed Church of France has just convened
for the first time since the law of October 3rd, 1940, came into force.
It has instructed me to express to you the grief we all feel at the
introduction of racial legislation in our country, and at the trials
and innumerable injustices which it has brought upon the French Jews.
There are some among us who have thought that the State has been faced
with a great problem as a result of the extensive immigration of a large
number of foreigners - Jews and non-Jews - and by hasty and unjustifiable
naturalisations, but they have always expressed the conviction that this
problem should be handled with the respect due to human beings; with
strict adherence to State undertakings; and in accordance with the demands
of justice which France has always championed.
They are all the more distressed because of the rigorous enforcement of a
law which, applying exclusively to Jews, makes no distinction between Jews
who have been Frenchmen for many generations, in many cases for centuries,
and between those who received their citizenship only yesterday.
Our Church which has in the past known all the sufferings of persecution,
harbours feelings of warmest sympathy for your communities whose freedom
of worship in certain places has already been restricted and whose faithful
members have so suddenly been afflicted with misfortune.
It has already taken steps - which it will not fail to pursue vigorously
- for the necessary repeal of the law." [324]
This letter shows hesitation: it considers the "extensive immigration of
a large number of foreigners" as a problem and creates the impression that
the French Protestants cared less for the Jews who had "received their
citizenship only yesterday" than for the Jews who had been Frenchmen for
many generations. <139>
The same applies to the letter sent to Admiral Darlan, also on March 26, 1941:
"We have just convened at Nimes, for the first time since the enforcement
of the Law of October 3rd, 1940, concerning the status of the Jews. On the
eve of our meeting we learned from a notice in the press, of your intention
to set up an office for Jewish Affairs. We consider it our duty to inform
you in the name of the Reformed Church of France, comprising the vast
majority of French Protestants, of our feeling on this painful question.
We in no way disregard the seriousness of the problem which the State has
to face in view of the recent, large immigration of a great number of
foreigners, many of them of Jewish origin; and in view of hasty unjustifiable
naturalisations. We are convinced that this problem ought, and can be,
resolved with due respect to individual people and due care for the justice,
of which France has always desired to be a champion.
We also know that under the present circumstances strong pressure is
undoubtedly being exerted on the government of France in order to force
its decision to pass anti-Jewish laws.
We are nonetheless deeply distressed, as Frenchmen and as Christians, by
a law which introduces the principle of racial discrimination into our
legislation, the strict enforcement of which entails severe trials and
tragic injustices for the French Jews.
Especially, do we protest against the principle of racial discrimination,
because it has caused the State to break its formal undertakings on behalf
of men and women, the vast majority of whom have served it loyally and
disinterestedly.
We are assured that the Law of October 3rd, 1940, is not a law of religious
persecution. But if freedom of worship really remains untouched, for Jews
as for Catholics and Protestants, why then is it, in fact, already being
barred or threatened in certain places?
The fact is, that a religious minority is being wronged. Our Church which
has known all the sufferings of persecution, will fail in its primary
mission if it does not raise its voice on behalf of this minority.
We know that by setting up an office for Jewish Affairs, you sincerely
wish to do whatever is in your power, to avoid even greater hardship from
befalling the French Jews. We believe we may give you our assurance that
the Christian denominations will give their unreserved approval to your
effort, the difficulty of which they are well aware of.
At the same time, however, we would ask you most earnestly to take even
further measures, and as from now, to amend the law imposed on the French
Jews, so that, on the one hand, further injustices may be prevented,
and on the other hand, the disastrous impression made on a large part
of the civilised world by the law of last October, may be removed.
The defeat suffered in the war, the painful consequences of which we are
now experiencing, constitutes a further reason why France should seek to
safeguard those values which, in the moral sphere, have gained it the
respect and affection of Christian nations." [325] <140>
Admiral Darlan did not reply to this letter in writing. He told Rev.
Boegner that he wanted to discuss the matter with him. Rev. Boegner relates:
"In May (1941) I had a long meeting with him. He informed me that a new
draft law was being studied, certain provisions of which would seem very
severe to us, but there were others which would attenuate their effect.
His sole care was to save those Jews who had been established in France for
several generations. Regarding the others, who had recently immigrated, his
one wish was that they should leave the country." [326]
On May 29, 1942, it was decreed that every Jew who had reached the age of
six must wear the yellow star. The Council of the Protestant Federation,
under the chairmanship of Rev. Bertrand (in the occupied zone) decided to
express the feelings of the Churches in the occupied zone directly to the
Chief of State, Marshal Petain. Their letter read as follows:
"The Council of the Protestant Federation of France, assembled in Paris,
takes the liberty of addressing itself with respectful confidence to the
French Chief of State to express to him the painful impression made upon
its affiliated Churches by the new measures taken by the Occupation
Authorities with respect to the Jews.
The decree of May 29th, compelling our compatriots of the Jewish race to
wear a distinctive badge, has in fact deeply moved thousands of Protestants
in the occupied zone.
Our President, Rev. Marc Boegner, has already had the honour of informing
you, as well as Admiral Darlan of the Fleet, who is Vice President of the
Council of Ministers, of the unanimous desire of the Protestants of France
that the solution of the Jewish question, the importance of which none of
us can fail to recognize, shall be found in a spirit of justice and
understanding. Yet at present we are faced with a measure which far from
contributing to the proper solution of this problem, seems to aggravate
it further.
Socially and economically unworkable, it is designed to inflict uncalled
for humiliation on Frenchmen, many of whom have shed their blood fighting
under our Rag, by pretending to set them apart form the rest of the nation.
It exposes six year old children to mischievous behaviour, easily liable
to occur in the disturbed atmosphere prevailing among the population.
Finally, it compels converts to Catholicism or Protestantism to wear before
other men, the visible sign of being Jewish, whereas, before God, they have
the honour to be acknowledged as Christians. <141>
The Churches of Christ also cannot keep silent in view of the undeserved
suffering imposed on Frenchmen, and sometimes on Christians, which ignores
their dignity as men and as believers. The Council of the Protestant
Federation has therefore instructed me to convey to you our feelings of
distress. It hopes that you may consider it as a sign of confidence and
respect that it submits this expression of pain and distress to the heart
of a great soldier who is the Chief of State of France." [327]
The letter was handed over to Marshal Petain by Rev. Boegner. The subsequent
conversation left him with the same impression as that on his previous
meeting with the Chief of State: deep emotion, complete impotence.
In a circular letter dated June 11, 1942, Rev. Bertrand informed the
pastors in the occupied zone that the Council of the Federation had
instructed him to write to Marshal Petain. After having quoted part of his
letter to Marshal Petain, he reminded his colleagues that "the spiritual
value of such interventions depends on careful avoidance of any allusion
to political events or worldly ideologies, and on strict adherence to
the sphere of thought and of Christian action alone". Rev. Bertrand added:
"In particular the Ecumenical (Oxford) Conference of 1937 affirms that
'all men are by birthright children of God.' 'Therefore, for a Christian
there can be no such thing as despising another race or a member of another
race.' 'All races share alike in the concern of God.' 'The sin of man
asserts itself in racial pride, racial hatred and persecutions, and in the
exploitation of other races. The Church is called upon by God to express
itself unequivocally on this subject." [328]
Perhaps more important than the protests sent to the French Government,
was a Message issued by the National Synod of the Reformed Church of
France, in May, 1942, which was read out publicly in all the local churches.
This Message included the following passage:
"The Church has been commanded by God to resist the attack of every
doctrine and every ideology, every threat and every promise which seeks
to assail the message of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. <142>
It must proclaim absolute sovereignty of God, who creates His own people
For Himself by calling to Him men of every race, nation and language, in
spite of the rights and privileges to which men may deem themselves to
have a claim.
It knows that all men were created equal, equal in perdition and equal in
salvation, and that God's justice demands that every man shall be respected."
[329]
b. Mass Deportations
On July 16, 1942, mass raids struck the stateless Jews living in Paris.
In two days 12,884 of them, including 4,051 children, were rounded up by
the French police. [330]
Thereupon, the President of the Protestant Federation in the occupied zone,
Rev. Bertrand, sent the following letter to Mr. de Brinon, General delegate
of the French Government to the Occupation authorities:
"When the German authorities made it incumbent upon the Jews living in the
occupied zone to wear a distinctive badge, the Council of the Protestant
Federation of France submitted a letter to the French Chief of State which
was well received by him and of which I enclose a copy.
One would have thought that now the anti-Jewish laws have reached their
climax with this humiliating measure designed to place the Jews apart from
the rest of the nation and to single them out for the kind of malevolence,
systematically meted out to them since the beginning of the occupation.
However, the month of July has seen an increase of personal violence on
a scale never before attained; and we have noted among the general
population of Paris a feeling of distress and disapproval which the
present generation undoubtedly will never forget.
The Churches of Jesus Christ to whom God has entrusted the message of
peace, love, and mutual respect among men, cannot keep silent in view
of events which for many years have threatened any possibility of a normal
relationship between two great nations. Because Frenchmen at present have
no means of making their opinions and feelings known, it should not be
inferred that they are indifferent onlookers at the extermination of a
whole race, and at the undeserved martyrdom of its women and children.
The men who profess to be working towards closer relations between the
conqueror and the nations over which he exercises his authority, surely
should be able to make the occupying forces understand that declarations
of good will during these years cannot efface the effect of the cruelties
we have witnessed. <143>
A Christian Church would be failing in its vocation were it to let the
seeds of hatred be sown in this fashion without raising its voice in the
name of Him who gave His life to shatter all barriers between men.
I leave it to Your Excellency to judge whether the appeal I have made to
you to-day should be brought to the notice of the occupying authorities,
and whether the voices of Christians, who are solely concerned with seeking
to alleviate suffering and hatred, ought to be ignored, rather than those
of men who know no other response to violence than that of hatred.
Before concluding this letter I wish expressly to state that the message
to Marshal Petain was the only subject of the deliberations of the Council
of the Protestant Federation, which has just ended its sessions and it is
collectively responsible for it. With regard to the present letter, I take
upon myself full responsibility for it, not only before the Church and the
French nation but also - eventually - before the German authorities." [331]
Rev. Boegner relates: "Events succeeded one another precipitately. After
the occupied zone came the turn of the so-called 'free zone'. We saw a new
wave of horror unleashed in camp, town and village. Our chaplains, together
with the 'Cimade' [332] and the parish pastors, in the face of tremendous
suffering, accomplished a task of Christian love which was a powerful
testimony to Jesus Christ. I supported their efforts to the best of my
ability. But renewed appeals became necessary.
I thought that at this tragic juncture the Catholic Church and the
Protestant Churches should at least unite in making their appeals.
I spoke of this to Cardinal Gerlier on August 13th. It was agreed that
each of us should write an urgent letter to Marshal Petain. Mine was
sent on August 20th." [333]
The letter read as follows:
"When you did me the honour of receiving me on June 27th, I placed in your
hands a letter whereby the Council of the Protestant Federation of France
entrusted to your soldier's heart the pain and agitation caused in the
Protestant Churches by measures taken in the occupied zone against the
Jews, and those Christians whom the law has marked as Jews. <144>
To-day it is my regrettable duty to write to you in the name of the same
Council in order to express the unspeakable sorrow felt in our Church, in
face of new measures ordered by the French Government and directed against
the foreign Jews (baptised and unbaptised), and the ways and means of their
execution. No Frenchman can remain unmoved in view of the events occurring
since August 2nd, in concentration and internment camps.
As is known, the reply is that France is only returning to Germany those
Jews whom the latter had sent in autumn 1940. In truth, however, man and
women who for political and religious reasons fled to France, and who
know the terrible fate awaiting them, are now being deported or facing
immediate deportation to Germany.
Christianity has hitherto inspired nations, and especially France, with
respect for the hallowed right of sanctuary. The Christian Churches,
irrespective of their different confessions, would be disloyal to their
original calling if they did not raise a protest against the abandonment
of this principle.
I am forced to add that in several places these 'deliveries' have occurred
under such inhuman conditions that they shock the most hardened consciences,
and brought tears to the eyes of witnesses: herded together in goods
trucks, without the slightest hygienic precautions, foreigners intended
for deportation were treated like cattle.
The Quakers, who were doing the utmost possible for those who suffer in
our country, were refused permission to feed the deportees at Lyons.
The Israelite Consistorium was not allowed to give them foodstuffs.
Respect for the human personality which you intend to maintain in the
Constitution and which you want to grant to France has often been trodden
underfoot. Here, also, the Churches see themselves obliged to protest
against such a grave misunderstanding of undeniable duties.
The Council of the Protestant Federation appeals to your high authority
to order the introduction of absolutely different methods in the treatment
of foreigners of the Jewish race, whether baptized or not, whose deportation
has been admitted. The tenacious fidelity of France, especially during the
tragic days which it has lived through in the past two years, towards its
traditions of human generosity and noble-mindedness, remains one of the main
grounds of respect which certain nations still have for us.
As Vice President of the World Council of Churches which includes all great
Christian Churches, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, I am
compelled to inform you of the deep emotion felt in Swiss, Swedish, and
American Churches, in face of the events now occurring in France, and with
which the entire world is acquainted.
I beg you to dictate the indispensable measures in order that France may
not inflict upon herself a moral defeat of unfathomable weight." [334]
Some days later, the letter was broadcast over the American and British
radio, and subsequently reproduced in the foreign press. <145>
The deportations continued. By September 1, 1942, the Vichy authorities
had handed over 5,000 Jews to the Germans and another 7,100 had been
arrested. [335]
On August 27, 1942, Rev. Boegner sent the following letter to the Chief
of the Government, Laval:
"Authorized to speak on behalf of the Protestant Churches of the entire
world, many of which have already asked for my intervention, and aware of
the events of the past few days, I beg to urge you to give me your assurance
that in no event shall foreigners be convicted in their own countries for
political reasons, and those who have sought refuge in France, for similar
reasons, be expelled to the occupied zone." [336]
He then had an interview with Laval, who said that foreign Jews must be
handed over to the Germans in order to save the French Jews.
"Would you agree that we save their children?", asked Rev. Boegner "The
children must remain with their parents", was the reply. Laval then asked:
"What would you do with the children?" Rev. Boegner. answered: "French
families will adopt them". Laval retorted: "NO, not one must remain in
France".
Rev. Boegner than had an interview with the Charge d'Affaires of the
United States, who promised him to cable to Washington, to be authorized
to tell Laval that the United States would accept the children of deported
parents. [337]
As the Council of the Federation of Protestant Churches in France could
not be convened, Rev. Boegner then urgently called a gathering of the
National Council of the Reformed Church. It addressed to the faithful the
following Message, dated September 22, 1942, which was read from nearly
all the pulpits: <146>
"The National Council of the Reformed Church of France, being convened for the
first time since the application of measures against the Jews, among whom
are many Christians, was informed of the demarches which its President had
made, in writing and verbally, to the highest State authorities in the name
of the Federation of French Protestants. The Council associated itself fully
with the President.
Without ignoring or belittling the extreme complexity of the situation with
which the authorities of our country are faced and more than ever determined
to exercise loyally - among the people - the spiritual vocation to which
God has called her; although composed of people faithful to the old principle
of abstaining from any intrusion into the sphere of politics, the Reformed
Church of France cannot keep silent in face of the suffering of thousands of
human beings who have received asylum on our soil.
A Christian Church would lose its soul and the very reason for its existence,
were it not to maintain - for the safeguard of the whole nation in the midst
of which God has placed it - the Divine law above human contingencies.
That Divine law does not permit families created by God to be broken up,
children to be separated from their mothers, the right of human beings to
asylum and pity to be disregarded; nor respect for human rights to be trodden
upon, nor defenceless beings to be delivered to a tragic fate.
Whatever the problems may be which are beyond the scope of the Church and
which the Church is not called upon to resolve, it is its duty to assert
that they shall not be resolved by means which contravene the law of God.
The Gospel commands us to consider all men, without exception, as our brothers,
for whom our Saviour has died on the cross...
How can the Church ever forget that it was among the people from whom the
Jews are physically descended, that the Saviour of the world was born? And
how can it be anything but profoundly grieved - as a Church which must affirm
the unity of the body of Christ - by measures which also effect non-Aryan
Christians, who are members of our Protestant parishes?
In the face of these painful facts the Church feels compelled to make heard
the cry of its Christian conscience, and to implore, in the name of God,
those who exercise authority in the world, not to aid to the natural horrors
of war - in itself a violation of Christ's commandments - still worse
violations which will in the most fearful manner hinder reconciliation
between the nations, in a repentant and peaceful world, submissive to God.
It calls upon the faithful to incline toward the distressed and the suffering
with the compassion of the good Samaritan, and to intercede ceaselessly with
God on their behalf, for He alone can deliver us from evil by the grace
He has revealed in Jesus Christ." [338] <147>
Everybody knowing the parable of the Good Samaritan [339] must have fully
understood that the last sentence of this message was a call to practical
and effective acts of rescue, on behalf of those who had fallen "among
thieves" and murderers.
No public protests were issued by the French Protestant Churches after that
of September 22, 1942. On November 11, 1942, the Germans seized unoccupied
France. The demarcation line had disappeared. The deportations continued.
c. Practical Help
It is difficult to assess the practical results of public messages such as
the one mentioned above. They certainly made more impact than protests sent
by Churches to the authorities. S. Lattes is of the following opinion:
"Also, as might have been expected, when the first anti-Semitic measures
were taken by the Germans and the Vichy government, many authoritative voices,
Catholic and Protestant, were raised in demonstration of their sympathy
towards the Jews...
These written manifestos had hardly any practical effect, but they were
a display of true courage and by their distribution exercised a deep
influence on the conscience of the French. They also afforded moral
encouragement to the Jewish victims." [340]
L. Poliakov gives the following account of the results of the public appeal,
made by Rev. Boegner in the name of his Church, and he also gives an
interesting analysis of what moved the ordinary Protestant to help the Jews:
"A picturesque little town of 2,000, Chambon-sur-Lignon lies at the foot
of Mont-Lisieux, in the centre of a little plateau almost exclusively
inhabited by Huguenots.
The word Huguenot immediately calls to mind the thousands of victims of
persecution who, escaping from France in the 17th century, settled in
Prussia, the Netherlands and the United States. One section, however,
instead of leaving their country, fled to the savage region of Velay.
Protected by practically impassable ravines, they hid in the woods, and
remained faithful to their religion. Only in the 19th century were they
able to resume their religious worship openly. This period of persecution
has made them deeply pious, melancholic and austere; they are suspicious
of any authority but unquestioningly follow their pastors. It is here that
they have preserved almost intact the customs and virtues of the past
centuries. <148>
immediately after the terrible raids of July 1942, Pastor Boegner,
President of the Federation of Protestant Churches of France, issued an
appeal to all this followers, asking them to do everything in their
power to help the Jews. The appeal was heeded.
Nearly every Sunday the pastors of Chambon, Mazet and Fay-Le-Froid,
exhorted their congregations to renewed efforts.
The country-people never tried to evade their responsibility. The
persecutions which their own grand-parents had suffered were still alive
in their memory. They provided food and lodging for the persecuted; in
certain small hamlets in the area there was not a single farm which did
not give shelter to a Jewish family...
On the evening, at the hotel May, I witnessed a spectacle typical of the
whole region of Chambon: a social worker arrived with several children
whose parents had either been deported or were in hiding in Marseille.
They huddled together in fear, in a corner of the room.
A couple of country people first came in. 'We should like a little girl
of eight or ten,' explained the woman. Little Miriam is called.
'Would you like to go with this uncle and auntie?' Intimidated, the little
girl does not answer, but she was muffled up in blankets and carried into
the sledge; and so she left for a home where, until the end of the war,
she would live a simple, healthy life with temporary foster parents.
And as if by sleight of hand, all the other children were taken care of
in the same way." [341]
Perhaps France was the only occupied country where an official Protestant
organization rendered direct and practical help to the persecuted Jews.
The Cimade [342] was a Protestant Youth organization which sent teams of young
Protestants into the camps, in order to render relief to the internees.
Miss Madeleine Barot, general secretary of the Cimade, states: "All
racialism is inadmissable from the Christian point of view. It was necessary
to give tangible signs of this conviction, to alert public opinion, to
protest to the responsible authorities, to mobilize the forces of <149>
Protestantism, and, above all things, to help those who suffered most." [343]
The first relief team was installed in the camp of Curs. It was partly
justified to the police by the presence of a number of baptized internees,
who were registered as Protestants. "Our work was labelled as 'Protestant
assistance', which was of a great help, though we ourselves did not even
consider for one moment restricting our help to the Protestants." [344]
Thanks to the financial support of the Ecumenical Committee for Aid to
Refugees, Geneva, the number of rations to be distributed in Gurs could be
increased. [345] In 1941, teams were also placed in the caps at Rivesaltes,
Brens, le Recebedou, and Nexon.
In the spring of 1942, the Cimade opened four houses (at Chambon-sur-Lignon,
Tarascon, le Tarn and Marseilles) for the accommodation of old or sick
people and women with little children, who were permitted to leave the
concentration camp if an authorized organization took charge of them. The
Swedish Church and the World Council of Churches rendered financial aid. [346]
The leaders of the Cimade permanently kept in touch with the Rev. Marc
Boegner so that he, when he intervened with the Vichy Government, could
make proposals which corresponded with the actual situation in the camps.
[347]
After mass deportations had begun, the members of the Cimade became more
and more involved in "illegal" activities. The Secretariat of the Cimade at
Nimes provided false identity cards. "We set up a record by once producing
fifty identity cards in one night." [348] Several members of the Cimade were
active as guides, bringing refugees through the mountains to safety in
Switzerland. "According to my estimations, we helped to evacuate about four
hundred persons, from August, 1942, until December, 1943." [349]
After the Swiss Government had ordered that refugees who had illegally
entered into Switzerland be returned to France [350] the Rev. M. Boegner
obtained in Berne the agreement that non-Aryans coming from France for whom
he had given personal guarantee, would be admitted. [351] <150>
24 YUGOSLAVIA
On April 5, 1941, Yugoslavia concluded a treaty of friendship with Moscow,
and within hours Belgrade was bombed by the German air force. Yugoslavia
was dismembered by the Nazis.
The north-eastern part, the Backa basin, with 20,000 Jews, came under
Hungarian annexation. Old Serbia, where 12,000 Jews lived, came under
German occupation. In Croatia, with 21,000 Jews, a puppet regime was
established. The Bulgarian-annexed territory of Yugoslavia (Serbian
Macedonia) contained between 7,000 to 8,000 Jews. Before the war, Yugoslavia
harboured some 70,000 Jews. Fifty-five thousand of them were murdered. [352]
The greatest non-Roman Catholic Church in Yugoslavia is the Serbian
Orthodox Church. Much smaller Churches are:
the Reformed Christian Church of Yugoslavia and the Slovak Evangelical
Church of the Augsburg Confession in Yugoslavia. None of these Churches
replied to my circular letter.
The persecution of Orthodox Serbs matched the persecution of Jews, both
in cruelty and fanaticism. [353]
I hardly found any material about the attitude of the Churches in Yugoslavia;
only the following quotations can be mentioned:
"High Orthodox and Catholic circles were unanimous in condemning anti-
Jewish propaganda. Early in 1940, the Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo, while
visiting a synagogue near Belgrade, deplored religious persecution, and
the official Catholic organ die Donau condemned racialism. In October, the
Patriarch of Sarajevo expressed to representatives of the Jewish community
his sympathy for their sufferings." [354]
"At the end of May (1943), some Jews who were still living in Zagreb under
the protection of the Archbishop, were seized one night and deported,
before the churchman could intervene to save them." [355]
<151>
"Contrary to what we know about the attitude of the Catholic and Protestant
Churches on the Jewish question, we have only meagre knowledge of the aid
and comfort rendered by the Orthodox Churches in Nazi-subjugated Europe. [356]
Nazi persecution of the Orthodox faith was not checked by the minor
hesitation the Nazis showed in their dealings with the other Christian
denominations. A few enlightening examples of a deeply humane attitude in
some of the conquered countries rend the mist surrounding the tragedy into
which these unhappy lands were thrust. Thus it is known that the heads of
the Yugoslavian Orthodox Church bravely protested against the atrocities
perpetrated on the Jews and exhorted priests and people to abstain from
participating in the outrage of Nazis and Ustasa (Croation Fascists)
alike." [357]
25 GREECE
a. Salonika
Greece was overrun by the Germans on April 6, 1941; the armistice was
signed on April 23, 1941. There were three separate occupation zones: Italy
was assigned the territory comprising "old Greece", with Athens as capital,
and the Ionian islands; Bulgaria occupied Western Thrace and Greek Eastern
Macedonia; Germany had a narrow belt of Eastern Thrace bordering on Turkey,
along with the Salonika harbour and the island of Crete. A puppet government,
seated in Athens, functioned in both Italian and German zones.
About 13,000 Jews lived in the Italian zone, but the number of Jewish
inhabitants in German dominated territory was over 55,000.
In March, 1943, the Jews of Salonika were put in a concentration camp.
From the middle of March, through May, deportation trains rolled from
Salonika to Auschwitz. About 46,000 Jews were deported. [358]
Friedman is of the opinion that "the Greek Orthodox Church, always a power
in the political life of the country, used its considerable influence to
oppose anti-Jewish laws, and, later, to help rescue the victims. The humblest
papas of remote villages as well as the highest dignitaries of the Church
enlisted in the crusade to help Jews". [359] <152>
It is doubtful, however, whether any Church in any country had a "considerable
influence" with the German occupying forces. The Church did not, and probably
could not, prevent the extermination of the great majority of the Jews of
Greece.
At the end of February, 1943, two lawyers turned to Genadius, Bishop of
Salonika, and submitted to him a Memorandum concerning the danger threatening
the Jews.
Bishop Genadius immediately went to Dr. Merten, who was in charge of all
civilian affairs in Salonika, and protested, in the name of his Christian
faith, against the preparations for the transports.
Replying hypocritically, Dr. Merten stated: "I expected this step of yours,
but all your efforts are in vain, for the orders are official and no
intervention can change them". [360]
Mr. Moissis, a Jewish lawyer in Athens, commented:
"The attitude of Genadios, Bishop of Salonika, was excellent. He submitted
a vehement protest to the military commander of the Macedonian capital who
had issued the order of deportation, in March, 1943, in which Bishop
Genadios characterized the order as inhuman and anti-Christian.
During the deportations, he secretly received Chief Rabbi Koretz and other
representatives of the Jewish community, and it was at his residence that
the meeting took place of Rabbi Koretz and the Greek Prime Minister, John
Rallis, who had come to Salonika especially, and solely, in order to save
the Jewish population." [361]
As soon as the measures against the Jews started, desperate appeals were
addressed to Damaskinos, Archbishop of Athens and Primate of all Greece,
by the Jews of Salonika, begging him to mediate with the representatives
of the Reich in order to prevent their extermination. [362]
Greek delegations went to see the Archbishop asking him to intervene.
Archbishop Damaskinos, who shared the feelings of his followers, asked to
see Altenburg, the representative of the Reich. He expressed to him the
anguish of the Greek people at his inhuman and anti-Christian measure, and
asked for his intervention to stop persecution. <153>
Altenburg replied that the Jewish question was of capital importance to
National Socialism; that it was dealt with by the central administration
and that, consequently, he, personally, could do nothing on behalf of the
Jews of Greece. Actually, he shared the opinion that this measure should
be taken, and should be applied to Jews throughout Greece. In spite of all
protests, Jews of Greek nationality should be forced to go to Poland,
while those of other nationalities should be returned to their countries
of origin.
The Archbishop asked: "Why should Jews of Greece, who are of Spanish
nationality, go to Spain, and those of Italian nationality to Italy,
whereas, Jews of Greek nationality should be sent to Poland rather than
be allowed to stay in Greece?" Annoyed by this question, Altenburg refused
to answer, except to say that Jews of Greek nationality were sent to
Poland 'to work'.
"If they are sent to Poland 'to work', 'the Archbishop asked, why are women,
children and aged people also sent?" "Because it is cruel to separate the
families; if they are united they will have a better life", the
representative of the Reich replied.
Another strong appeal to the German representative, based on the claims of
a humane and Christian civilization, was made by the Archbishop. Altenburg
vaguely replied that he would try to ease the strictness of the measure.
The extermination of the Jews of Salonika, however, continued unabated;
the anguish of the Greeks increased.
Greek organizations from all the towns sent appeals to the Archbishop of
Athens who received an incessant stream of protestations and appeals from
the Jewish organizations of Larissa, Chalkis, Volos and Verria, declaring
their solidarity with the Jews of Salonika.
The Archbishop decided again, to convey this general concern to the German
authorities. He invited the representatives of the chief intellectual
Institutions and of the scientific and professional organizations in the
Archbishopric, to join with him. Under the auspices of the Church, they
addressed a strong protest to the Greek Prime Minister, and to the
representative of the Reich. The memorandum sent to the Prime Minister
was as follows: <154>
Athens, March 23, 1943.
Mr. Constantine Logotheropoulos,
Prime Minister,
In Town.
The Greek people have recently learned, with great surprise and grief, that
the German military occupation forces in Salonika have begun the gradual
expulsion of Jews living in Greece, and that the first groups of displaced
Jews are already en route to Poland.
The grief of the Greek people is even deeper because:
1. According to the spirit of the armistice terms all Greek citizens were to
be treated equally by the occupation forces, irrespective of religion and
race.
2. Greek Jews not only have been valuable contributors to the financial
progress of the country, they generally have been loyal and have shown full
understanding of their duties as Greek citizens. They have shared in the
common sacrifices on behalf of their Greek mother country, being among the
first to join in the struggle of the Greek nation to defend its historical
rights.
3. The well-known loyalty of the Jews living in Greece already rules out any
claim that they participated in actions likely to endanger the security of
the Military Forces of Occupation.
4. In the conscience of the Nation, the children of our common Mother Greece
are regarded as being an integral part of the Nation, entitled to enjoy
all the privileges of the national community, independently of any religious
or dogmatic differences.
5. Our holy religion repudiates any racial or religious distinctions,
supremacy or inferiority, stating that 'there is neither Jew nor Greek'
(Gal. 3, 28), and condemns every tendency to create distinctions on
grounds of racial or religious differences.
6. The sharing of a common fate, both in days of glory and in periods of
national disaster, has produced unbreakable bonds between all Greek
citizens of every race.
We are well aware of the deep opposition between the new Germany and the
Jews, nor do we intend do defend or criticize international Jewry and its
activities in the sphere of the political and financial problems of the world.
We are only interested in, and concerned with, the lives of 60,000
fellow-citizens.
We deeply appreciate their noble feelings, brotherly disposition,
progressiveness, economic activities, and, above all, their incontestable
love for their country during the long periods we have lived together.
As a proof of this last statement, we point to the great number of Greek-
Jewish sacrifices offered, without complaint or hesitation, on the altar
of duty for our common homeland.
We are sure that the Government and the people of Greece are agreed on
this matter. We are confident that you have already taken the necessary
steps to plead with the Occupation Forces, to defer this painful measure
of the expulsion of Jews living in Greece. We are hopeful that you already
have pointed out to the highest authorities that such treatment of the
Greek Jews - cruel in comparison with what happened to the Jews of other
nationalities - makes this measure even more unjust, and thus morally
inadmissible. <155>
If they pretend that these measures are taken for security reasons, an
adequate solution should be possible. Preventive measures could be taken,
such as the confinement of the males only (except aged men and children) in
a place in the country, under the supervision of the Occupation Forces.
Thus, security will be protected even against imaginary dangers, and the
Jews of Greece will not suffer the adversities of the expulsion. The Greek
people will be ready, if asked, to give their full guarantee for a measure
taken on behalf of their brothers in distress.
We hope the Occupation Forces will understand the senselessness of the
persecution of Greek Jews, who are considered the most peaceful, loyal
and productive elements in our country.
If, however, the Germans insist, against every hope, on their policy of
expulsion, we think that the Government, as the holder of the remaining
political power in our country, should take a firm stand against these
actions. It should be made clear that full responsibility for this injustice
will lie with the foreigners.
Let no one forget that all acts committed during this difficult period, even
those committed against our will and beyond our power, will one day be
examined by our Nation; it will ascertain the responsibility of everyone.
On that day of National judgment, the moral responsibility of those in
authority, who have failed to express by some courageous gesture the
unanimous anguish and protest of the Nation against all actions which are
derogatory to our unity and pride, such as the expulsion of the Jews, will
weigh heavily. [363]
Yours Truly,
Damaskinos,
Archbishop of Athens
and Primate of
all Greece.
The memorandum was signed by the president of the Greek Academy; the
rectors of the University and the Polytechnic Institute; the chairman of
the Association of writers, painters and artists; lawyers, surgeons,
industrialists, and chambers of commerce.
It should be noted that the memorandum mentions six reasons why the Jews
should not be deported; only one of them is strictly religious; four
reasons stress that the Jews were loyal citizens of Greece and that they
belonged to the nation. <156>
The Archbishop and his friends did not intend "to defend or criticize
international Jewry and its activities in the sphere of the political and
financial problems of the world". It is not clear whether they really meant
this or tried to appeal to the mind of the addressee. At all events, the
remark is regrettable.
Another memorandum was sent to the Representative of the Reich.
It read as follows:
Athens, March 24, 1943.
To His Excellency the Representative of the Reich for Greece,
Mr. Guenther Altenburg,