Excellency,
The undersigned are not seeking at present to interfere in any way in the
questions of general tactics of the German forces in our country or
elsewhere, but simply to submit certain views, regarding a question which
is keeping the entire Greek population in suspense and anxiety; we are
sure that you will examine these views in a spirit of benevolence and
understanding.
They concern the persecution of the Greek Jews of Salonika, who have long
been legally under the jurisdiction of our country. Not only have they
never given occasion for complaint, but on the contrary, they have always
offered proof of earnest and sincere collaboration. In critical times,
their acts of self-sacrifice and self-abnegation were apparent.
We must add that the above mentioned Jews have never acted against our
interests, even in the smallest matters; on the contrary, they have always
felt a sense of responsibility towards the Greek majority. Most of them
belong to the poorer classes.
It should be noted that Greek Jews have quite a different mentality to
that of the Jews living in Germany and have no knowledge whatsoever of the
language of Poland where they are being sent to live.
in addition to the above facts, we wish to add that during the long course
of our history, ever since the era of Alexander the Great and his descendants,
and through all the centuries of Greek Orthodoxy down to the present time,
our relations with the Jewish people have always been harmonious. We believe
therefore that, in your high office as ruler of our country during the
present war, you will not hesitate to accept our present request and decide,
even if provisionally, to suspend the expulsion of Greek Jews from Greece
until the Jewish question can be examined in the light of a special and
detailed investigation.
Our present request is based upon the recent historical fact, that during
the surrender of Salonika and, later, that of the whole of Greece, among
the clauses of the protocol, the following is included: 'The Occupation
forces promise to protect the life, the honour and the properties of the
population'. Certainly this clause implies, that no persecution would be
made against Greek subjects, on the account of religion and race, and that
consequently the theory relating to racial or religious discrimination
would not be applied in Greece. <157>
This was further confirmed later by a clear declaration made by General
Tsolakoglou, to whom the Occupation Forces had entrusted the Presidency
of this country, and who stated explicitly: "There is no Jewish question
in Greece and there never will be." "All Greeks occupied in peaceful work
may rest assured that their honour, life and property are under protection
of the Occupation Forces and of the Government.
Excellency, some days ago the Berlin radio transmitted an article of a
German reporter, which was a real hymn to the traditional quality of
hospitality of the Greek people in all occasions, even in the cases of
supposed enemies.
What must be the anguish of these people, who have been infused by thousand
years of Christianity and its message of love of one's neighbour, when they
see their brothers tom away from their homeland. Especially, when, for many
years they have embraced it with unlimited confidence and a spirit of
irreproachable solidarity towards us.
Excellency, in the name of the lofty ideas of the Greek spirit, and of the
culture of your country, both of which have so powerfully influenced
the whole world, we beg that the expulsion of our Jewish fellow-citizens
be halted as soon as possible. We assure you that the whole Greek nation
will sincerely appreciate a gesture of such historic importance.
Damaskinos.
Archbishop of Athens and
Primate of All Greece.
(This Memorandum was also signed by the leading citizens who had signed
the Memorandum sent to the Prime Minister).
There are some dubious remarks in this Memorandum: "It should be noted
that Greek Jews have quite a different mentality to that of the Jews
living in Germany", and "In the name of the lofty ideas of the Greek spirit
and of the culture of your country (Germany)". That does not alter the fact
that much in the Memorandum is to be lauded.
Archbishop Damaskinos did not cease his activities. He again saw Altenburg
asking for his intervention.
Following the formation of the new Government of John Rallis, he briefed
the new Prime Minister and asked him to discuss fully the question with
the commander-in-chief of East-Europe, Marshal Loehr. At the same time
he took the following steps: <158>
a. He requested the President of the International Red Cross in Greece to
ask the Governments of the European countries, to interest themselves on
behalf of the Jews of Greece, considering that their expulsion to Poland
would mean total extermination.
b. He negotiated with the International Red Cross to supply food for the
kitchen established for the Jews of Salonika who had been put into a
concentration camp. He then asked the Greek Government to furnish the
necessary technical means. In fact, the kitchen started operating immediately.
The Ministry of Social Welfare undertook its organization and the
International Red Cross provided large supplies of food.
c. He undertook, secretly, to send to Salonika the contribution of the
Jews of Athens to the Jews of Salonika. Their contributions were sent by
the Archbishop to Genadios, the Bishop of Salonika.
Thus far the biographer of Archbishop Damaskinos.
Comments on the attitude of Church leaders and lower clergy are favourable:
"Monks, regardless of the great dangers or considerations of religion or
faith, hid persecuted families and rendered secret but effective help to
multitudes of unfortunate people, who could no longer subsist without
employment, and thus had to leave their hiding place and give themselves
up to the Germans." [364]
"The heads of the Orthodox Church in Greece defied the Nazi edicts and
exhorted their faithful followers to shun anti-Semitic slogans and outrages.
It is reported that in May 1943 alone, six hundred Greek priests were
arrested and lodged in concentration camps because they refused to obey a
Nazi order to preach anti-Jewish sermons. Much help and Jewish rescue
work go to the credit of the Greek Orthodox clergy." [365]
What happened in Salonika enables us to realize that the attitude of Church
leaders frequently had a very limited influence on the population, even in
Greece.
Dr. Nathan Eck, the editor of the revised edition in Hebrew of the book of
Michael Molho and Joseph Nehama, has the following to say about the situation
in Salonika:
"... The attitude of the non-Jewish population in Salonica to their Jewish
neighbours was not very friendly. <159>
Many of them were former residents of Turkey who, in 1922, were transferred
to Greece on an exchange basis, and their economic and social status was
similar to that of the Jews. As a result of their feelings of hatred and
competition, it was not easy to find anyone among the non-Jews who would
agree to endanger his life and the life of his family in order to hide
Jews in his home...
The authors Molho-Nehama are wary of casting aspersions and blame on the
general non-Jewish population but remain satisfied with mere hints. Here
and there, there is a short remark which outweighs a host of express
statements. For example, the following remark: 'It is likely that local
factors (in Salonica) were active in the implementation of the deportations
in order to get rid of competitors who proved a burden to them in their
commercial life' (Part II, p. 11).
Indeed, as the authors point out, only seventy Jews, most of them married
to non-Jews, succeeded in finding hiding places in Salonica..." [366]
Another comment:
"The great bulk of the population, while not indifferent, played the role
of an interested if shocked spectator. However, this situation began to
change after Archbishop Theophilos Damaskinos, who later became a regent,
intervened forcefully on behalf of the Jews threatened with deportation.
The Archbishop's vigorous protest about the action contemplated against
the small Jewish population of Greece created a stir throughout the
country." [367]
The attitude of the non-Jewish population in Salonika, where most of the
Jews were living, was lamentable. Such information should prevent us from
accepting stereotypes such as "the Greek - or the Dutch, or the French -
population has done everything to save the Jews".
b Athens and Southern Greece
Following the Italian armistice, the Germans took over the administration
of Athens and other parts of Southern Greece. General Stroop, the
"Conqueror of the Warsaw Ghetto", arrived in Athens on September 10, 1943,
and took over the function of Higher SS leader. <160>
On October 3, 1943, the Jews were ordered to register. The seizure of the
Jews on the Greek mainland was to be completed in three days, from March
23-25. Jews living on the Greek islands were deported in June and Jule, 1944.
More than sixty thousand Jews out of the 79,950 who had been living in
Greece, were deported. [368]
The following is quoted from "The Destruction of Greek Jewry, 1941-1944":
"... On Tuesday, September 21, 1943, Athens' Chief Rabbi, Elia Barzilai, was
ordered to submit to the German authorities a list containing the names
and addresses of all Jews living in Athens... A delegation led by Rabbi
Barzilai paid a visit to the Archbishop who declared that, to his deep
regret, he did not see how he could do anything on behalf of the Jews,
despite his willingness to help them. The only alternative left was to go
into hiding, or disappear, the Archbishop said. When the Rabbi requested
permission for the Jews to hide in the churches, the Archbishop replied:
'Willingly, but it is a mistake to think that there you will be safe.
They will not hesitate to seize you. However, I could, with the help of
the English, arrange a transfer to the Middle-East for those Jews who are
prepared to go...'" [369]
At the instigation of Archbishop Damaskinos, priests preached in the
churches that Jews should be aided. He also intervened with the German
authorities so that children younger than 14, as well as, persons married
to parties of the Greek Orthodox faith, should be exempted from the strict
anti-Jewish regulations. [370]
According to Moissis, the fact that more than 10,000 Jews saved themselves
was largely due to the efforts of the Orthodox Church under Archbishop
Damaskinos. A few days proceeding the German attempt to corral the
Jewish population, the Church issued a circular to all priests, parishes
and convents, exhorting them to lend succour and safety to the victims of
Nazi barbarism. [371] <161>
I have not succeeded in retrieving a copy of this circular, nor was Mr.
Moissis able to give any additional information. He confirmed to me that
Archbishop Damaskinos had done much for the rescue of the Jews:
"Archbishop Damaskinos knew my place of refuge, in the neighbourhood of
Athens, and sent me provisions every month. He did the same for other Jews
...whose hiding place he knew." [372]
It seems unlikely that a circular letter was issued: a copy might easily
have fallen into the hands of the persecutors. In those days one did not
put such a message in writing but it was passed on orally.
26 DENMARK
a. The Time of Moderation
Germany occupied Denmark on April 9, 1940.
The position of Denmark under the German occupation was unique in many
respects: the King had remained; the Danish Government continued to
function until August, 1943; the Germans were interested in keeping things
as quiet as possible and granted to Denmark a certain independence in
internal affairs, and the attempt to deport and exterminate the Jews of
Denmark started relatively late: September, 1943.
A total of 7,700 Jews were living in Denmark, a number of them refugees
from Germany and elsewhere. <162>
In December 1941, participants in a conference of Danish pastors [373]
considered the possibility of presenting a petition to Parliament demanding
that all members of Parliament should vote against any racial legislation.
But the proposal was withdrawn as it was considered undesirable to focus to
much public attention on the question. [374]
The same question was discussed at another conference of pastors which met
in the provincial town of Askov. One of the participants wrote to Rabbi
Friediger:
"... For us it is not just a question of the Jews and their rights; for the
Danes this first of all must be the question of the right of a small nation
to exist, particularly as this is also a question of our whole national
attitude and the basis of democracy: equality and human dignity." [375]
Frederik Torm, a professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen,
brought about a common decision of the theological faculty and of the
students, declaring that, should persecution of the Jews begin, they would
voice their opposition vigorously and publicly. This internal decision was
put into practice, in October, 1943. [376]
The Church Press in Denmark could publicly denounce anti-Semitism at a time
when the Press in other countries had long since been completely silenced.
The Rev. Johannes Nordentoft, in one of his articles, called for an active
war against the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi press. He pointed out
that "those who remain silent or disapprove by merely shrugging their
shoulders become accomplices". [377]
An article in the Church gazette of Sonderbourg, edited by Dean Halfdan
Hoegsbro, stated: <163>
"Hatred of the Jews is prompted by the demand for a scapegoat...
We will not lend our support to the introduction of anti-Jewish laws; Jew
hatred is an infectious disease, to which the innate sense of justice of
the Danish people will not permit them to succumb. It is a disease
that we shall cast out from our midst.
Shame upon us if we ever allow ourselves to fall victim to it." [378]
The Skydebjerg-Aavup Church Gazette, comparing the anti-Jewish drive to
that of medieval times, wrote:
"Our Danish minds will not let themselves become infected by this disease...
Anti-Jewish legislation is tantamount to lawlessness, and if we forsake
justice, then we will be submitted to a degradation worse than war and
suppression." [379]
In January, 1943, the Bishop of Copenhagen, Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard, publicly
warned against racial hatred. [380] The pro-Nazi press frequently attacked
"the Church's dogged opposition to attempts to initiate anti-Jewish
restrictions". [381]
The first occasion on which the Danish Bishops approached the authorities
en bloc to protest on behalf of the Church of Denmark, was when they
addressed a protest to the Minister of Justice containing the following
paragraph:
"... We draw to your attention the feeling of protest which is spreading
in the Church of Denmark. This feeling of protest is due, above all, to
the way in which justice is administered in these days.
Men are being arrested without the public being given any information
about how the arrested persons are treated in prison. Anti-Semitic
propaganda is being artificially incited. At the same time pastors receive
warnings from the Government that they must not comment on the persecution
of the Jews..." [382] <164>
b. The Deportation Attempt; the Protest
In the summer of 1943, disturbances occurred in several provincial towns.
The Germans took reprisals and the people reacted to this by proclaiming
strikes. A German ultimatum was rejected by the Danish Government.
Thereupon martial law was proclaimed on August 29, 1943. Dr. Werner Best,
the German envoy in Copenhagen, received full powers as Reich pleni-
potentiary. The Danish Government had resigned. The day to day affairs of
its ministries remained in the hands of the permanent Department directors;
the director of the Danish Foreign Ministry, Nils Svenningsen, became the
chief spokesman of the administration.
The Germans now planned the deportation of the Jews in one night, October
1-2. On September 28, however, a German in Copenhagen, Duckwitz, revealed
this to Danish friends of his, H.C. Hansen and H. Hedtoft, who warned
Henriques, the president of the Jewish community. On the morning of September
29, the Jewish congregations which met in their synagogues for the services
of the Jewish New Year were warned.
The raids took place as planned. In the night of October 1-2, 202 Jews were
captured in Copenhagen and 82 elsewhere in Denmark. About 200 others were
arrested later on, most of them caught in flight. The great majority,
however, succeeded in hiding themselves.
The Swedish Government had publicly expressed its willingness to admit the
Danish Jews into Sweden. 7,220 Jews were secretly moved to the beaches and
then ferried by Danish fisherman to safety. [383]
At the end of August, 1943, the Bishop of Copenhagen, Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard,
asked for an interview with the Director of the Foreign Ministry, who
declared that the Jewish question had not been raised. Nobody had been
arrested because of race or religion. When the Director had asked Dr. Best
about this matter, he had answered: "The question has not been broached at
all". [384] <165>
Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard reported this in a letter to the pastors of his
diocese, dated September 4, 1943, adding that later developments would be
followed attentively. "From our experience with the German habit of breaking
promises, it was not thought wise to take Dr. Best's words too seriously.
Unfortunately however, his words perhaps did set our minds too much at
rest." [385]
The Churches, however, made necessary preparation in case persecution of
the Jews would begin. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard convened with pastors
belonging to the unofficial Pastors' Organisation P.U.F. [386] and asked
them to prepare a draft for a public protest, to be read out from the
pulpits. It was ready a short time later. The Bishop suggested some changes
but there was hardly time to make them as events developed rapidly.
On September 17, 1943, some Jewish houses in Copenhagen were raided. Bishop
Fuglsang-Damgaard thus had another interview with the director of the
Foreign Ministry, Svenningsen. In a letter to the Bishops, dated September 23,
he informed them that:
"... the raid did not indicate that they (the Germans) would raise the
Jewish question, but that it was connected with a suspicion of certain
persons. Thereafter I asked the Director of the Department to inform the
German authorities that their raising of the Jewish question would be met
by a joint protest by the Church and the Bishops. The Director promised to
inform the Germans of this..."
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard relates:
"The Jewish community was in a very difficult situation. The chief-rabbi,
Dr. Friediger was interned in the camp of Horsercad, just as the time of
the great feasts of the year was approaching. We did what we could to obtain
his release, so that at least he could lead the services during the feasts.
At the beginning of the fateful week (during the night of the first October)
I paid a visit to the chairman of the Jewish community organisation, the
advocate of the Supreme Court, C.B. Henriques. <166>
I shall never forget it. I came to express our heartfelt fellowship with
his community and to say that we were remembering the Jews in our prayers,
not the least in those days when they celebrated their great feasts, and
also in order to assure him that we would do what we could to help the
interned to get their liberty again..." [387]
"On 29th September, about 10 o'clock, the chairman of the Jewish community
organisation, Advocate Henriques, came to me and told me that it was almost
sure that the Jewish question would now be raised. There existed an order
from Hitler himself to raise it. The ships for the deportation were said
to be in the harbour.
I went at once to the Department of Religious Affairs and asked for an
interview with the Director of the Department who, however, at that time
did not know anything about such imminent action.
Immediately after this I went to the Department of Foreign Affairs and
obtained an interview with the Director.
He told me that, according to information he had received from different
sources, there could be no doubt that the situation was very serious. A
meeting of the Directors of the Departments was to be held on the question
at two o'clock...I returned to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, in order
to tell Mr. Thomsen, the Director of the Department, how serious the
situation was, asking him to present a protest to the meeting and to inform
the German authorities also about the contents of the protest." [388]
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard then returned to his residence. The protest was
written in the presence of his assistants in the office. He signed it on
behalf of the Bishops.
"We were conscious that this was a decisive moment. We expected at the time,
that the signature would cost me both my office and my freedom. The protest
was sent by a messenger to the Director of the Department to whom personally
it was handed. I went to the Dean in order to arrange with him the things to
be done if I should be arrested." [389]
All the Bishops received the protest by express letter, with a request for
their immediate support and with the appendix:
"In case persecution of the Jews should begin, this Protest must be read in
the churches, and I propose that the pastors commence the reading with the
following sentence: 'On the 29th September of this year the Bishops sent to
the leading German authorities, through the Directors of the Departments,
a letter with the following contents:...'" <167>
On Saturday, October 2, 1943, theological students despatched the Protest to
all the manses in Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard's diocese. On that same evening,
the Bishop again was advised by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to consider the consequences. "But there was
nothing to reconsider. The matter had to be completed." [390]
The Protest
"Wherever persecutions are undertaken for racial or religious reasons against
the Jews, it is the duty of the Christian Church to raise a protest against
it for the following reasons:
1. Because we shall never be able to forget that the Lord of the Church, Jesus
Christ, was born in Bethlehem, of the Virgin Mary into Israel, the people of
His possession, according to the promise of God. The history of the Jewish
people up to the birth of Christ includes the preparation for the salvation
which God has prepared in Christ for all men. This is also expressed in the
fact that the Old Testament is a part of our Bible.
2. Because a persecution of the Jews is irreconcilable with the humanitarian
concept of love of neighbours which follows from the message which the Church
of Jesus Christ is commissioned to proclaim. With Christ there is no respect
of persons, and He has taught us that every man is precious in the eyes of
God. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.' (Gal. 3, 28).
3. Because it contradicts the sense of justice, inherent during centuries in
our Danish civilisation and which lives in the Danish people. In accordance
with the above principles, all Danish citizens have equal rights and duties
before the law and freedom of religion assured to them by the constitution.
We understand by freedom of religion the right to exercise our faith in God
according to vocation and conscience, in such a way that race and religion
can never be in themselves a reason for depriving a man of his rights,
freedom or property. Despite different religious views we shall therefore
struggle to ensure the continued guarantee to our Jewish brothers and
sisters of the same freedom which we ourselves treasure more than life.
The leaders of the Danish Church are conscious of our responsibility to be
law-abiding citizens; we do not needlessly revolt against those who exercise
the functions of authority over us; but at the same time, we are obliged by
our conscience to maintain the law and to protest against any violation of
human rights. Therefore, we desire to declare unambiguously our allegiance
to the word that we must obey God rather than man."
On Behalf of the Bishops:
Fuglsang-Damgaard. [391]
<168>
What strikes us is that the Public Protest stressed the special relationship
existing between Christians and Jews, while the second point of the protest
states that "every man is precious in the eyes of God".
The text mentioned (which also was quoted by many other Churches in different
lands) seems more applicable to the position of members of the Church who are
of Jewish origin ("There is neither Jew nor Greek,... for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus"). However, Christians of Jewish origin were not mentioned in the
Protest at all. This in itself was certainly fortunate, for reasons discussed
in ch. 4.
Finally, the letter of Protest states that "we must obey God rather than man".
It must have been clear to every church goer that, in fact, the Bishops were
summoning him to active resistance against the German measures.
In one of the churches in Copenhagen the Bishop began his sermon on that
particular Sunday by telling what had happened and unequivocally expressing
his own view. Finally, when the protest was read out to the congregation
as a Pastoral Letter of the Church leaders, all those who were present
stood up in order to express their approval. [392]
A Danish Lutheran pastor informed me that whenever the Danish Bishops issue
a public declaration, the faithful consider two questions:
1 Is what the Bishops say right?
2 What gave them the right to speak on my behalf? When, therefore, the
congregation stood up when Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard read out the protest,
this can be seen as expressing the congregation's opinion that he had
rightly spoken on their behalf.
No Bishop nor pastor, to the best of my knowledge, directly suffered or
was even arrested because of the public protest.
In conclusion of this paragraph we record Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard's
comment on the situation after the Church had given its testimony:
"The protest had been made and it was not repeated. A repetition would have
meant a weakening of it. Furthermore, it would not have been of any use.
That was clear to everyone who knew the situation. What had now to be done
was to bring help to those compatriots who were deported, persecuted or
in hiding. <169>
The whole Danish population understood this and all circles in our country
came together to render this help. This was a time when there was no rest by
day or by night; when it happened that a man in the street would come and
give one 10,000 kroner; when a code-language developed in order to keep the
mutual contact alive; when one felt an unspeakable happiness and gratitude
whenever somebody was saved." [393]
c. After the Rescue Operation
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard and other Church leaders also contributed to the
sending of gift parcels to the Jews who had been deported. On November
29, 1943, the Bishops jointly addressed Dr. Best through the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in order to gain his support for this work.
The appeal read as follows:
"It is with deep sorrow and disappointment that we perceive through
developing circumstances, that our appeal to the German authorities over
the Jewish question has not born fruit.
But our interest in, and deep sympathy with, our deported countrymen is
undiminished, and as there now seems to be a possibility that we can send
support and aid in the form of food from this country, we wish to suggest
to the Danish Church communities that they should send help to the interned
Jews, in the form of gift parcels, through the Red Cross.
In our relationship with the community, we know that the Christian conscience
of our people and their conception of justice has suffered a painful wound,
and how deep a need they feel to help.
We would therefore be grateful to the Director of the Department of Foreign
Affairs if he would inform Dr. Best of our attitude and point out to him
that support from competent German representatives towards a good solution
of this question would be met with deep satisfaction within Church circles,
the members of whom would, through this Christian and humane activity, find
a way to express their deep concern over this matter." [394]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Red Cross
and the pastors of Copenhagen acted unanimously in this large-scale assistance
to the Danish Jews in Theresienstadt, an action which was successful beyond
all expectation.
Of the 475 Jews who were deported to Theresienstadt, all returned with the
exception of 53 who had died. <170>
In December, 1943, Bishop Malmstrom prayed for the Jews in a broadcast
religious service. Thereupon the German authorities demanded the right to
make a preliminary censorship of broadcast services.
Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard then sent a statement through the Foreign Ministry
to the German authorities, in which he stated that if censorship was
introduced, neither the Sunday services nor the morning devotions would
continue to be broadcast, and that the reason for this measure would be
made public from all pulpits.
A week later, the Bishop was informed by the German authorities that "the
incident was due to a misunderstanding". [395]
In February, 1944, the Bishops sent a letter to their congregations in which
they requested prayer "for God's ancient chosen people, trusting that God
will help where we see no way to do so." [396] <171>
The crucial question, whether the Church was influenced by general public
opinion or whether it was the other way round, has been discussed in ch. 2.
THE SATELLITE COUNTRIES
27 SLOVAKIA
On the eve of the German invasion of Czechoslovakia, on March 14, 1939,
Slovakia declared its independence, and on March 23, the agreement of German
protection was signed. Following the first Vienna award on November 2, 1938,
parts of former Slovakian territory with about 40,000 Jews were annexed by
Hungary, together with parts of Sub Carpathian Ruthenia. After the occupation
of all of Carpatho-Ruthenia containing 100,000 Jews, by Hungary, about 90,000
Jews remained in "independent" Slovakia.
A Catholic priest (Dr. Josef Tiso) was head of the Slovakian State. On April
18, 1939, the first anti-Jewish decree was enacted. A special Department for
Jewish Affairs was opened in the Ministry of Interior. It co-operated with
the Hlinka Guard.
The Council of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Pastors' Union decided, in its
session of November 21, 1939, to send a Memorandum to the President and
the Government of Slovakia, regarding the Hlinka Youth organization and
the Hlinka Guard. We quote the following:
"We, as Evangelical Christians and as citizens, cannot agree with the
following facts: the annulment of individual rights and freedom of certain
people; the taking of steps against the Jews without legal basis, by means
of violence, for instance, that the men of the Hlinka Guard, during the
night, dragged Jews - women, mothers and children - out of their beds and
transported them to concentration camps; illegally imposing of fines etc.;
transgressions which are performed though they are contrary to the law and
to Christian ethics." [397]
<172>
The first deportation train left Slovakia on March 26, 1942. In August 1942,
the Jewish population had been reduced to 25,000. On August 23, 1944, a
rebellion broke out which was ruthlessly quelled. In the autumn of 1944,
13,500 of the remainder of Slovakian Jewry were deported. In the whole of
Slovakia there remained not more than about 4,000 to 5,000 Jews. [398]
The Convent of (Lutheran) Bishops, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Vladimir
Cobrda and Dr. Samuel Stefan Osusky, decided to issue a Pastoral letter
about the "Jewish Question", on May 20, 1942. We quote the following:
"... The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church neither can nor wishes to interfere
in the executive power of the competent government departments, whose duty
it is to solve the problems. The Church, however, is convinced that it is
possible and thus also necessary to solve this problem in a just, humane
and Christian way, according to the Christian principles which are based
on the eternal laws of God and the teaching of Christ.
According to this teaching, all men are endowed with the right to live, to
earn a honourable livelihood, and the right to family-life. It also protects
the honour of the Jews as human beings, so that not one of them should feel
deprived because of his national, religious or racial attachments.
The racial law however, which some people champion, is contrary to the
Christian faith, which accepts the biblical message that God is the Creator
of all things and of all mankind, 'from whom every family in heaven and on
earth takes its name' (Ephesians 3, 14). 'He is the head, and on him the
whole body depends. Bonded and knit together by every constituent joint,
the whole frame grows through the due activity of each part, and builds
itself up in love' (Ephesians 4, 16).
To our sorrow we have been compelled to witness deeds which cannot be
justified. They are contrary to human feelings, to justice and to the law
of God; they are in no way related to love.
Such things could not happen, if all would honour the declaration broadcast by
the Ministry of Interior, that no harm would be done to the Jews, that they
would be treated in a humane and Christian way, and that they should just have
to work as the other citizens. <173>
The Church cannot reconcile itself to these deeds which we have witnessed in
many places. The Church cannot but express its sorrow about them and reject
them. If members of the Evangelical Church participated in these deeds, they
must be severely condemned for this..." [399]
"The Times" of August 11, 1942, commented on this pastoral letter as follows:
"The Slovak Lutheran Church, under the leadership of the Bishops Dr. Cobrda
and Dr. Osusky, has taken the lead in the fight against Nazism in Slovakia.
From the pulpits of all Protestant Churches in Slovakia a pastoral letter
was read on May 31.
In this the bishops condemned an 'immature political ideology' modelled
on Nazi and Fascist lines and emphasized loyalty to the Gospel of Christ.
They also condemned the anti-Jewish policy and defended the right of the
Church, to baptize proselytes from Judaism on religious grounds.
The pastoral letter, the first of its kind in this part of Europe, has caused
a profound sensation in central and south-eastern Europe (particularly in
Hungary, where a substantial Protestant congregation exists).
Nazi circles in Slovakia are particularly aggrieved since the bishops in
question are considered as leading authorities in Church matters, even
outside Slovakia... Roughly one sixth of the Slovak population are Protestants."
We have discussed the matter of the so-called "mercy-baptisms" in chapter 5.
Suffice it here to mention that pastors in Slovakia were in peril of their
life if they dared to baptize Jews, during the second world war.
28 RUMANIA
In June, 1940, the Russians took back Bess Arabia and occupied Northern
Bucovina. In August, Hungary carved out for itself Northern Transylvania
and the Bulgarians occupied Southern Dobrudja. On September 5, General Ion
Antonescu took over the government as Conducator of Rumania, and on October 7,
1940, German troops arrived in Rumania.
At the beginning of 1941, the Fascist Iron Guard tried to overthrow General
Antonescu. The revolt was crushed, but members of the Iron Guard had murdered
hundreds of Jews in Bucharest. <174>
In June, 1941, Germany invaded Russia; Rumania reconquered Bucovina and
Bess Arabia. On July 29, 1941, Rumanian soldiers murdered at least 4,000 Jews
in Jassy. The Rumanians deported an estimated 185,000 Jews from Dorohoi,
Bucovina and Bess Arabia to Transnistria, in the Soviet Ukraine. By May, 1942,
about two-thirds of these Jews had died. [400]
Strong anti-Semitic influences were manifest in the Rumanian Orthodox Church.
On August 18, 1937, Patriarch Miron Cristea had issued a statement calling
upon the Rumanian nation "to fight the Jewish parasites". [401]
Chief Rabbi Dr. Safran relates his frantic efforts to try to avert the
deportation of the Jews in the districts of Dorohoi, Bucovina and Bessarabia.
It was decided that he should approach the head of the Orthodox Church, the
old Patriarch Nicodemus.
"... During the dramatic conversation I had with the Patriarch, who was
rather indifferent at the beginning pretending that it was all the affair
of the government, he changed his attitude in view of my growing emotion
which I was unable to hide from him.
I spoke of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience
in the eyes of the Supreme Judge, and ended by throwing myself at the feet
of his pontifical seat. Deeply moved, the Patriarch lifted me up and
promised to do his best. On taking my leave of him I sensed that he
intended to ask for the support of the Queen-mother." [402]
Chief Rabbi Safran immediately took steps to get in touch with King Michael
and the Queen-mother Helena to prepare them for a possible appeal from the
Patriarch Nicodemus.
"The Patriarch, on his part, first sought unsuccessfully, to intervene with
Antonescu; and then addressed himself to the King and the Queen-mother.
<175>
The Queen-mother suggested that Baron Manfred von Killinger, the German
ambassador, should be invited to the palace for a meal during which a last
appeal should be attempted. In the course of this dinner the Queen-mother
spoke fervently on behalf of the innocent victims, but he, in the presence
of the King and the Patriarch, responded with an obstinate, brutal refusal."
These interventions of the Queen-mother and the Patriarch (who unfortunately
was to disappoint Dr. Safran later on) nevertheless helped to make it
possible for the rest of the Jewish population of Czernovitz to stay in the
Bucovinian capital. [403]
Chief Rabbi Safran then heard of the arrival of the Metropolitan of the
Bucovina, Tot Simedrea, in Bucharest, whose anti-Semitic feelings were known.
Nevertheless Dr. Safran called on him.
"Contrary to my expectations, Mgr. Simedrea revealed an understanding
attitude. He told me of the feelings aroused in him by the sight of the
Jews of Czernovitz being deported to the ghetto, during which he had seen
a Rumanian soldier carrying a sick old Jewish women on his shoulders. He
also had heard the heart-rendering cries of Jewish mental patients who
formed part of this tragic convoy.
The Metropolitan effectively intervened with the Government of Bucharest
and on his return to Czernovitz exerted pressure on the Governor-General
of the Bucovina. These, together with other similar appeals, brought to an
end the deportation of Jews from the capital of this province." [404]
In the summer of 1942, pressure was exerted on Antonescu by the Germans,
to order the deportation of all Jews of Rumania. The Germans obtained the
consent of the Rumanian Government for this. Trains were already prepared
for the deportation. Then a delegation of the Jewish communities of South
Transylvania informed Dr. Safran that all technical steps for the operation
had just been taken in their province. Appeals to the authorities had been
in vain.
Dr. Safran relates:
"One sole course remained to be tried - an appeal to Metropolitan Balan,
head of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania, well-known both for his
anti-Semitism and for the great influence he had with leading figures in
the government, and with Marshal Antonescu in particular. <176>
Following a brief consultation we gave up the original idea of my proceeding
to Sibiu, for fear of arousing the attention of the Gestapo and the Centre
for Jewish Affairs. I accordingly adopted a most daring course. Using the
services of an intermediary, I begged the Metropolitan to come to Bucharest."
In the meantime, Metropolitan Balan had come to the capital and informed Dr.
Safran by telephone that he would be waiting for him at the house of General
Vaitoianu with whom he was staying.
"Our meeting took place in an extremely tense atmosphere. I assumed an
accusing tone which could only have been inspired by despair. [405] The
Metropolitan walked up and down the room without saying a word.
Finally he took up the telephone and called Marshal Antonescu with whom he
asked for an urgent interview. The Marshal was reported to be busy, but they
agreed to have lunch together.
In the meantime I communicated to Mgr. Balan the news that for several weeks
the authorities in Bucharest had been deporting not only Jews, condemned
without trial, of not having reported for compulsory labour, but also their
parents and children.
The Metropolitan immediately telephoned the Vice-Premier, Minister Michael
Antonescu, and told him what he just had learned. The Minister promised to
look into the matter. As a result, after a few days there were no more
deportations from Bucharest.
I accompanied the Metropolitan to his car which was to take him to the
Dictator, pleading with him to use all the means in his power to obtain a
favourable decision.
My prayers followed him after he had left...
Three hours later the sonorous voice of the Metropolitan told me over the
telephone that the Marshal had given in. The Jews of South Transylvania
had been saved." [406]
There are other countries in which Church leaders courageously and whole
heartedly stood up for the Jews and yet their interventions seldom had any
result at all. In Rumania, however, the intervention of the Orthodox leaders
seems to have been quite successful.
It is typical of Rumania that no public protests were issued. Church leaders
personally intervened. These interventions took place only after Chief Rabbi
Safran had implored the Orthodox leaders to come to the rescue of the Jews.
<177>
It is difficult to ascertain what exactly moved these apparently reluctant
saviours to take action. The change of heart with Patriarch Nicodemus seems
to have come after Dr. Safran had spoken "of the terrible responsibility he
was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge". Metropolitan
Simedrea told Dr. Safran "of the feelings aroused in him by the sight of
the Jews of Czernovitz being deported to the ghetto ".
According to a report of Matatias Carp, there was in 1940 a Jewish population
in Rumania of approximately 760,000, of whom 400,000 were massacred. "Among
the victims, 250,000 lie on the conscience of the Rumanian Fascist Government
directly. [407]
There are two other non-Roman Catholic Churches of some importance in Rumania.
The Reformed Church of Rumania is the Church of the Hungarian national minority.
I have not been able to find any particulars about the attitude of this Church
regarding anti-Semitism.
The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of the Augsburg Confession is mainly the
Church of the German immigrants.
In spring 1942, the National Consistory of this Church decided, on a motion of
Bishop Staedel, that their Church would join the "Institute for Research into
the Jewish influence upon German Church life", founded in Eisenach (Germany).
A study group was formed, which, in close contact with the Eisenach Institute,
sought "to make the results of its scientific work fruitful for the life and
future form of the Lutheran Church in Rumania".
At the first conference of the study group, at the beginning of March, 1942,
the following statement by Bishop Staedel was accepted as the guiding principle
for the work as a whole:
"We are deeply convinced that at this time of national revival, we are making
it extremely difficult for a German to come to Jesus Christ if we present
him with a continuous and detailed treatment of the Old Testament.
In the two hours every week, which are meant to be devoted to bringing the
message of the Saviour to the German in his national character and community,
we have absolutely no room for the national and messianic history of the
Israelite-Jewish people. <178>
Therefore we advocate the elimination of the Old Testament so far as possible
from the religious life of the Germans, and thus from the Lutheran religious
instruction." [408]
A statement made by the leader of the "scientific work" of the study group
described the motives underlying its work as follows:
"The decisive impulse has come to us from outside, from the political life
of the German people.
In the national-socialist revolution, however, this nation has confessed to a
year-long guilt, for having failed to guard its God-given torch of the Nordic
Aryan vision of life, allowing it to flicker and die out under the influence of
foreign, especially Jewish, intrigues. Now this light will once again burn for
the nation in all its purity.
What wonder then that people are now coming to the Church, demanding of it the
same confession of guilt, even more insistently because the Church has taken
the Bible of the Jews into its own canon of Scripture. Thus it has consciously
held open at least an aperture through which an essentially foreign spirit
could infiltrate into our national life. [409]
Bishop D. Friedrich Mueller, the present head of this Church, replied to my
circular letter and stated:
"As soon as the alliance (between Germany and Rumania) came into force, the
fascist government of Rumania promulgated a law by which a 'German community
in Rumania' was constituted. Par. 4 of this law granted to the leader of
this community the right, to issue decrees compulsory upon the Rumanian
citizens of German descent.
Thus supported, the 'leader of the community' succeeded in compelling Dr.
Victor Glondys, the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rumania,
to resign, whereupon he appointed his political associate, Wilhelm Staedel,
as the head of the Church. Even Staedel did not give in to him completely
but tried to follow the policy of the 'German Christians'. [410]
In a admonition to my congregation I made a stand against both attempts.
This led to several actions of persecution...
By secret consultations we could win about 80 per cent of our pastors for
resistance and a clear Christian preaching, based on the Old as well as the
New Testament...
I do not know of any case in which members of my Church co-operated in the
persecution of the Jews. Unfortunately there are no documentary proofs of
this, because of the atmosphere of the time. During the fascist dictatorship
in Rumania censorship existed, which prevented publication of statements on
behalf of the Jews. <179>
I could not, for instance, publish my warning mentioned above nor send it by
mail. Copies of it had to be passed on from hand to hand. Similarly, as a
precaution, I had to destroy my archives during the persecution. I myself
no longer have a copy." [411]
I requested Dr. Safran to comment on this letter. He replied:
"Concerning the attitude of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rumania towards
my co-religionists in distress during the period of Nazi oppression, I must
tell you that we did not receive any help or comfort from this Church in our
terrible suffering, not even a token of human compassion.
In 1942, in order to request his intervention on our behalf, I intended to
go to the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Rumanian Church, Mgr. Balan, whose
residence was in Sibiu, where also was the Centre of the Evangelical Church.
I was warned, however, that the members of this Church living in Sibiu were
capable of betraying me to the Gestapo - with which they maintained direct
relations - in order to prevent me from approaching Mgr. Balan." [412]
The letter from Bishop Mueller seems to suggest that there existed a kind
of "Confessing Church" in Rumania. If this name is correct for the group
mentioned by him, it should be added that the existence of this "Confessing
Church in Rumania" was not, contrary to what can be said about the Confessing
Church in Germany, a very manifest phenomenon. Apparently its existence was
not manifest to Dr. Safran.
Bishop Staedel "tried to follow the policy of the German Christians". He
certainly matched them in anti-Semitic heresies.
29 BULGARIA
a. The Preliminary Phase
Bulgaria was part ally, part satellite of Germany.
In September, 1940, it acquired southern Dobrudja from Roumania.
In March, 1941, the German army was admitted to Bulgaria. The Germans took
Macedonia from Yugoslavia, Thrace from Greece, and handed them over to
Bulgaria. <180>
The number of Jews in Bulgaria at the end of 1939 amounted to 50,000.
Approximately 15,000 more were added to the Bulgarian power sphere in the
newly won territories. [413]
The "Law for the Protection of the Nation'; containing provisions for the
definition, expropriation and concentration of the Jews, was adopted by a
majority of the Parliament at the end of December 1, 1940, and promulgated
on January 21, 1941.
In August, 1942, wearing the yellow star was made compulsory for the entire
Jewish population. At the same time Belev was appointed as Bulgarian
Commissioner for Jewish Affairs.
On November 15, 1940, the "Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church" sent a letter
of Protest to the Prime Minister (Filov), with a copy to the Speaker of the
Parliament. The letter was signed by the Deputy Chairman of the Holy Synod,
Metropolitan Neophyte. It read as follows:
"The Bulgarian Church has always kept a faithful and watchful eye on the
destiny of the Bulgarian people throughout its existence. She has always had
an unbroken link with its destiny, and shared in its wishes and longings,
its joy and sorrow, its pain, its misfortunes and ideals.
This concern of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church for the Bulgarian people was
strongest in days of trial and danger. In such days she did everything in her
power to prevent the nation from making big mistakes, as it was capable of
doing, and to protect it from the dangers and calamities that threatened it.
And whenever the warning voice of the national Church was heeded our people
was kept from major disasters. On the other hand, when it ignored the warning
voice of the Church, our people underwent danger and suffering.
The Bulgarian Church follows with great satisfaction the efforts of our people
and those of the Bulgarian authorities to protect the people and the fatherland
from dangers that lie in wait for them from different quarters.
Therefore, now too, the national Church is very glad to note that the
Government is preparing a 'Law for the Protection of the Nation', to protect
our people and everything Bulgarian from such dangers.
The Church considers it her duty, however, precisely for the benefit of the
nation, to draw the attention of the competent authorities to several defects
in the proposed law, which could have bad consequences, and which also touch
the Church as a divine institution, whose duty it is to watch over all her
spiritual children and cause the will of God to rule in the cause of
righteousness and mercy among human beings and the nations... <181>
Let no account be taken of laws against the Jews as a national minority, but
let purposeful steps be taken against all the real dangers to the spiritual,
cultural, economical, public and political life of the Bulgarian people,
from whatever direction these dangers come." [414]
It is typical of this letter that most of its contents could also have been
written by any anti-fascist political, party, instead of by a Church.
Early in 1941, it became known that the "Law for the Protection of the Nation"
was going to be ratified. Metropolitan Stephan then called for a plenary
session of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church, which passed a resolution
agreeing to send a letter of protest to the Prime Minister and to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which it was pointed out that:
"... The principle of racialism which is the basic idea on which the above
mentioned law is founded, has no justification from the point of view of
the teachings of Jesus...
The principle of racialism which encourages persecution and denies the rights
of people, merely because of their race, in this case the Jewish race, has
no justification, and therefore one cannot base the 'Law for the Protection
of the Nation' on the principle of racialism.
One cannot turn the 'Law for the Protection of the Nation' into a means
of oppression and persecution of the Jewish minority in the land." [415]
On September 9, 1942, the Metropolitan of Sofia, Stephan, preached a sermon,
probably in preparation of the "Feast of the Exaltation of the Honourable and
Life-giving Cross". This feast of the Orthodox Church falls on September 14.
The Metropolitan declared that:
"... God had punished the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus in that He had
expelled them from their country and had not given them a country of their
own. And thus, God had determined the destiny of the Jews. <182>
However, men had no right to exercise cruelty towards the Jews and to
persecute them. Especially Christians ought to see their brothers in Jews
who had accepted the Christian religion and to support them in every possible
way. He stressed several times in his sermon that truly it is in God's hands
to punish twice and three times, but it is forbidden for Christians to do such
a thing." [416]
Apparently there existed a brand of "theological" anti-Semitism in the Church
of Bulgaria. Fortunately, it is difficult to state that "God had punished
the Jews ... and had not given them a country of their own", since, in 1948,
the State of Israel came into being.
Perhaps we may consider it an encouraging fact that people who held such
views of "theological" anti-Semitism, nevertheless have such an excellent
record when practical help to the persecuted was proved necessary. This
consideration, however, should not be used to exempt Church leaders from
their duty to educate the faithful in a more Biblical and thus more humane
spirit than that of Metropolitan Stephan's sermon, in 1942.
b. The Attempt to Deport the Jews
In January, 1943, Eichmann's representative Dannecker arrived in Bulgaria.
On February 22, 1943, he concluded a written agreement with the Bulgarian
Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, Belev, which provided for the deportation
of 8,000 Jews from Macedonia, 6,000 from Thrace and 6,000 from Old Bulgaria.
In March, deportations from the occupied Greek and Yugoslavian territories
started. 11,363 Jews were deported from these regions. [417]
There were personal interventions by Church leaders, and an official Protest
from the Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was issued, on behalf of the
Bulgarian Jews who were threatened with deportation. <183>
Abraham Alphasy, who was then Head of the Jewish Community of Sofia, relates:
"... At that time I went, as the Chairman of the Jewish Congregation, to
Metropolitan Stephan, a man with a highly-developed sense of justice, who
was a faithful friend of the Jews.
When I informed him about the preparations to deport the group of Jews to
Germany and requested his intervention, he asked me from whom I had received
this information. I replied that it was from a reliable source but for
obvious reasons I could not reveal it.
Then he immediately dressed and went to the palace of King Boris. The King,
who guessed for what reason the Metropolitan had come, sent a message
informing him that he was ill and could not receive him. The Metropolitan
intimated, as he himself told me, that he would not leave the palace before
he had seen the King. Finally, the King was compelled to receive him. The
Metropolitan requested him to cancel the order to deliver the Jews to the
Germans.
The Metropolitan told him that, in the event that they would assault the
Jews in order to send them to Germany, he would give instructions to open
the gates of the churches and monasteries. They would give the Jews shelter.
'In this situation the King was compelled to promise to do as requested,'
the Metropolitan told me..." [418]
We quote the following from the testimony of Joseph Geron, who served as
head of the Jewish Community in Sofia, and afterwards became the Chairman
of the Union of Jewish Congregations in Bulgaria:
"... Continuing, the witness gave details about united action with the head
of the Church in Sofia, Metropolitan Stephan, by whom he was received three
times. Dr. Kalmi, one of the leaders of Jewry, kept in touch with the general
secretary of the Holy Synod, the body authorized to direct religious affairs
in Bulgaria.
Thanks to these contacts a meeting between the King and representatives of
the Church took place concerning the rescue of the Jews...
During his first meeting with the head of the Church in Sofia, the Metropolitan
Stephan, he had said to him among other things: 'Cannot the Bulgarian Church
do something similar to what the Catholic Church and the Pope himself are
doing for the Jews, with an action for their rescue?'
To this Stephan answered that the Bulgarian Church would follow the example
of the Catholic Church and would do, and allow to be done, everything possible
on behalf of the Jews..." [419] <184>
In March, 1943, Metropolitan Stephan called for a plenary session of the Holy
Synod which was held April 2, 1943. He informed all the Metropolitans of the
danger that was threatening Bulgarian Jewry. The Metropolitans unanimously
decided to send a letter of Protest to the Prime Minister, Filov, and to the
Minister of the Interior and of Religions.
The letter read as follows:
The Law for the Protection of the Nation
"The idea of passing a Law for the Protection of the Nation which would
annul dangers to our people and our state, on which the national, spiritual
and moral unity of the Bulgarian people is founded, was accepted by our Holy
Orthodox Church, which is the eternal guardian of the destiny of the Bulgarian
people, and which knows better than others, from bitter historical experience,
what it would mean to our people to be divided by false religious, national
and economic teaching, and to be exploited by any minority.
The need to restrain such disintegrating political and religious-sectarian
ideas, has always existed in our country, as it also exists now. To-day,
too, when the new destiny of our people is being decided, it is more than
ever necessary to limit, with the help of the law, disintegrating factors
in our land and, to harness them to the building of the healthy spiritual
powers of our people and, to guarantee economic opportunities for every
Bulgarian.
However, already when this Law for the Protection of the Nation was made,
the Holy Synod of our Church gave warning and begged that it should not be
only based on the existing foundations and concepts, because in that case
it would not meet the great objective standing before it: to safeguard
against disintegrating influences and, to unite the Bulgarian people in a
spiritual entity.
The Law for the Protection of the Nation was created with the express purpose
of limiting the Jewish minority; the main concept of the law is based on
racialism.
At that time the Holy Synod informed the Government, that the principle of
racialism cannot be justified from the point of view of the Christian doctrine,
being contrary to the fundamental message of the Christian Church, in which
all who believe in Jesus Christ are men and women of equal worth. 'There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3, 28).
The principle of racialism, according to which certain members of the community
can be persecuted, restricted and deprived of their rights only because they
belong to a certain race, in this case the Jewish race, cannot be justified
from the standpoint of Christian ethics. Therefore the Church emphatically
demands that the Law for the Protection of the Nation shall not be based mainly
on the principles of racialism, but on those of spiritual wholeness and the
protection of our people, so that it may safeguard them from those
disintegrating influences which affect spiritual and religious values, and
also from economic financial exploitation. <185>
They did not listen to the voice of our Holy Synod. We now see, that the Law
for the Protection of the Nation, nearly two years after its promulgation,
instead of meeting its great task of safeguarding the Nation from
damaging and disintegrating influences, and uniting its creative, healthy,
spiritual and economic powers into a spiritual and moral unity, has turned
into a means of restricting and persecuting the Jewish minority in our
country."
Christians of Jewish Origin
"Many times our Holy Synod has requested in writing the honourable Government,
from the promulgation of the Law until to-day, to ease the restricting passages
of the Law against Christians of Jewish origin, and against the Jews in general.
Until now both the written requests and the interventions of the Holy Synod
have remained unanswered.
Neither has any alleviation in the fate of the Jewish minority been granted.
The Christians of Jewish origin are still forced to wear the star with the six
points, the symbol of the Jewish religion, and they pay taxes to the Jewish
consistory; in fact this is a gross profanation of our holy Orthodox
religion, in as much as they have been baptized and received into the Church,
some of them long before there was any word at all about the Law for the
Protection of the Nation. In spite of our repeated requests to exempt them -
what insults they have to bear as Christians - there has been no alleviation
whatsoever."
The Jewish Minority
"Neither has there been any easing in the situation of the Jewish minority
as a whole. Quite the contrary, restrictions are increasing daily. It has
gone so far that these citizens of our country are deprived of the most
elementary rights, and the Department for Jewish Affairs is free to do with
them as it wishes; sending them to camps and deporting them from the country.
Our people, with soul and conscience, mind and conviction, cannot tolerate
injustice, cruelty and violence against anybody. It cannot accept what is
being done now to the Jewish minority. Its human and Christian conscience is
perplexed.
The Holy Synod has also received requests from different quarters - from
leading citizens who are outstanding Bulgarians, from well-known businessmen
who love their fatherland, from Bulgarian mothers - to demand righteous
and a humane treatment of the Jewish minority in the country. The Holy Synod
of the Bulgarian Church cannot ignore its divine command and its holy duty.
It must, according to the teaching of the Gospel concerning love of one's
neighbour, raise a compassionate and defending voice in aid of the suffering
sand wronged people; it must beg, guide and convince, so that the measures in
general against the Jews may cease or at least be eased.
God's law, which transcends all human laws, definitely obliges us not to be
indifferent in the face of the sufferings of innocent people, of whatever race.
The majority of our people also place their relationship with the suffering
Jewish minority on this biblical and humane foundation. <186>
Understandably our Holy Synod, as we have already stressed in another letter
to the honourable Government, does not deny the right of the Bulgarian
authorities to preserve the security of the State and to take all steps to
safeguard this security; to persecute, to restrict, to punish. But the Holy
Synod is charged with the divine duty to remind the Government that these
steps must be taken with justice and in a humane spirit, so that they may
surely attain their aim and be effective and lasting for the protection of
the State.
Until now, a historical line of justice and integrity has been the sure
means for the protection of our people and our State. On these eternal
foundations we also base our national and righteous demands, side along
our hopes. The Bulgarian people as a whole has always, until now, been just
and tolerant. Our nation, although it has suffered more than all the nations,
does not love, nor tolerate, violence and cruelty We have this name and by
it we are known amongst the other nations. We have realized our national
aspirations, precisely because we knew they were just; and we wanted justice,
both for ourselves and for others.
May we Bulgarians, who have longed so much for a fair and decent attitude
towards ourselves, now forsake our strongest weapon? The Bulgarian Orthodox
Church fears that, if we destroy the eternal foundation - the right to live
as free men and the divine commandment to be just - there no longer will be
left to us, as a small people, any other strong support for our existence.
The Bulgarian State must, therefore, abide by these truths, and apply them to
all its subjects, who are guiltless (except for the fact that they were born in
Bulgaria, but not of Bulgarian parents). A divine command and divine justice
cannot be disregarded.
The Holy Synod, meeting in the special session of April 2, of this year, has
decided - after considering its deep concern for the honour and future of the
Bulgarian people, and its responsibility before God - to inform you that
the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, as a national and divine institution, cannot
agree to principles such as racialism, in which it is possible to foment hatred
and to indulge in violence and cruelty. It cannot accept the principle that
any race be deprived of the human right to live, since this right is in
accordance with the fundamental principles of Christian religion and morality.
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is of the opinion that she cannot deny help and
protection to the persecuted and oppressed. If she were to refuse such help,
she would be unfaithful to herself. In this case our Holy Church was asked for
help, by the Jews as well as by Christian Bulgarians, in order to improve the
fate of the Jews in general.
The Church does not deny and even especially stresses the duty and the right
of the honourable Government to take the necessary steps to protect the people
and the State from all dangers. However, she must stress the duty of the State
to abide by the principles of justice and the Christian Gospel."
Three Requests
"In consideration, therefore, the Holy Synod has decided to request you
urgently: <187>
1. Not to deprive the Christians of Jewish origin and the Jews of our country
in general of the elementary rights of human beings and of citizens; not to
deprive them of the right to live in the country and of the possibility to
work and to live as human beings.
2. The restricting decrees regarding the Jews must be both eased and not be
enforced too strictly.
3. To cancel the unjustifiable obligation whereby Christians of Jewish origin
wear both the Christian cross and the Jewish star, and whereby they pay taxes
to the Jewish community.
The Bulgarian Church considers herself especially obliged to raise her voice for
the protection of the Christians of Jewish origin, who have cut themselves off
from the Jewish community and who have been received into the bosom of the
Bulgarian Church.
She cannot accept that these Christians wear the symbol of the Jewish religion
and that they pay taxes to the Jewish religious community, or that they be
deported from their fatherland. In this case the Church cannot help but recall
to mind the words of our Lord: 'and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again' (Matthew 7, 2), and with concern raise her voice in
warning. We pray that God's blessing may be upon you, and fervently praying in
the name of Jesus, we remain,..." [420]
Unfortunately, this Protest complained that "Christians of Jewish origin are
still forced to wear the star with the six points", stating that "this is a
gross profanation of our holy Orthodox religion". It also defended the Jews
in general, stating that "the principle of racialism cannot be justified from
the point of view of the Christian doctrine, being contrary to the fundamental
message of the Christian Church."
However, much of the argumentation was still national, rather than religious.
Typical is the expression: "The Holy Synod,... after considering its deep
concern for the honour and future of the Bulgarian people, and its
responsibility before God... (in that order!).
Absence of sound theology as regards the position of the Jewish people,
combined with national considerations, is especially dangerous when one
considers that (contrary to the case in Bulgaria) the national interest does
not require to stand up for the persecuted Jews. <188>
After meetings had been held between the Metropolitan Stephan and Jewish
businessmen, it was deemed essential to bring about a meeting between King
Boris and the Holy Synod. However, the meeting did not take place immediately.
This moved the Metropolitan of Vidin, Neophyte, the Chairman of the Holy Synod,
to appeal to members of his flock (and intentionally, wide publicity was given
to this letter) expressing opposition to the anti-Jewish measures.
The Metropolitan Stephan, for his part, preached in the churches of Sofia,
condemning the anti-Semitic policy of the Government and thus defending the
Jews of his town.
"In that period, nobody in Bulgaria could compare with the higher clergy in
courage. As a result of this outcry, the Government was compelled to arrange
an audience between the King, the Cabinet and the higher clergy.
The meeting took place on April 15, 1943, in the royal palace in Sofia. King
Boris, the Metropolitan Stephan, Neophyte, Kyril, the Prime Minister Filov
and others participated in the discussions in which the clergy defended
the Jews with great courage." [421]
In May, 1943, the Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, Belev, submitted to King
Boris two alternate plans: one for the deportation of all Bulgarian Jews to
Poland, the other for their evacuation to the country. The King chose the
latter. The expulsion order was published on May 25. [422]
The Jews expelled from the cities were housed with Jewish families in the
country and in schools. They were never deported from Bulgaria.
On May 23, instructions concerning the deportations from Sofia began to
be received by the Jews. Rabbis Daniel Ben Zion and Dr. Hanael, together
with the lawyer Adolf Chaymov and Mr. Menachem Moshonov, decided to go to
Metropolitan Stephan, who had called for them, in order to beg his intervention
for the cancellation of the deportation decision.
Mr. Moshonow relates: <189>
"... We went to the Metropolitan at 8,30 a.m. He wanted to know what we
were doing and we told him everything in detail. He received us early and
apparently was greatly concerned about our situation, because he was still
in his dressing gown.
After he had listened to us, he calmed us and promised to continue to do
everything in his power to prevent the deportation of the Jews from the
country. Metropolitan Stephan added that at the ceremony in honour of the
feast of the saints Kyril and Methodius, which was taking place on that same
day, May 24, 1943, he would meet the King and would speak to him again about
that same matter.
He seemed to be very moved and full of hope. He stressed anew that at one of
his last meetings with the King, the latter, in the presence of the
ecclesiastical high official Kyril, had specifically stated that the Jews
would not be deported from Bulgaria.
When we parted from the Metropolitan, he reassured us saying: 'Go and calm
your brethren, tell them from me that the King has promised, and a King's
word is not reversed'." [423]
Contrary to the situation in Rumania, the Church leaders in Bulgaria could
indeed claim to express the feelings of "the majority of our people", [424]
when they stood up for the Jews. Moreover, the great majority of the
Bulgarians belonged to the Orthodox Church. Seldom, however, can a Church
leader afford to address his King as Metropolitan Stephan addressed King Boris,
in the telephone conversation which is related by Solomon Mashiach. His visits
to Metropolitan Stephan probably took place on May 25 and 26, 1943.
<190>
"I went to the residence of prelate Stephan. He gave me a kind welcome and
ordered that we should not be disturbed. He locked the door and I began to tell
him our troubles.
After he had listened to me with emotion and attention for nearly half an hour,
he said: 'This I cannot permit as long as I live. There are many among the
Jewish people who have rescued Bulgaria; they sacrificed much on behalf of the
nation. I shall speak with the King immediately. I wish you to hear our
conversation.'
The prelate took the telephone and was connected with the King. After an
exchange of words of no interest as far as the Jews are concerned, the prelate
said: 'Boris, my son, I am not at all satisfied about you. One hears lately
of many things done to our Israelite brethren. Think very hard [425]; it is
unworthy of you and of the Bulgarian people.'
The King asked: 'But what - what did you hear and from whom?'
'Things have come to my knowledge which I would rather not believe. They are a
disgrace and shame to you and to the Bulgarian people. I cannot explain them to
you by telephone. If you wish, come to me, or I shall come to you at once, to
see with my own eyes what your reaction will be.'
The King began to stammer and to excuse himself, saying that he could not meet
Stephan on that day. He then made an appointment with him for the next day. I
whispered to prelate Stephan: 'That will be too late'. Then the prelate said to
him: 'Boris, let it not be too late. Pull yourself together, my son.' 'It will
not be too late, I promise you. To-morrow we shall see one another.' Thus ended
the first conversation.
Prelate Stephan said to me: 'Come to-morrow morning, between 9 and 10. He is
trying to give me the slip but I shall not permit him to bring such a disgrace,
even if I would lose my head..."
"Next morning I again went to the Metropolitan Stephan to hear the outcome. He
immediately took the telephone and was connected with the palace. The King's
Councillor (Dr. Neshev, if I am not mistaken) replied. He said that the King
had been urgently called away and had not intimated where he was going or
when he would return.
Metropolitan Stephan got very angry and said: 'Tell me where the little king is,
you milksop. Tell others that you do not know, but beware if you continue to be
stubborn'.
Dr. Neshev apologized, saying he had been instructed not to reveal that the King
was in his palace Krichim. He begged the Metropolitan not to divulge this
information, as it would cause him trouble. Metropolitan Stephan promised to say
nothing, but he asked Dr. Neshev: 'Did he expressly instruct you that you should
not even reveal his whereabouts to me'? Dr. Neshev replied in the affirmative."
<191>
"Metropolitan Stephan was very angry and said to me that the King would regret
his deed very much. 'At one time I saved his father's head and to him I gave
the throne; now this is his reward to me.' In a great perturbed state of mind
he took the telephone and spoke to the King in Krichim palace. I heard, word for
word, the following:
'Boris, you forget yourself. You elude me and hide. You know that for me there
are no secrets under the sun. You know that at one time I saved your father's
head and your throne. But it is doubtful whether I, after these acts of yours,
shall be able to save your head. Give the matter serious thought and uproot
this demoniac influence from your heart.'
He then put down the receiver.
Afterwards the telephone began to ring. I said to Metropolitan Stephan:
'They are calling you'. He replied: 'I know; he wants to speak to me over
the telephone but I shall not answer him unless he will come personally to
apologize to me. You will see that he will not dare to cause you evil.'..." [426]
The last recorded activity of Metropolitan Stephan on behalf of the Jews
is a telegram sent to the King, in which was written:
'Do not persecute, so that you may not be persecuted. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again. I know, Boris, that from heaven God
will keep watch over your actions.'" [427]
Another outstanding leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who intervened on
behalf of the Jews was the Metropolitan of Plovdiv, Kyril. Belev had ordered
the internment of the "influential Jews" in several cities. On March 10, 1943,
some of the Jews in Plovdiv were arrested. Early in the morning of that day,
Kyril sent a telegram to the King and called upon the representatives of the
regime, to inform the government that from that very moment, because of the
action against the Jews, he (Kyril) had ceased to be a loyal citizen and would
act according to the dictates of his conscience. [428] <192>
Leviev relates another incident in which Metropolitan Kyril was the hero:
"It is fitting to bear in mind, as a token of the personal courage of
Metropolitan Kyril, the date of May 20, 1944.
Early in the morning, when it was still dark, he was awakened by a Jewish
boy, who had been sent to inform the Metropolitan that during that night
large groups of Jews had again been arrested.
The Metropolitan went to the Jewish quarter, where many Jews were gathered
in a square; Rabbi Samuel, who was wholly dedicated to his people, was at
their head, giving them courage. The appearance of the Metropolitan was
received by the Jews with relief and hope.
The Metropolitan immediately went to the district office where he only found
Kolev, the deputy district officer, of whom he demanded particulars about the
extent and the meaning of the arrests.
Kyril draw his attention to the dangerous consequences which might result
from the confusion, created in the mind of the public, and who were not
likely to remain inactive in the face of renewed injustice and violence.
It was explained to him that about 2,000 Jews had been arrested because a
group of five Jewish youngsters had joined the underground movement.
The Metropolitan demanded that they set the arrested Jews free; otherwise
great public disturbances would occur.
After having obtained a promise in this respect, he went to the police
station, where the arrested people were held, and encouraged them. He met
with the police commander and with his assistants, and pointed out to them
that the entire public was following with attention the fate of the arrested
Jews. The arrested people were set free at the end of that day." [429]
It appears that an important factor influencing Church leaders in Bulgaria
to act was their genuine concern. Thus they were easily accessible whenever
their help was needed. It seems to be a small feature in the over-all picture,
but it is significant: Kyril got up early in the morning when it was still
dark and rushed to the rescue of the arrested Jews in Plovdiv; Stephan
received Jewish leaders when he was still in his dressing gown.
Jewish leaders in Israel as well as Jews in Bulgaria who now live under a
Communist government, have expressed their appreciation of the help rendered
by the Church in Bulgaria. We quote the following from the testimony of
Joseph Geron, who served as head of the Jewish community in Sofia, and
afterwards became the Chairman of the Union of Jewish Congregations in
Bulgaria: <193>
"... The witness stressed the fact that the Bulgarian Church, on many
occasions and at different periods, revealed understanding and sympathy
for the Jews, and took important actions for their rescue...
Concerning the Bulgarian Church, her attitude to the Jews was always very
correct, but during the events which accompanied Jewish life under the rule
of Prime Minister Filov, the Church revealed an attitude of open sympathy,
and exercised strong moral pressure on all the decisive factors in Jewish
affairs...
What then were the factors that, directly and indirectly, helped in the
rescue of the Jews of Bulgaria?
One may answer that there were collective and individual factors. Among the
former, the Orthodox Bulgarian Church, with its leaders Stephan, Neophyte and
Paisly, take the first place..." [430]
Of course, in Bulgaria just as in other countries there were many factors
helping to influence the outcome. King Boris and the Cabinet were in a position
to withstand German pressure to some extent if they wished so. The victories
of the Soviet armies made their mark on the minds of the people. It appears,
however, that the activities of the leaders of the Orthodox Church were an
important contribution to the positive outcome. All the Jews of Bulgaria
survived.
Yet, there remains one nagging question: did the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
try to render any aid to the more than 11,000 Jews who were deported from
the Greek and Yugoslavian territories occupied by Bulgarian troops? It
seems that they did not, but perhaps there was no time to intervene. [431]
30 HUNGARY
a. The Preliminary Phase
In November, 1938, Hungary annexed some Slovakian districts and part of
Sub Carpathian Ruthenia. In March, 1939, the remainder of the latter territory
was annexed. In August, 1940, Hungary occupied Northern Transylvania.
In April, 1941, part of Yugoslavia was occupied. In its enlarged state,
Hungary had a Jewish population of 750,000 within its borders. [432] <194>
On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia and the Hungarians joined forces
with the Germans. On August 8, the third anti-Jewish law was enacted. [433]
This law defined who was to be considered a Jew, according to the well-known
principles of the Nuremberg laws.
"Bishop Ravasz, the leading speaker of the representatives of the Reformed
Church, after having delivered his address of refusal, read a solemn
declaration signed by all the Bishops, and by four general elders, in which
the signatories protested against the passage of the law and disclaimed all
responsibility for its passage." [434]
I have tried to obtain a copy of Bishop Ravasz's address of refusal and of
the declaration mentioned above. Dr. Elek Mathe, of the Reformed Church of
Hungary, replied to my request:
"Unfortunately there is no available copy of the address referred to in your
letter...; even less, newspaper cuttings, for the simple reason that at that
time the daily press was under strict government control and the text of such
an address could not be printed. [435]
In the summer of 1941, the Hungarian government ordered an inquiry into
the citizenship of all the Jewish residents of Northern Hungary. 11,000
Jews unable to give satisfactory proof of their citizenship were deported
to Galicia, where a systematic extermination was carried out by the German
troops.
"Baroness Edith Weisz called on Bishop Ravasz, and asked for his intervention.
The Bishop requested an audience with the Regent, and appearing before him,
informed him of the situation and asked that the Minister of Interior be
instructed to give due regard to humanitarian viewpoints. <195>
Bishop Ravasz then called on Francis Kereszres-Fischer, Minister of the
Interior, who himself later on was carried away by the Germans, warning
him that after the conclusion of the war an account would have to be given
before world Protestantism, of the fate meted out to the Jews.
He requested the adoption of such measures as would enable him to appear
before any foreign Church body in future days, with a clear conscience
regarding these matters.
An end was put to all abuses and the lives of many persons were saved." [436]
Bishop Ravasz thus tried to do something on behalf of non-Hungarian Jews, this
in contrast to the tendency of those in other lands who rendered resistance
only when Jews of their own nationality were deported.
From March, 1942, to March, 1944, Kallay was Prime Minister. His Cabinet
withstood German pressure to deport the Jews.
b. Mass Deportations
On March 17, 1944, Regent Horthy was "invited" to a conference with Hitler,
who informed him of the imminent occupation of Hungary by German troops.
Horthy had to agree to Kallay's dismissal. The aerodromes of Budapest were
seized by a German task force. A new Government was appointed under Sztojay.
The Arrow Cross leader, Laszlo Baky, was appointed Undersecretary of State
in the Ministry of Interior, and Laszlo Endre Administrative Under-secretary
and expert on Jewish affairs. Veesenmayer was appointed as Ambassador to
Hungary and as Plenipotentiary of the German Reich. Eichmann came to Budapest
at the end of March.
On March 29, 1944, it was decreed that all Jews must wear the yellow star.
Concentration of all the Jews took place at a rapid pace. In May, the first
deportation trains left for Auschwitz. At the end of June, 381,661 Jews had
been deported. On July 9, 1944, the total number was 437,402. The evacuation
of the Jews of Budapest was planned for July. <196>
Concerted pressure was exerted on Regent Horthy to stop the deportations.
Switzerland and Sweden made urgent requests. The Turkish and Spanish
governments also intervened. The Papal nuncio was, according to Sztojay,
calling "several times" a day. On July 6, Sztojay informed Veesenmayer that
the Regent had given the order that the deportations should stop. In fact,
the stoppage occurred in the middle of July and it lasted until October.
On April 3, 1944, Bishop Laszlo Ravasz addressed a letter of protest to the
Minister of the Interior. In this document Bishop Ravasz did not object to
the stigmatization of the Jews, but to the regulations that required members
of the Reformed Church to wear the star of David. [437]
At the same time he called on Ambrozy, the Regent's chef de cabinet, and asked
to be granted an audience with the Regent. He was informed that "the Regent
regards himself a prisoner and will not receive anyone".
Subsequently Bishop Ravasz called on the Minister of Interior, who asked him
to return at 7 p.m. the same day.
"Jaross, who kept the Bishop waiting till 8 p.m., agreed, after a heated
argument, to exempt certain Church dignitaries and persons of Jewish origin
who had contracted mixed marriages." [438]
On April 6, the General Assembly of the Reformed Church addressed a petition
to the Prime Minister, urging him to be mindful of the claims of humanitarian
thinking, and demanding the extension of granting exemptions.
"All the activities carried on by the Churches in these days, centred around
the Jewish question. However, as the government was but a mere tool in the
hands of the Nazi regime, expressly antagonistic toward the Churches, it paid
little regard to the action of the Churches.
The results reached accordingly were rather meagre. Yet, meagre as they were,
they meant the saving of many lives.
The most important result was the exemption secured for members of mixed
marriages. This one measure alone meant exemption from the wearing of the
yellow star and its fearful consequences for several thousand families <197>
The Churches already at that time demanded the formation of a body authorised
to grant exemptions whenever individual merits made the granting of the same
justified. This demand, although not granted in its original form, led later
on the recognition of the Regent's right to grant exemption, through which
channel some twenty thousand persons were given exemption. [439]
Under the influence of the news reaching the capital, Bishop Ravasz asked the
Regent - a Protestant - for an audience, which was granted on April 12, 1944.
"He entreated the Regent to abstain from any action in connection with the
Jewish question, for which at some future date he might have to bear the
responsibility, pointing out that the blame for cruelties, should these occur,
would be laid at his door and that he would render himself liable to trial for
same.
'The desperadoes,' said the Bishop, 'will not fail to make an attempt to have
their own accounts paid out of the moral capital of others'. Horthy reassured
the Bishop." [440]
A few days later, however, Baron Zsigmond Perenyi, President of the Upper
House, called upon Bishop Ravasz and informed him of his sad experiences in
Northern Hungary. On April 28, Bishop Ravasz was again received in audience
by the Regent, to whom he passed on the information gathered by Perenyi.
Horthy's answer was as follows:
"Only a few hundred thousands Jews were scheduled to leave the country with
the labour battalions. No harm will befall them, not a hair of their heads
will be touched. They will enjoy the same treatment as the nearly hundred
thousand Hungarian labourers employed abroad?..."
The Regent admitted that complaints had been received from Nyiregyhaza,
whereupon he had sent for the Minister of Interior, Jaross, and had asked
for an investigation to be instituted. Jaross had charged his two Under-
Secretaries with the investigation, and had since reported that a stop had
been put to the scandalous treatment. [441]
On May 9, 1944, Bishop Ravasz called on Prime Minister Sztojay and
protested against the atrocities committed against the Jews. <198>
"He presented the petition of the Reformed Assembly referring to the horrors
which occurred during the concentration of the Jews at Marosvisihely, Kolozsvir,
Kassa and Nagybanya.
The Prime Minister seemed to have been informed about the situation and
declared that he condemned the brutalities, stating that he had given
instructions for the separation to be carried out drastically, but humanely.
"The Jews are a race", he said, "and thus the regulation of the Jewish
problem is not a question of religion, but of race". [442]
On May 17, 1944, the Assembly of the Reformed Church sent a letter to Prime
Minister Sztojay in which two matters were emphasized. First, it recalled the
promises which the Prime Minister had made regarding amelioration of the
cruel measures and, second, it protested against the segregation of the Jews
which had already begun.
"We are compelled to declare that we most resolutely disapprove the segregation
of persons classified as Jews. We are of the opinion that the measures adopted
by Christian Society in times past in this direction, must not be repeated...
The second thing which we have to mention is as yet an anxious presentiment.
Signs are not lacking to show that, besides segregation, the deportation of
the Jews beyond the country's boundaries is also in preparation.
We have to call your Excellency's attention to the tragic developments which
mark the conclusion of Jewish deportations in other countries, and we beg
your Excellency to do all that can be done in order to impede such happenings
and to avert responsibility for such acts from the Royal Government and from
the whole nation." [443]
Bishop Ravasz then tried to join forces with the Roman Catholic Church and
informed the Chairman of the Holy Cross Society (which was charged with the
protection and care of Catholics of Jewish origin) of his willingness to make
the introductory steps for a united action. On June 15, 1944, he sent a letter
to the Primate, Justinian Serkdi, saying that he had already prepared the
draft for a memorandum (of which a copy was included) to be sent to the
Government, as "a final earnest warning" before the Churches should "voice
their solemn declaration in protest, in the presence of the country and the
world".
No reply from Primate Seredi, however, was received. [444] <199>
As nothing could be learned from the press, the authorities of the Church sent
a young pastor to Kassa, the largest ghetto. He returned from his trip of
inspection, reporting that, notwithstanding the protestations and promises
of the Prime Minister, the deportation of Jews had begun.
Therefore pastors were dispatched to carry the text of the memorandum that
had been prepared, to the nine Bishops, in order to obtain their consent.
After they had signed it, a deputation presented it to the Prime Minister,
on June 23, 1944. Its text was as follows:
"In our memorandum of May 19 we mentioned, with foreboding, that there was a
possibility of the deportation of the Hungarian Jews to an unknown destination.
Since then information has reached us, according to which Jews have been
crossing the frontier in sealed wagons day after day, disappearing from our
sight, bound for an unknown destination. Each of these wagons contained
about 70 to 80 persons of different sex, age and social standing, of both
Israelite and Christian faith. The persons deported, as well as, their
relatives are convinced that this journey is leading to final destruction.
The solution of the Jewish question is a political task. We now are not dealing
with politics. The execution of this solution is a great work of administration.
We are not experts on that. But the moment the solution of the Jewish question
challenges the eternal laws of God, we are in duty bound to raise our voice,
condemning, but at the same time imploring, the head of the responsible
Government. We cannot act otherwise.
We have been commanded by God to preach His eternal Gospel, to give evidence of
the unalterable laws of His moral order for this generation, whether people like
it or not. Although humble and sinful men, we, in the bondage of faith and
obedience to this heavenly command, possess the right to give evidence of the
Word of God and to condemn every action which outrages human dignity, justice or
charity, and which loads upon the head of our people the horrible responsibility
of innocently shed blood.
As Bishops of the two Protestant Churches we protest against devout members of
our congregations being punished merely for being considered Jews from a racial
point of view. They are being punished for a Jewish mentality from which they,
and in many cases their ancestors, have solemnly disconnected themselves. Their
lives, as regards Christian spirit and morality, are not considered in the
least. <200>
Finally we, as Hungarians and as clergymen, repeatedly implore Your Excellency
to put an end to the cruelties, even disapproved of by yourself, and to enforce
the declaration made by a prominent member of your Cabinet, protesting against
the very idea of a senseless and cruel destruction of the Jews.
We do not wish to aggravate your Excellency's political position; we even wish
to promote the solution of the great task you have taken upon yourself. For
this reason, for the time being, we do not carry our protest before the
Hungarian public, although this course will incur for us the reproach and
accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches. Should, however,
our intervention prove ineffective, we will be obliged to testify before the
congregations of our Church and the Protestants of the world, that we did
not suppress the message of God.
As a last attempt we appeal, through the kindness of your Hungarian heart and
the Christian feelings of your Excellency, to the leniency of the Royal
Hungarian Government. We desire that this, the most painful manifestation in
our whole history hitherto, should become the case of the Government." [445]
The Bishops were afraid of "the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies
of the Christian Churches", in the event of remaining silent. Apparently the
anticipated verdict of Churches in other countries, and of the World Council of
Churches, was one of the factors which urged action. The Churches made a clear
stand in this memorandum, though certainly not everything in it is of prophetic
power.
The deputation submitting this memorandum, which in its way was a kind of
ultimatum, supported it by word of mouth. Prime Minister Sztojay answered
bluntly:
"The two Secretaries of State of the Ministry of Interior have reported that,
except in certain cases, no atrocities have been committed. Germany has need
of man power, and the Jews are being taken there for labour purposes."
In their reply, the members of the Protestant deputation pointed out to the
Prime Minister that deported babies, pregnant women and old people were
certainly of no use for that purpose. Sztojay's answer to this was that the
authorities did not want the Jews working abroad to feel anxious about the
families they had left behind, nor the families to worry as to the fate of
the deported Jewish men. <201>
The deputation proposed that the Churches be permitted to care for children
whose parents had been selected for such "labour purposes". The Prime Minister
consented to this request, but asked that it be submitted in writing. The
deputation immediately composed and handed over the written request. It was
never answered. [446]
A Confidential Report sent by the Hungarian Protestants to the Secretary of
the World Council of Churches, Geneva, states:
"... Not a single line on all this has been published, either in the
ecclesiastical or in the daily press; for when the first Memorandum was
personally handed over, the Government made it a condition that the whole
intervention be handled with the utmost discretion and no press-comments
whatsoever were to be made: in this case the Government were willing on
their part to do everything possible; if press-comments were made it would
appear as though the Government, considering the echoes in the press, had
taken alleviating i.e. modifying measures in their sudden fear.
The date to answer the last Memorandum expires to-morrow and if no adequate
essential measures are taken by then, uniform sermons and a strongly worded
pastoral letter will be read from every pulpit on next Sunday." [447]
No answer came to the Memorandum. Thus Bishops Ravasz and Kapi decided
to address an open declaration to the congregations and to the Protestant
Christianity of the world:
"We request all our brethren, the pastors belonging to our communions, that
they read the following message to the congregations at the conclusion of
next Sunday's morning service:
To all congregations of the Hungarian Reformed Church and of the Hungarian
Lutheran Church, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Brethren in Christ! The undersigned Bishops of the Hungarian Reformed Church
and of the Hungarian Lutheran Church address you and inform you, in the
presence of God, of the steps taken before the Royal Hungarian Government
in the name of the Protestant Churches. <202>
We notify the congregations that the two Protestant Churches, after several
proposals both by word of mouth and in writing, on June 21st presented to
the Royal Hungarian Prime Minister a solemn memorandum of request and
protest. This memorandum pointed out the more than regrettable events
accompanying the concentration and deportation of Jews, whether Christian
or not.
After having stated that the solution of the Jewish question violates
eternal Divine laws, the memorandum continued its proposals as follows:
'We have been commanded by God to preach His eternal Gospel, to give
evidence of the unalterable laws of His moral order in this generation,
whether people like it or not. Although humble and sinful men, we, in the
bondage of faith and obedience to this heavenly command, possess the right
to give evidence of the Word of God and to condemn every action which
outrages human dignity, justice or charity, and which loads upon the head
of our people the horrible responsibility of innocently shed blood.'
At the same time we beseeched the Royal Hungarian Government to put an end
to the cruelties which were also condemned by members of the Cabinet, and
to enforce those declarations that protested against the very suggestion of
the destruction of the Jews, while at the same time they issued orders that
the Jews should be treated humanely. We were deeply afflicted when we were
forced to admit that our entreaties had been in vain.
We, the Bishops of the two Protestant Churches, considered it to be our
duty to inform our faithful, as well as, every member of our congregation
and the universal community of Christ's Holy Church of these events.
We summon the congregations to repentance and the entire Hungarian nation
to penitence under the mighty hand of God. Pray to Him and beseech Him to
turn His mercy and His supporting Grace towards our Hungarian nation."
Your loving brethren in Christ:
the last Sunday in June, 1944. [448]
The proclamation was lithographed and, as a necessary precaution, put into
differently coloured envelopes. It was intended to post it to the two
thousand clergymen in the country from different provincial post offices.
At this juncture, the Minister of Religion and Education sent word by
telephone that a pastoral letter of the Primate, addressed to the Bishops
and priests of the Roman Catholic Church, had been intercepted and that the
Government wished to have a conference with the Churches. On July 11, 1944,
the Minister visited Bishop Ravasz, who was ill.
"The Minister declared that the Prime Minister had promised the abolition
of atrocities, the cessation of further deportations and that the isolation
of the Jews would be carried out in a humane manner. 'That,' he said, 'was
the agreement with the Catholic Church'. <203>
He could not at that time produce it in writing, but that was the text and
essential contents of the agreement with the Catholics.
At great length he persuaded and threatened the sick Bishop that if they
persisted in protesting in public, the Church would be 'overwhelmed', or
the Government might resign, thereby paving the way for the coming into
power of the Arrow Cross Party. If, however, they came to an agreement,
the lives of 250,000 Budapest Jews would be saved." [449]
Bishop Ravasz believed the Minister's statement regarding the agreement
with the Primate, but he insisted that the clergy should, at any event,
be allowed to read out a short note in the Reformed Churches. This note
was immediately drafted. It reads as follows:
"Reverend Pastor! We request that you read the following announcement at
the conclusion of next Sunday's morning service [July, 16]:
'The Bishops of the Reformed Church of Hungary and the Evangelical (Lutheran)
Church of Hungary wish to inform the congregations that in connection with
the Jewish question, and particularly in the case of baptised Jews, they
have repeatedly intervened with the competent Government authorities. Their
endeavours in this respect are continuing'." [450]
It is difficult to answer the question whether it was the right decision
to cancel the public proclamation of the pastoral letter form all the pulpits.
Dr. Mathe wrote to me:
"... This circular [the pastoral letter] reached all the pastors, and they
undoubtedly communicated its contents to most of their parishioners." [451]
The deportations were stopped.
The Archbishop of Canterbury addressed "the Christian people of Hungary"
through the B.B.C., in July, 1944. He begged them "to do your utmost, even
taking great personal risks, in order to save some if you can". [452] This
appeal may have had more direct, practical effects than the short note that
was read out from the pulpits.
<204>
c. The Terror at the End
On October 15, 1944, Regent Horthy was arrested by the Germans and the new
Nazi-dominated regime of Szalasi was installed. On October 20, 22,000 Jewish
men were rounded up. By the end of October, 35,000 Jewish men and women
had been seized. The majority of them were marched off to Austria, without
food. All who fainted and fell, were killed on the spot.
The 160,000 Jews who had remained in Budapest were herded into a ghetto
where they were exposed to raids by German and Hungarian Nazis, and to the
bombardments of the Russian guns.
On December 13, 1944, the Russians stormed Budapest. On January 18, 1945,
the ghetto was liberated by the Red Army. The fighting for the Buda citadel
continued until February 13, 1945.
After Szalasi's reign of terror had begun, Bishop Ravasz intervened in the
name of the Protestant Churches. He demanded the fulfilment of five points.
Three of them were in connection with the Jews:
...
c. Humane methods in the treatment of Jews. Revocation of the order which,
in cases of mixed marriages, empowered the non-Jewish party to obtain a
divorce, and declared as Jewish the party that failed to comply with this
regulation.
d. The cessation of the deportations.
e. Security for the lives of the Jews.
On November 24, 1944, the Deputy Prime Minister replied in the name of the
Government. He informed then that Szalasi had succeeded in obtaining the
Fuehrer's permission to grant the following points:
"No alteration to be made in the legal status of mixed marriages, the Jews to
be separated from the rest of the population of Budapest, and the labour service
companies to be directed towards the German frontier, because it was to be
feared that they might commit atrocities in the case of a Russian occupation.
When carrying out these measures, however, the principle of humanity would be
respected." [453]
<205>
On November 26, 1944, Bishop Ravasz again wrote to the Roman Catholic Primate
proposing united action. "The Primate, tired and very ill, replied that he
had already intervened with Szalasi and that he did not feel like repeating
the intervention in the company of others." [454]
On Dec. 1, 1944, the Bishops of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches presented
a note to the so-called "Leader of the Nation".
"It follows from the prophetic office of Christ's Church that the servant of
the Church should always raise his voice when men's acts gravely violate God's
laws", wrote Bishop Ravasz. The letter stressed, that "the treatment meted out
mocks God's eternal laws which prescribe humane treatment even toward one's
enemies, and brings down God's anger on the head of the nation. This treatment
casts a dark blot on the name of the Magyar nation which, for a thousand years,
had been known to the world for its generosity and chivalry." [455]
A pastoral letter issued in December, 1944, called on the pastors to pray at
the services for "the scattered flock of Israel, the homeless and the
persecuted." [456]
On May 9, 1946, the Hungarian Reformed Church declared that "in deep humility
she confesses her guilt and offence against God's honour... She had not
laboured in time to warn the people and the rulers, when they embarked on a
course contrary to God's laws, and she had not strongly taken her stand on
the side of the innocent persecuted human beings." [457]
<206>
THE NEUTRAL COUNTRIES
31 SWITZERLAND
a. Press Censorship
Switzerland remained neutral throughout the second world war, but it was
surrounded by the Axis powers and to a great extent economically dependent
on them. The Swiss Government tried to avoid offending the Germans, and thus
the press was forbidden to make foreign propaganda or to publish stories
about atrocities committed by the warring parties, "of which the objective
correctness could not be verified".
Even in June, 1943, the press censorship issued the following order: "There
recently appeared several articles about Jews and Polish clergy, without
mentioning their source of information. It is understandable that our
conscience should be moved by all such inhuman treatment, but yet we must
strictly obey the instructions of the Press emergency law, which stipulates
that it is our duty to suppress rumours and foreign propaganda." [458]
Thus censorship imposed silence on the press concerning reports of "bloody
murders of hostages and persecution of Jews". The first time, however,
that, to the best of my knowledge, Church leaders in Switzerland spoke out
about the persecution of the Jews during the second world war, they did so
in a protest against censorship of the Press.
On October 27, 1941, the following Petition was presented by the "Social
Study Committee of the Swiss Reformed Pastors Union" to the Swiss Federation
of Churches: <207>
1. We take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Swiss Federation of
Churches, which is the spokesman of the Swiss Churches to the Federal
Authorities, to the alarming position of the Evangelical Reformed Church.
2. The press-censor has repeatedly taken severe measures against men who,
as representatives of the Evangelical Church, have raised their voices
to inform public opinion.
These measures have aroused deep and widespread concern in many circles
to whose notice they have come, despite the ban on the publication of
such matters, and have led to the opinion that the Evangelical Church is
no longer allowed to pronounce the truth entrusted to its care...
3. We especially bear in mind the silence imposed on us by our censorship
concerning the injustice of the bloody murders of hostages and the
persecution of Jews. When mentioning this subject, we should certainly
not shout about it from the roof tops, but under no circumstances should
our sense of justice and injustice be blunted within our national
conscience. Otherwise we shall invoke God's heavy punishment on our country.
Therefore, we take exception to the reproach levied at us by some, that such
intrepid talk of injustice by a foreign nation, is a misjudgement.
4. The apprehension we bring to your notice particularly gains alarming weight
by the fact that we, as Evangelical and democratic citizens of Switzerland,
have to look on while un-Christian and undemocratic ideologies and deeds
cross our borders unhindered in the form of many foreign newspapers and
illustrated periodicals, which are thus able to exert their influence on
young and old. Does not this give rise to the impression that our
highest authorities do not sufficiently recognize the danger of a moral
and spiritual capitulation on our part, or consider it to be of only
secondary importance?
We therefore request the Federation of Churches:
a. That it remonstrate with the highest responsible authorities of our
country and draw their attention to the deep concern and alarm which
these measures by our censorship have aroused in large circles of our
Evangelical Church.
b. That it publicly voice its opinion on the matter and unequivocally make
known its stand, with the full weight of its authority.
c. That it emphatically take a stand on behalf of all persons in our Church,
whose freedom of speech is endangered or impaired, and that it encourage
our Church authorities and Synods to make use of their divinely authorized
right of freedom of speech. [459]
On November 17, 1941, a conference of the "Swiss Protestant Relief Society
for the Confessing Church in Germany" was held at Wipkingen near Zurich. It
was attended by 300 churchmen from all parts of Switzerland. A Resolution
regarding the Censorship of ecclesiastical publications was presented and
unanimously adopted. We quote from this resolution the following:
<208>
"The undersigned Reformed Swiss Pastors have taken note of the following
facts:
That the Department for Press and Radio of the army has imposed preliminary
censorship on the periodical Neue Wege, and thus has prevented its further
publication;
...
that the same office has demanded of the Swiss press that they refrain
henceforth from taking any stand on the execution of hostages by a foreign
power;...
They herewith publicly protest against these measures, as they are concessions
to the spirit and methods of a policy incompatible with the Reformed
Confession and pernicious to the Swiss Federation.
They herewith publicly declare that they are determined to continue to fulfil
their duty, to declare the truth to our people, the suppression of which is
attempted by these measures."
One hundred pastors signed this "Protest and Declaration", which was
submitted to the Federal Government and to the Army Commanders. [460]
The same Conference adopted the following Resolution on "The Jewish Problem":
"The Conference meeting to-day at Zurich-Wipkingen sends to the Committee
of the Swiss Protestant Church Federation the urgent request that it should
take action so that all the Reformed Churches in Switzerland may make a
public statement on the Jewish problem.
Not only the most recent deportations of the Jews, whose number and character
are particularly frightful, but also certain announcements which have appeared
even in the Swiss press, make it a duty for the Church, for the sake of its
own members, to proclaim before the whole world:
1. That the Church, to which the Gospel of the mercy of God is entrusted, calls
its members to pray for the suffering Jewish people and to do everything they
can to alleviate this suffering.
2. That the Church, to which the message of the creation of man in the image of
God is entrusted, condemns as a revolt against the will of God as Creator the
violence which is done to the image of God in persecuting a race and
humiliating it.
3. That the Church, to which the message of the Revelation of God in the
people of Israel is entrusted, knows itself, as the Church of Jesus Christ,
to be bound up in a special way with the fate of the Jewish nation. Because
'salvation comes of the Jews' (St. John 4, 22), anti-Semitism is
incompatible with membership in the Christian Church." [461]
<209>
On August 30, 1942, a meeting was held of the "Young Church", attended by
about 6,000 young people. Supreme Court Justice Dr. M. Wolff, who in his
capacity as President of the Synod conveyed the greetings of the Church
of Zurich, declared:
"Switzerland is in extremely danger. One speaks of a new order in Europe,
but this order is characterised by attacks on other nations; by the murdering
of hostages and the persecution of Jews. This new order means a denial of
the Christian faith...
The best contribution the Church of Switzerland can render to-day is, to be
a true Church, faithfully proclaiming the word of God. Its freedom to preach
must therefore be preserved unrestrictedly. We shall be grateful for a State
Church, so long as the State recognizes the Church's right to exercise its
function as Watchman. Zwingli has unequivocally insisted on this.
Unfortunately, the Church's function as Watchman is now being threatened
by press censorship. The State must not demand that the Church should
refrain from clearly distinguishing between right and wrong. The Church
must now fight for its right to raise its voice against the rejection of
poor refugees; in a clear "Yes" to Jesus Christ, and in a clear "No" to
the dark powers of this world." [462]
On October 28, 1942, Dr. Wollf said in his Opening Address to the Synod of
Zurich:
"... It is therefore not surprising that, when a clearer profession resulted
through the awakening of the Church in recent years, its freedom of speech
was often denied by political coercion, and the Church was told that it had
no right to interfere in Government matters.
...
The Gospel knows nothing about neutrality of opinion and nothing of a policy
of false silence, advocated currently by higher circles." [463]
b. Anti-Semitism within and outside Switzerland
In several declarations anti-Semitism within, as well side, Switzerland
was denounced unequivocally, but the name of Germany was seldom mentioned.
In May, 1942, the Synodal Council of Bern published the following
Declaration:
<210>
"Deeply concerned by the fact that hatred of the Jews is being stirred up
both openly and secretly also in our country, the Council of the Evangelical
Federation of Churches has requested the cantonal Church authorities to use
their good offices so that our attitude as Evangelical Christians towards
the Jewish question be maintained against all such plots.
Our attitude towards Jewry is not based on economical or racial problems. It
is not even a matter of conducting oneself humanely and decently; the
question has a far deeper significance and only can be understood correctly
and answered in the light of biblical teaching.
Therefore above all it is essential, that we reach a Christian understanding
of the Jewish question; only then shall we be able to overcome, on the basis
of a deeper understanding, the common prejudices and slogans; and especially,
the latent disparaging attitude towards the Jews.
Wherever anti-Jewish attitudes appear within a congregation, we must not
remain passive; we have an obligation to emphasize the Evangelical stand
on this matter, and to admonish and counsel. Above all, we should not
slacken in our intercession on behalf of the people of Israel." [464]
In June, 1942, a similar Declaration was issued by the Council of Pastors
in Geneva:
"Our Church cannot keep silent in face of anti-Semitic propaganda which is
in danger of becoming stronger in our own country. At a time when the Jews
elsewhere are the victims of plunder and persecution, the Church must define
her spiritual position.
1. The Apostolic message which declares that there is no longer Jew nor Greek
in Jesus Christ forbids us to make any distinction in the community of the
baptized. A Jew attached to the Christian Church by his conversion and
baptism is a member of it on exactly the same basis as every other faithful
Christian.
2. Christendom has denied the spirit of her Lord every time she has maltreated
or persecuted the descendants of those for whose pardon Jesus prayed to the
Father. Our obligation is to deal with all men in justice and charity on
the grounds that they are indeed our brothers.
3. The race from which came the prophets and the apostles, and to which Jesus
Christ belonged, deserves our respect. We owe Jews a debt of gratitude,
and if Christians pray to God for the conversion of the chosen people they
must also implore divine mercy for persecuted Israel; they must sympathize
with the grief which they are suffering; they must suffer in sympathy the
injustices which Jews once more are suffering.
Strong in the convictions of our Evangelical faith we invite members of our
Churches to resist all efforts to introduce in our country anti-Semitic
racialism which is condemned by the spirit of our Master and by all teaching
which is derived from the Holy Scriptures. [465]
<211>
On September 30, 1942, the Assembly of the Swiss Pastors' Union, meeting at
Liestal, adopted the following Resolution:
"We confess on the basis of the Holy Scripture that the hope of the Church
through the grace and faithfulness of God in Jesus Christ is indissolubly
bound up with the hope for the Jews.
We therefore declare that all anti-Semitism is irreconcilable with
confession of Jesus Christ.
It is the holy duty of every Christian to help the tortured Jews by
intercession and active love." [466]
That warnings against anti-Semitic influences in Switzerland were not
superfluous, was shown in the Report concerning the Fund Drive for Aid to
Refugees, which was held in October-November, 1942. The Report stated:
"... The reasons for the diverse reactions to our fundraising appeals in the
German and the French-speaking parts of Switzerland, are of a complex nature.
From an inquiry made by the cantonal committees we learn that the press in
general took a stand against aid to refugees.
An article by Pierre Grellet, the Bern correspondent of the 'Gazette de
Lausanne', published in November, had a distinct undercurrent of anti-Semitic
feeling, characteristic of his attitude. There were also other expressions of
anti-Semitism in the press.
In contrast to the German-speaking press which protested against the turning
away of refugees from our borders, this action triggered no particular
reactions in the French-speaking press. [467]
c The Admission of Refugees
Like the Government of the Netherlands, the Swiss Government had already
closed the Swiss borders before the war. <212>
The Church Council of Canton Zurich stated, in 1938: "It pains us that
consideration for so many unemployed citizens in our own nation prevents
us from offering a protecting asylum to the suffering refugees, who, like
wild game, are chased from country to country." [468]
In the summer of 1942, mass raids took place in France and many Jewish
refugees tried to find asylum and safety in Switzerland. They often
crossed the French-Swiss frontier "illegally".
On August 13, 1942, the border police were instructed to send back
civilian refugees from France who had entered into Switzerland illegally,
with the exception of political refugees. "Refugees for racial reasons
only, for instance Jews," were not considered political refugees. [469]
The Federation of the Protestant Churches as well as other organizations
turned to the Federal authorities. [470] Their protests were not
ineffectual. On August 23, Federal Councillor von Steiger ordered that in
special cases rejection should be waved.
On August 24, a meeting was convened with the "Swiss Central Office for
Refugee Aid", where all the Institutions for refugee aid were represented.
The "Central Office" informed the press of the result of this partly
tumultuous meeting on the same day: "Foreign refugees, who had entered
Switzerland before 13th August, 1942, and register with the police, will
be sent back only if, after careful investigation, they must for important
reasons be considered undesirable." [471] <213>
On August 30, 1942, at the meeting of the "Young Church" which has been
mentioned before [472], Rev. W. Luthi said: