Updated post…  The Reconstruction of Memory: Soldiers of Aufbau

Update…March, 2024:

Dating Back to December 30, 2017 – have nearly seven years gone by already? – I’ve made a correction to this post based on a recent communication from Russ Czaplewski.  Russ calls attention to the photo of the nose art of B-26B Marauder nicknamed “Becky“, of the 320th Bomb Group’s 441st Bomb Squadron, from Victor C. Tannehill’s book Boomerang! – Story of the 320th Bombardment Group in World War II

In my caption to the image, I originally identified this camouflaged B-26 as aircraft 42-107711, squadron / battle number “02“, which was piloted by Lt. Paul E. Trunk and lost with its entire crew on August 15, 1944, when the plane crashed into a mountain in bad weather.

Here’s Russ’s message:

“I have an original negative with a similar view of “Becky” and the serial number above the round unit logo reads 42-96119 rather than 41-107711. There were multiple bombers named “Becky” in the 441st and the illustration shown is not sharp enough to distinguish the serial number.”  

Along with the corrected information about 42-107711, I’ve updated the post by including the text of the obituary for Heinz Thannhauser’s father Justin, and, adding links to FindAGrave for the eight crew members of the lost B-26.

______________________________

 

Aufbau: The Reconstruction of Memory

As irony abounds in the histories of nations, so it does in the lives of men.

During World War Two, a striking irony could sometimes be found among Jewish military personnel in the Allied armed forces.  Some Jewish soldiers, at one time citizens of Germany and Austria, and subsequently refugees and emigrants from those countries, might – through a combination of intention and chance – find themselves arrayed in battle against the Axis.  This circumstance, a melding of civil obligation, moral responsibility, idealism, motivated by a personal sense of justice, was deeply symbolic aspect of Jewish military service during the Second World War. 

For the United States, a perusal of both the Jewish press and the general news media from 1942 through 1945 reveals occasional articles – and inevitably, casualty notices – covering such servicemen.  Such news items called specific attention to the circumstances behind a soldier’s arrival in the United States, and often extended to accounts of his family’s pre-war life in Germany or Austria.  This was not limited to the American news media.  The Jewish Chronicle of England was replete with articles covering the military service of Jewish refugee soldiers in the armed forces of England and British Commonwealth countries, including – before Israel’s re-establishment in 1948 – British military units comprised of personnel (often refugees) from the pre-State Yishuv. 

In the American news media, a striking example of one such news items appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on June 13, 1943.

GERMAN REFUGEE MISSING IN ACTION

A 22-year-old German refugee who fled his native Leipzig in 1935 to escape Nazi persecution is one of four Philadelphians reported last night by the War Department as missing in action.

He is Corporal Maurice Derfler, of 1601 Ruscomb St., worker in a Philadelphia clothing factory before he entered the Army Air Forces on March 28, 1942.

WROTE TO FIANCEE

Derfler has been missing since May 19, just five days after his fiancée, Mildred Roush, 19, of 4813 N. Franklin St., received a letter from him, stating that he was “going on a dangerous mission” but felt sure that he would return.  For, he explained, he was looking forward to his furlough next September, when he and Miss Roush would be married.

The next message was the War Department communication, which Abraham Roush, prospective father-in-law of the soldier, received on May 29.  The message stated that Derfler, a radio operator in a Consolidated Liberator bomber, had failed to return from a mission.

FIANCEE CONFIDENT

Miss Roush, who is confident that Derfler will return, “and I still will be waiting,” could tell little of her fiancee’s flight from his native Germany.  “He didn’t like to talk about it.  It must have been an ordeal for him.  He keeps it as his secret.”

Derfler, Miss Roush recalled, arrived in Philadelphia with a group of other refugees.  His one desire was to get into the American forces for a “crack at the Germans.”  He was naturalized in September of 1941 and the following March entered the service.  Ironically, the Air Forces sent him into the Pacific area.

Corporal Derfler served as a radio operator in the 400th Bomb Squadron of the 90th (“Jolly Rogers”) Bomb Group of the 5th Air Force.  His aircraft, a B-24D Liberator (serial number 41-29269) piloted by 1 Lt. Donald L. Almond, was conducting a solo daylight reconnaissance mission along the eastern coast of New Guinea.  It was intercepted by five Japanese pilots of the 24th Sentai, who were flying Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (Japanese for “Peregrine Falcon”; Allied code-name “Oscar”) fighter planes.  One of these aviators, Sergeant Hikoto Sato, was killed during the engagement when his fighter rammed the B-24.     

As the aerial engagement began, the B-24 radioed a message – likely transmitted by Corporal Derfler himself – that it was under attack by Japanese fighters. 

Five minutes later, another radio message reported that the plane was going down. 

No trace of the plane or crew – presumed to have crashed near Karkar Island, off the northeastern coast of New Guinea – has ever been found. 

The names of the B-24’s ten crewmen are commemorated at the Tablets of the Missing at the Manila American Cemetery, in the Philippines.  

Corporal Derfler (serial number 33157713) received the Air Medal and Purple Heart.  In 1943, he was mentioned in The American Hebrew (August 20), the Chicago Jewish Chronicle (August 27), and The Jewish Times (Delaware County, Pennsylvania) (September 3). 

Initially assigned to the famed 44th (“Flying Eightballs”) Bomb Group – which, ironically, flew bombing missions against Germany – Cpl. Derfler was the only member of his family to have escaped from Germany. 

______________________________

In terms of detailed information about the military service of German-Jewish refugees in the armed forces of the Allies – in general – and United States in particular, one publication stands out:  Aufbau, or in translation, “Construction”, or “Building Up”.  Published between 1934 and 2004, the newspaper was founded by the German-Jewish Club, later re-named the “New World Club”.  Originally intended as a monthly newsletter for the club, the periodical changed markedly when Manfred George was nominated as editor in 1939.  George transformed the publication to one of the leading anti-Nazi periodicals of the German Exile Press (Exilpresse) Group, increasing its circulation from 8,000 to 40,000.  According to the description of Aufbau at Archiv.org (and as can be solidly verified from perusal of its contents), writings of many well-known personalities appeared in its pages.  (Three names among many: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, and Stefan Zweig.)  According to Wikipedia, after having been published in New York City through 2004, the periodical subsequently began publishing in Zurich.  However, the given link (http://www.aufbauonline.com/) seems to be inoperative. 

A catalog record for Aufbau – and 29 other periodicals comprising German Exile Press publications can, appropriately, be found at the website of the German National Library – Deutsch National Bibliothek. A screen-shot of the catalag record for Aufbau is shown below:

When the Aufbau was reviewed in 2010, it could be accessed directly through the DNB’s website.  However, by now – 2017 – it seems to be only available through archive.org.  This is the first page of Archive.org catalog record for the publication:

And, here is the second:

Unlike the DNB website, which (as I recall?…) allowed access and viewing of the publication on an extraordinarily useful issue-by-issue and even page-by-page basis, users accessing Aufbau at Archive.org cannot view the periodical at such a fine level of informational ”clarity”.  (Despite being able to scroll through and view volumation and numbering of all issues in Archive.org’s “View EAD” window.)  Rather, once a hyperlink for any issue is selected, the entire content for that year is then displayed in a new window as a single file – and that year’s full content is also downloaded as a single PDF, or in other formats.

The image below shows issue records for Aufbau as they appear at the Archive.org catalog record.  (The format of this information is representative of, and identical to, issue records for all other years of publication.) 

And…  This image shows the interface for 1942 issues of Aufbau, by which the publication – encompassing that entire year – can be viewed online, or downloaded.  Other years of publication are displayed in a similar manner. 

PDF file sizes for wartime editions of Aufbau are:

1941 (Volume 7): 453 MB
1942 (Volume 8): 566 MB
1943 (Volume 9): 513 MB
1944 (Volume 10): 530 MB
1945 (Volume 11): 353 MB

Published on a weekly basis, Aufbau provides overlapping windows upon American Jewry, German Jewry (particularly of course, those Jews fortunate enough to have escaped from Germany), and world Jewry, through its coverage of political, social, and intellectual developments of the late 1930s and early 1940s.  News covered by the publication pertained to all facets of life, “in general”: current events; literary, cultural, cinematic, theatrical, and social news; and, innumerable essays and opinion pieces. 

Intriguingly, the paper’s news coverage and editorial content – at least encompassing 1939 through 1946 – suggests intertwining, competing, and parallel aspects of thought that have persisted since the halting beginnings of Jewish “emancipation” only a few centuries ago:  One one hand, a staunch and unapologetic emphasis on Jewish identity and Zionism.  On the other, the subsuming of Jewish identity within a wider world of (ostensibly) democratic universalism. 

(Ah, but I digress.  That is another long, and continuing story…) 

Back, to the topic at hand…

Though Aufbau’s central focus was not Jewish military service as such, the newspaper nonetheless serves as a tremendously rich repository of information – genealogical; biographical; historical – about the experiences of Jewish soldiers during the Second World War.  In that sense, news items in Aufbau relevant to Jewish military service falls into these general themes: 

1) Lists of awards and honors;
2) News about and accounts of military service by American Jewish soldiers; similarly-themed news items about military service of Jews in other Allied nations (the Soviet Union, British Commonwealth countries, France, and Poland);
3) Detailed biographies of soldiers wounded, killed, and missing in action;
4) The campaign for the establishment of some form of autonomous Jewish fighting force;
5) The activities of the Jewish Brigade Group;
6) The military service of Jews from the Yishuv in the armed forces of Britain and other Commonwealth nations;
7) Zionism – the drive to re-establish a Jewish nation-state. 

These items are often accompanied by photographs of the specific servicemen in question, or, thematically relevant illustrations.  Of course, given the origin and ethos of Aufbau, from editor to publisher; from correspondents to stringers to contributors; in its coverage of Jewish military service, the newspaper placed great – if not central – emphasis, on Jewish soldiers whose families originated in Germany, and who were fortunate enough to have found citizenship in the United States.

The following five categories of articles in Aufbau are immediately relevant to the seven “themes” listed above:

1) The Struggle for a Jewish Army – 139 articles
2) Jews of the Yishuv at War – 33 articles
3) Jewish Prisoners of War – 10 articles
4) Jewish Military Casualties – 132 articles
5) The Jewish Brigade – 37 articles
6) Photographs (primarily of soldiers, yet including other subjects) – 252

…while the following three categories of items, though not directly related to Jewish WW II military service, are very relevant to the “tenor of the times”…

1) antisemitism / Judeophobia – 20 articles
2) Random News Items About the Second World War – 31 articles
3) Acculturation and Assimilation – 48 articles

______________________________

As examples of such news items in Aufbau – yet more than mere examples; to bestow symbolic tribute upon the many German-Jewish soldiers who served in the Allied armed forces – news items about two WW II German-Jewish soldiers (Army Air Force S/Sgt. Heinz H. Thannhauser and Army PFC George E. Rosing) follow. 

Aufbau’s biography of S/Sgt. Thannhauser is quite detailed, probably due to his family’s prominence in the German-Jewish immigrant community, and, the world of art   Even before he entered the Army Air Force, Heinz’s background and accomplishments portended a remarkable future, if only his bomber had taken a slightly different course before before a Sardinian sunrise on August 15, 1944…

Heinz was the son of Justin K. (5/7/82-12/26/76) and Kate (Levi) (5/24/94-1959) Thannhauser, grandson of Heinrich Thannhauser, and the lineal descendant of Baruch Loeb Thannhauser, his father and grandfather originally having been residents of Munich, where – as art dealers – they owned the Thannhauser Galleries, specializing in Modernist art.  Justin moved to Paris in 1937 with his family to escape the Third Reich, and after the outbreak of the Second World War, to Switzerland.  They fled to the United States in 1941, establishing themselves in New York City, where Justin opened a private gallery, the initial core of which comprised a number of works that he had managed to bring with him to America. 

Due to Heinz’s death, and the doubly tragic passing of his only other child Michel in 1952, Justin cancelled plans to open a public gallery.  He remained a resident of New York until 1971, operating his gallery, collecting art, and assisting museums and galleries with exhibitions and acquisitions.  In recognition and honor of his sons and their late mother Kate – as well as his support of artistic progress – Justin’s collection was bequeathed to the Guggenheim Museum in 1963.  Due to the scope, size, and centrality of the collection, the Guggenheim established the Thannhauser Wing in 1965, where the original components of the collection, as well as additional works, are now on display. 

Justin passed away in 1976, his only survivor having been his second wife, Hilde.  Here is is obituary, as published in The New York Times on December 31, 1976.

Justin Thannhauser Dead at 84; Dealer in Art’s Modern Masters

December 31, 1976

GSTAAD, Switzerland, Dec. 30 (AP) —Justin Thannhauser, a German‐born United States art dealer whose landmark exhibitions spread the fame of modern masters such as Pablo Picasso, Edvard Munch and Paul Klee, died here last Sunday, a personal friend said today. He was 84 years old.

A Swiss journalist, Gaudenz Baumann, said Mr. Thannhauser suffered a heart attack in his hotel room last Friday. He was buried in Bern today.

Mr. Thannhauser’s five galleries in Gerbieny, Switzerland, France and the United States handled some of the best work of the 20th‐century masters.

He turned the Munich art gallery that his father founded in 1904 into a focal point for Mr. Munch and other Die Bruecke group expressionists, Klee, Vassily Kandinsky and Franz Marc.

Collection Seized

Mr. Thannhauser branched out to Lucerne from 1919 to 1939 and opened Galerie Thannhauser, his biggest gallery, in Berlin, in 1927.

During a 1937 Swiss visit, the Jewish dealer’s Berlin collection was seized by the Nazi regime. He was forced to reestablish himself in Paris, only to lose another collection to the Nazis during the World War II German invasion of France.

Mr. Thannhauser fled to New York in 1941 and started collecting from scratch. Among many works he donated to art museums, 75 paintings including valuable French Impressionist works are on display in the Thannhauser wing of the Guggenheim Museum in New York City.

It was in the “Moderne Gallerie” that Mr. Thannhauser ran in Munich from 1909 to 1928 that Marc and Kandinsky first met and in 1911, founded the group of artists named Der Blaue Reiter – the blue rider – after a famous Kandinsky painting.

The first major exhibitions by Picasso and Marc were held there in 1909. Mr. Thannhauser retained his links with Picasso and was one of the few visitors with regular access to the Spanish painter before he died in 1973 in his cloistered home in France.

The Moderne Gallerie staged the first Klee display in 1911 and the same year, helped fix Blaue Reither group’s place in modern art history with a pioneering exhibition.

Mr. Thannhauser left the United States in 1971 to retire in Switzerland, dividing his time between his Bern home and Gstaad.

His only surviving close relative is his second wife, Hilde, 56. A son from former marriage was killed in the crash of a United States bomber in the south of France during the 1944 Allied invasion.

______________________________

A radio operator in the 441st Bomb Squadron of the 320th Bomb Group (12th Air Force), Heinz and his seven fellow crewmen were killed when their B-26C Marauder (serial 42-107711, squadron number “02”, nicknamed “Becky” [Update, March, 2024 … see correction about aircraft identification in next paragraph…] crashed during take-off from Decimomannu, Sardinia, on August 15, 1944.  The plane flew directly into the side of Monte Azza, 2 kilometers from the town of Serrenti, in the pre-dawn darkness.  The aircraft had been one of 34 B-26s dispatched to bomb a beach at Baie de Cavalaire (north of Saint Tropaz), France.  As revealed in the 320th Bomb Group’s report of that mission, one other B-26s was lost on take-off, fortunately with all crewmen surviving.    

Heinz’s name would appear in an official casualty list published in October 21, 1944,

______________________________

The illustration below, from Victor Tannehill’s Boomerang! – Story of the 320th Bombardment Group, shows what I believe is “the” actual Becky: 42-107711.  The circular emblem just behind the bombardier’s position is the insignia of the 441st Bomb Squadron, while rows of bomb symbols painted to the right of the plane’s nickname denote sorties against the enemy.  [Update…  Based on information from Russ Czaplewski, this aircraft isn’t 42-107711, a B-26C-45-MO.  It’s actually 42-96119,  a B-26B-55-MA.  Being that there is neither a Missing Air Crew Report nor an Accident Report for this aircraft, I would assume that the latter plane survived the war and was returned to the United States for reclamation by the RFC.]

______________________________

This image, from Vintage Leather Jackets, shows a beautiful original example of a 441st Bomb Squadron uniform patch, which would have adorned the flying jacket of many a 441st BS airman.  The Latin expression “Finis Origine Pendet”, superimposed on a B-26 Marauder, means “The Beginning of the End”. 

______________________________

Here is the 320th Bomb Group’s Mission Report covering the mission of August 15, 1944.  Becky’s [42-107711’s] crew is listed at the bottom. 

______________________________

Most of the Mission Report is comprised of crew lists for the B-26s assigned to the mission, the page below covering six aircraft of the 441st Bomb Squadron.  Lieutenant Trunk’s plane and crew are listed second, with the notation “Crashed after T/O written alongside. 

______________________________

As stated in the concluding paragraph of the Missing Air Crew Report covering Becky (MACR 7300), “He [1 Lt. Paul E Trunk, the plane’s pilot] made no attempt to contact us by radio so further attempts to ascertain the exact cause would only be conjecture.  In our opinion the actual cause of the accident cannot be ascertained.” 

Here is the first page of the Missing Air Crew Report for the loss of Becky [42-107711], with five of the plane’s crew listed at bottom… 

______________________________

…while this is the second page, listing Sergeants Bratton and Winters, with Captain Brouchard, as a passenger, at the end.

______________________________

This page lists the home addresses and next of kin of the crew.

______________________________

Lt. Trunk, from Shippenville, Pennsylvania, is buried in Arlington National Cemetery (Section 12, Grave 4836).  Lt. Rolland L. Mitchell, the plane’s co-pilot, from Thomson, Illinois, is buried at Lower York Cemetery, in that city.  T/Sgt. William C. Barron, the flight engineer, from Los Angeles, is buried at the Sicily-Rome American Cemetery and Memorial, at Nettuno, Italy.

The remaining five crewmen – Heinz (army serial number 31296512), S/Sgt. Harmon R. Summers (bombardier), S/Sgts. Charles T. Bratton (aerial gunner) and William M. Winters (photographer), with Capt. Wallace M. Brouchard (the Executive Officer of the 441st, who “went along for the ride”) – were buried on March 18, 1949 at – as you can see from the proceeding links – Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis, in collective grave 90-92.

This picture, of the collective grave marker of the above-listed crewmen, is by FindAGrave contributor Erik Kreft

______________________________

Exactly one month after Heinz was killed, a tribute to him appeared in Aufbau. 

Für die Freiheit gefallen

HEINZ THANNHAUSER

Aufbau
September 15, 1944

Ein wunderbar erfülltes junges Leben hat ein jähes Ende genommen. “Heinz Thannhauser, Staff Sgt. of the U. S. Army Air Force, killed in action over Sardinia, August 15, 1944.”

Fünfundzwanzig Jahre alt. Ein Liebling der Götter und der Menschen. Glücklichste Jugend im schönsten, wärmsten Elternhaus. Begeistert Amerika liebend und überall hier Gegenliebe findend. Ungewöhnlich begabt, ungewöhnlich reif. Mit sechzehn Jahren — statt der erforderten achtzehn — war er in Cambridge zum Studium zugelassen worden — eine beispiellose Ausnahme in der traditionsgebundenen englischen Universität. In Harvard macht er seinen Doctor of Art. Mit 22 Jahren wird er Instructing Professor an der Universität Tulane, New Orleans.

Lehren ist seine Leidenschaft. Er versteht es, wie wenig andere, die Begeisterung seiner Schuler zu wecken. Nicht nur für die Kunst, zu der er von Kindheit auf die Liebe im Elternhause eingesogen hatte. Er wirbt und wirkt für das, was nur als das Höchste ansicht: für das Ideal demokratischer Freiheit. Er gründet Jugendklubs, hält Reden, schreibt Aufsehen erregende Aufsatze — er reisst die anderen durch seine starke Empfindung mit. Und durch den wunderbaren Sense of humor, den er mit seiner scharfen Beobachtungsgabe verbindet.

Aber in diesem lebensschäumenden, von Schönheit und Frohsinn erfüllten Menschen steckt ein glühender Hass gegen die brutalen Gewalten, die den Untergang Europas herbeigeführt haben. Und eine ganze Welt schwer bedrohen.  Als der Krieg hier ausbricht, meldet er sich sofort freiwillig.

Im Februar 1943 verlässt Heinz Thannhauser Amerika auf seinem Bombenflugzeug. Von nun an kommen Briefe, Briefe, Briefe. Es sind nicht nur Schätze für seine Eltern. Es sind Dokumente der Zeit und Dokumente schönster Menschlichkeit. Er kennt keine Trägheit des Herzens. Er ist ein Kämpfer aus Leidenschaft — vom ersten bis zum letzten Tag. Heinz Thannhauser glaubt glühend an die gerechte Sache, die er vertritt. Wie eine Beschwörung kehrt der Satz wieder:

“Ihr musst alles tun, was in Eurer [not legible] steht um zu verhindern, dass es jemals wieder einen solchen Krieg gibt.. nicht mit Phrasen – – mit Taten…”

Er selbst leistet einen Schwur, sein Leben lang dafür zu kämpfen.

Ein Bericht aus Rom, wo er drei selige Urlaubstage verbringt, klingt wie eine Fanfare. Er ist in einem Glückstaumel. Seitenlang schildert er Details einiger Gestalten am Plafond der sixtinischen Kapelle — zum erstenmal sieht er im Original die Meisterwerke, über die er gelehrt und geschrieben hat. Er ist wie betrunken von so viel Schönheit. Aber gleich danach:

“Trotz allem, es ist wichtiger, das Leben eines einzigen unschuudigen Geisel zu retten, als das schonste alte Kunstwerk…”

In einem seiner letzten Briefe schildert er die Erregung, die mit jedem Flug verbunden ist. (Er hatte 37 Missions hinter sich…):

“…The sober anticipation before a mission. The terrible feeling of going time after time through heavy flak without being able to do anything except sit and hope for the best.  The real exultation of seeing your bombs hit the target – huge flames coming up and smoke as high as you are flying.  The relief and joy at seeing your field again, like home indeed!  Also – losing your friends – empty beds, guys who, the night before, were talking of what names to give their children and so on…  And I share his horror of war and determination that it must never happen again…”

Heinz Thannhauser hat ein Testament hinterlassen. Er vermacht alles, was er besitzt, dem “American Youth Movement for a Free World”.

– A. D.

______________________________

Fallen For Freedom

HEINZ THANNHAUSER

Aufbau
September 15, 1944

A wonderfully fulfilling young life took an abrupt end.  “Heinz Thannhauser, Staff Sgt. of the U.S. Army Air Force, killed in action over Sardinia, August 15, 1944.”

Twenty-five years old.  A favorite of God and mankind.  The happiest youth in the most beautiful, warmest home.  Enthusiastic, America loving and everywhere here finding requited love.  Unusually gifted; unusually mature.  At sixteen years – instead of the required eighteen – he had been admitted to Cambridge to study – an unprecedented exception to the tradition-bound English university.  At Harvard he makes his Doctor of Art.  At 22 he is an instructing professor at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Teaching is his passion.  He understands how little others awaken the passion of his students.  Not only for art, which from childhood he had imbibed to love in his parents’ home.  He promotes and acts only for what is the highest opinion: For the ideal of democratic freedom.  He founds youth clubs, gives speeches, writes sensational essays – he pulls others with his strong feelings.  And through a wonderful sense of humor, which he combines with his keen powers of observation.

But in this tumultuous beauty and joy, there is an ardent hatred against the brutal forces which have led to the downfall of Europe.  And heavily threaten the whole world.  When the war broke out, he immediately volunteered.

In February 1943, Heinz Thannhauser left America on his bomber aircraft.  From now on arrive letters, letters, letters.  They’re not just treasures for his parents.  They are documents of time and documents of the most beautiful humanity.  He knows no indolence of the heart.  He is a fighter of passion – from the first to the last day.  Heinz Thannhauser glowingly believes in the just cause he represents.  Like an incantation, the sentence repeats:

“You have to do everything that is in your [power] to prevent that there is ever such a war again … not with phrases – – with deeds …”

He himself makes an oath, to fight for this all his life.

A report from Rome, where he spends three blissful holidays, sounds like a fanfare.  He is in a stroke of luck.  For pages on end he describes details of some figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel – the first time he sees the original masterpieces, about which he has taught and written.  He is intoxicated with so much beauty.  But immediately afterwards:

“In spite of all this, it is more important to save the life of a single innocent hostage than the most beautiful old work of art …”

In one of his last letters, he described the excitement that is associated with each flight.  (He had 37 missions behind himself…):

“… The sober anticipation before a mission.  The terrible feeling of going through heavy flak time after time without being able to do anything except sit and hope for the best.  The real exultation of seeing your bombs hit the target – huge flames coming up and smoke as high as you are flying.  The relief and joy at seeing your field again, like home indeed!  So – losing your friends – empty beds, guys who, the night before, were talking of what names to give their children and so on…  And I share his horror of war and determination did it must never happen again… “

Heinz Thannhauser made a will.  He bequeathed everything he owned, to the “American Youth Movement for a Free World”.

– A.D.

While the Aufbau article touched upon the depth of Heinz’s education and ambitions, his life was chronicled in much greater detail in College Art Journal in 1945 (Volume 4, Issue 2) in the form of a biography by “H.R.H.”:

On August 15, 1944, Sgt. Heinz H. Thannhauser was killed in action while in service of his country as radio operator and gunner on a Marauder Bomber in the Mediterranean theatre.  His parents have recently been notified that Heinz was awarded posthumously the Purple Heart.

He was born in Bavaria on September 28, 1918.  The son of the well known Berlin and Paris art dealer, Justin K. Thannhauser, Heinz had a unique opportunity of becoming acquainted with the works of modern artists at an early age.  He received his primary and secondary education at the College Francais in Berlin and later in Paris at the Sorbonne.  He then attended Cambridge University. England, and took his B.A, degree in 1938.  In that year he came to this country at the age of twenty, and was holder of the Sachs fellowship at Harvard University.  During his two years at Harvard, he specialized in the history of modern art and obtained the A.M. degree in 1941.  At the Fogg his brilliant and active mind and his warm enthusiasms won Heinz the respect and the friendship of his fellow students and teachers.  In the fall of 1941, he accepted an instructorship under Professor Robin Feild at Newcomb College of Tulane University.  He was a collaborator of the ART JOURNAL where he published in March 1943 an article describing a project for collaboration between art and drama departments.  He had planned during the summer of 1943 to begin work on his doctoral dissertation, but in February he entered the Army.

Heinz had shown much promise as a young teacher and scholar in the field of art history and his loss will be keenly felt.

H.R.H.

In January 1945, the College Art Journal published another tribute to Heinz, in the form of a transcript of a letter sent to his parents in 1944.  Under the title “Furlough in Rome”, the article is an extraordinarily vivid, detailed, yet light-hearted account of a tour of artistic works among churches in that city, this letter having been alluded to in the above Aufbau article. 

FURLOUGH IN ROME
BY HEINZ H. THANNHAUSER

Excerpts from a letter written to his parents during the summer of 1944 after a visit to Rome

THAT morning we went to S. Luigi dei Francesi, to look at the Caravaggio pictures; but there was a big mass and celebration there by French troops of the 5th Army, so we didn’t see them.  The French came out later in a parade reminiscent of some I’ve seen in Paris, with turbaned troops and all (only their uniforms, except for headgear, are always American) – we took a picture or two of them.  Next, we went to the Sapienza and got into the courtyard and looked at St. Ivo; unfortunately, the inside was closed, you can see it only on days when mass is held for the laureates.  But we looked at the facade for quite a while, and after this visit to Rome I have even more respect for Borromini than I had by studying him formerly.  From there we went to S. Agnese in Piazza Navona, and had a good look at the Four Rivers Fountain too, which really is a pretty daring tour de force on old Bernini’s part.  The veil of the Nile is quite something.  All in all this visit to Rome has increased my respect for the technical courage and perfection of the Baroque masters if for nothing else in their work.  Next, S. Andrea della Valle, which quite apart from its design was amazing as being the first example of Baroque cupola and ceiling decoration I’d seen – the Lanfranco dome not being, perhaps, as terrific as some of them, but quite an introduction!  Then the Palazzo Farnese, which is now a French headquarters building.  After asking some Sudanese guards for directions, we groped our way up and finally a maid showed us into the Galleria, which was just being cleaned up – what a thrill!   A lot of super-moderns despise the Carracci as coldly academic and what-not, but when you see an ensemble like this, which so perfectly fulfills its purpose, your hat goes off to them.  The freshness of the color is amazing, and both the figures and the entire composition are pure delight.  Especially as a little breather after too many visits to the dark and serious churches – although I understand the fracas caused by cardinals having sexy things like that painted in their home!  The other rooms were astounding too, with the woodwork ceilings, etc.  I need hardly say how impressed I was with the facade in Rome, however, you get so, that the only thing you notice is a façade that is not perfect, the perfect ones being so common!  Next, S. Mariain Vallicella, with another terrific ceiling, and the Rubens altar piece with the angels holding up the picture of the Virgin that the gambler is said to have stoned when it was at S. Mariadella Pace, whereupon real blood came from it.

The next day we went to Santa Susanna and then to S. Maria della Vittoria, but unfortunately the Bernini Ecstacy of St. Theresa has been walled in for protection, like so many other things.  The figures of the onlooking Cornaro family in the two side boxes are still visible, though.  Then we went up to see S. Carloalle Quattro Fontane, which is just about the most amazing of Borromini’s tours de force.  We couldn’t get into the cloister but we looked for quite a long time at the amazing amount of movement and undulation he got into so small a facade at such a narrow corner.  We tried to take pictures of it but will have to splice two together, there wasn’t enough backing room. 

From there it was just a little way to Sta. Maria Maggiore, which I had especially wanted to see, after that unending paper I wrote for Koehler on the mosaics there.  I was afraid they’d probably have them walled up like most of the apsidial mosaics in Rome, but lo and behold, they were all there in their full freshness!  It was one of the most terrific artistic impressions I got on our stay in Rome.  I had not expected anything like the strength of color that remains just gleaming out at you, – especially so, of course, in the case of the Torriti work but amazingly bright too with the old mosaics.  We walked round the whole church looking at the mall: the walls of Jericho falling down, God’s hand throwing stones down on the enemy, Lot’s wife turning to salt, the passage over the Red Sea, etc.  I really was happy we had been able to get into Sta. Maria Maggiore. 

We had planned to go back via the Thermae of Trajan, but it got too late for that, and at S. Pietro in Vincoli, we heard that Michelangelo’s Moses was all covered up, so we didn’t bother.  Instead, we dropped into San Clemente, where so many great painters have worshipped in Masaccio’s chapel.  Father McSweeney (it’s a church given to the Irish in Rome), who took us around, remarked, “He was quite a big noise in those days, as you would say!”  First I asked him in Italian how to get to the subterranean church, and he answered in Italian and then said “Ye don’t speak much English, do ye?” which was very funny.  He proved to be an unusually interesting person, with the most intimate knowledge of art history and styles and so forth as well as all matters pertaining to his church and a lively interest in the war, discussing bombing formations and everything else.  He is completely in love with Rome and said there was no place like it to live in, and that he hoped after the war we would all three come to stay and live there!  The mosaics, as usual, were covered over, but we had plenty of time to study all the details of the Masaccio and Masolino works, and then went down to the old church below, with the Mithraic statue and the other amazing things.  He showed us where the house of Clemens was, and pointed out the usual anecdotic details of the Cicerone with an ever so slight but delightful note of amusement in his voice, placing them where they belong: for instance, with the Aqua Mysteriosa, “because nobody knows where it comes from” he said, as if he meant to say, “and why should anybody give a damn, either?”  All in all, on account of the Masolino chapel, the church itself, the subterranean part with its amazing fragments of early painting, and last but not least Father McSweeney’s delightful and enlightened manner, this was one of our most memorable visits in Rome. 

We hailed a horse carriage and went straight to St. Peter’s.  As Paul and I had already studied it pretty thoroughly the time before, we just glanced into give our friend a look at it, and then went straight to the Sistine Chapel.  Well, there just aren’t any words to tell how overwhelming it was.  Here I’d written a paper, God knows how long, about the Prophets and Sibyls and the interrelation of figures on the ceiling, but I hadn’t known a damned thing about the ceiling.  It is so unbelievably powerful that you can’t say anything.  I kept looking, irresistibly, at the Jonah, which epitomizes tome the whole of Michelangelo’s life and torture, and really is, in the last analysis, the culmination and cornerstone to the whole ceiling.  What a piece of painting – what a piece of poetry, or philosophy, or emotional outburst, a whole age expressed in one movement of a body!  The way in which everything including the Prophets and Sibyls and Atlantes builds up from the relatively quiet figures in the chronologically later pieces (Biblically speaking) to the storm that sweeps through the early Genesis scenes and the figures around them, is inexpressible in words, Romain Rolland’s or anyone’s.  As for sheer perfection of painting, the Creation of Adam just can’t be beat.  And say what you will, no photographs, detail enlargements of the most skillful kind, can ever do what the things themselves do to you, especially in the context from which you can’t separate them.  The Last Judgment is almost an anticlimax against it; and as for the Ghirlandaios, etc., you just can’t get yourself to look at them because something immediately pulls your eye up high again.  And when has there ever been a man to do so much to your sense of form with such modest and restrained use of color?  You begin to wonder why Rubens ever needed all that richness when a guy like this can sweep you off your feet with just a few tints of rose and light blue and yellow – but where the tints are put, oh boy!  Well, it’s all written up in all the books, but I just have to put down what it did to me.  – Mediterranean Theatre

Finally, an excellent representative image of B-26 Marauders of the 441st Bomb Squadron in formation, somewhere in the Meditarreanean Theater of War.  Notice that the aircraft in this photo comprise both camouflaged (olive drab / neutral gray) and “silver” (that is, uncamouflaged) aircraft.  The image is from the National Museum of the Air Force.     

______________________________

______________________________

Stephen Ambrose’s 1998 book The Victors included recollections of the experiences of Cpl. James Pemberton, a squad leader in the United States Army’s 103rd Infantry Division, covering combat with German forces in late 1944.  Pemberton mentioned the death in battle of a German-speaking Jewish infantryman, who was killed while attempting – in his native language – to persuade a group of German soldiers to surrender. 

The fact that the soldier remained anonymous lent the story a haunting note, for that man’s name deserved to be remembered. 

Aufbau revealed his identity.  He was Private First Class George E. Rosing. 

Born in Krefeld, Germany, he arrived in the United States on a Kindertransport in 1937.  As revealed in the newspaper in September of 1945 (and verified through official documents) he received the Silver Star by audaciously using his fluency in German to enable the advance of his battalion in late November of 1944. 

The Victors – Eisenhower and His Boys: The Men of World War II

Stephen E. Ambrose
1998

That same day Cpl. James Pemberton, a 1942 high school graduate who went into ASTP and then to the 103rd Division as a replacement, was also following a tank.  “My guys started wandering and drifting a bit, and I yelled at them to get in the tank tracks to avoid the mines.  They did and we followed.  The tank was rolling over Schu [anti-personnel] mines like crazy.  I could see them popping left and right like popcorn.”  Pemberton had an eighteen-year-old replacement in the squad; he told him to hop up and ride on the tank, thinking he would be out of the way up there.  An 88 fired.  The replacement fell off.  The tank went into reverse and backed over him, crushing him from the waist down.  “There was one scream, and some mortars hit the Kraut 88 and our tank went forward again.  To me, it was one of the worst things I went through.  This poor bastard had graduated from high school in June, was drafted, took basic training, shipped overseas, had thirty seconds of combat, and was killed.”

Pemberton’s unit kept advancing.  “The Krauts always shot up all their ammo and then surrendered,” he remembered.  Hoping to avoid such nonsense, in one village the CO sent a Jewish private who spoke German forward with a white flag, calling out to the German boys to surrender.  “They shot him up so bad that after it was over the medics had to slide a blanket under his body to take him away.”  Then the Germans started waving their own white flag.  Single file, eight of them emerged from a building, hands up.  “They were very cocky.  They were about 20 feet from me when I saw the leader suddenly realize he still had a pistol in his shoulder holster.  He reached into his jacket with two fingers to pull it out and throw it away.

“One of our guys yelled, ‘Watch it!  He’s got a gun!’ and came running up shooting and there were eight Krauts on the ground shot up but not dead.  They wanted water but no one gave them any.  I never felt bad about it although I’m sure civilians would be horrified.  But these guys asked for it.  If we had not been so tired and frustrated and keyed up and mad about our boys they shot up, it never would have happened.  But a lot of things happen in war and both sides know the penalties.”

Aufbau’s tribute to PFC Rosing appeared nineteen days after the end of the Second World War. 

Pfc. George E. Rosing

Aufbau
September 21, 1945

Der fruhere Gert Rozenzweig aus Krefeld, zuletzt Cincinnati, O., ist am 1. Dezember 1944 beim Vormarsch auf Schlettstadt im Elsaas im Alter von 21 Jahren gefallen.  Er wurde jetzt posthum mit dem Silver Star, der dritthöchsten Auszeichnung der amerikanishen Armee, geehrt.  – Es war am 24. November 1944, als die Spitze seines Bataillons in der Nähe von Lubine in Frankreich auf eine unerwartete feindliche Block-Stellung stiess, die die Strasse versperrte.  Unter Lebensgefahr trat Pfc. Rosing vor und begann, den feindlichen Wachposten auf deutch ins Gespräch zu ziehen.  Auf dessen Befehl legte er die Waffen nieder ung ging bis zu zehn Meter an den Wachposten heran.  Damit gab er seinen Kameraden Gelegenheit, Deckung zu suchen und den Angriff vorzubereiten.  Der Wachposten war uberrascht.  Bevor er sich aber der Situation bewusst wurde und Alarm geben konnte, gelang es der amerikanischen Truppe, durch die Stellung durchzustossen. – Pfc. Rosing kam 1937 mit einen Kindertransport nach Amerika; 1942 nachdem er gerade ein Jahr am College of Engineering an der Universität Cincinnati studiert hatte, trat er in die Armee ein.

The former Gert Rozenzweig from Krefeld, most recently of Cincinnati, Ohio, fell on 1 December 1944 on the way to Schlettstadt in Elsaas at the age of 21 years.  He has now been posthumously honored with the Silver Star, the third highest honor of the American Army.  It was on November 24, 1944, when the head of his battalion encountered an unexpected enemy position blocking the road near Lubine in France.  Under mortal danger, Pfc. Rosing began to draw the enemy sentinel into conversation.  At his [the German sentinel’s] orders he laid down his weapons and went up to ten meters to the sentry.  He gave his comrades the opportunity to seek cover and prepare for the attack.  The sentry was surprised.  But before he [the German sentinel] became aware of the situation and could give the alarm, the American force managed to break through the position. – Pfc. Rosing came to America in 1937 with a children’s transport; in 1942, after just one year studying at the College of Engineering at Cincinnati University, he joined the army.

Aufbau, September 21, 1945, page 7: The story of George Rosing.

The account of PFC Rosing’s award of the Silver Star appears to have been derived from his “original” Silver Star citation, which can be found at the website of the 103rd Infantry Division Association.  The full citation reads as follows:

HEADQUARTERS 103d INFANTRY DIVISION
Office of the Commanding General

APO 470, U.S. Army
19 December 1944

GENERAL ORDERS)
                                  :
NUMBER –   75)

AWARD, POSTHUMOUS, OF SILVER STAR

Private First Class George E. Rosing, 35801894, Infantry, Company “C”, 409th Infantry Regiment.  For gallantry in action.  During the night of 24 November 1944, in the vicinity of *** France, Private Rosing was with the battalion point, acting as interpreter, when an enemy road block was encountered.  The point was cutting the surrounding barb wire entanglement around the road block when suddenly challenged.  Private Rosing, a brilliant conversationalist in the enemies [sic] language, immediately stepped forward, with utter disregard for his life, to engage the sentry in conversation.  He was ordered to drop his arms and advance to within 15 feet of the sentry, which he did.  This gallant move gave the point an opportunity to seek cover in the immediate area.  The guard stupefied by Private Rosing’s boldness was unaware of the situation confronting him.  Before the guard could regain his composure, Private Rosing, assured that his group had reached safety, dived for the bushes as the sentry opened fire, and returned to his comrades unscathed.  As a result of his quick thinking and calmness during a tense situation the battalion was able to pass through the enemy road block successfully in the push towards its objective.  Throughout this entire activity his display of magnificent courage reflects the highest traditions of the military service.  Residence:  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Next of kin:  Eugene Rosenzweig, (Father), 564 Glenwood Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio.

By command of Major General HAFFNER:

G.S. MELOY, JR.
Colonel, G.S.C.
Chief of Staff

Born on December 3, 1923, PFC Rosing (serial number 35801894) was the son of Eugene and Herta (Herz) Rosing.  The brother of Pvt. John Rosing, his name appeared in Aufbau on January 12 and September 21, 1945.  He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery, at Section 12, Grave 1574.  His matzeva appears below, in an image at BillionGraves.com taken by Liallee.

______________________________

Two men, among many.

______________________________

As part of my research about Jewish military service during the Second World War, I reviewed all issues of Aufbau published between 1939 and 1946 for articles relating to Jewish military service and identified pertinent news-items in the categories listed above.  (Whew.  It took a while…)  These will be presented in a future set of blog posts, with – where necessary – English-language translations accompanying the German-language article titles. 

I have not translated all, many, most, or even “a lot” of these articles; I leave that to the interested reader.  (!) 

Well, okay.

I’ve translated a certain select and compelling few, primarily concerning Jewish prisoners of war, and, the Jewish Brigade Group, which you may find of interest.

These will appear in the future.

______________________________

References

Maurice Derfler

B-24D 41-24269 (at Pacific Wrecks)

Aufbau

Aufbau (Digital), via Leo Baeck Institute (at Archive.org)

German Exile Journals, at German National Library (at Deutsche National Bibliothek)

German National Library Catalog Entry for “Aufbau”, at German National Library (at Deutsche National Bibliothek)

Aufbau (Wikipedia)

Aufbau (at Internet Archive)

German Exile Press (1933 – 1945) (Exilpresse digital – Deutschsprachige Exilzeitschriften 1933-1945) (Digital Exile Press – German Exile Magazines – 1933-1945)

Aufbau (at German Exile Press)

Aufbau (New York) at the Leo Baeck Institute

Leo Baeck Institute (at Wikipedia)

Leo Baeck Institute (New York)

Justin K. Thannhauser

Thannhauser Family (at Kitty Munson.com)

Thannhauser Family General Biography (at Wikipedia)

Justin K. Thannhauser and Guggenheim Museum (at Guggenheim Museum)

Thannhauser Collection (At Guggenheim Museum)

Thannhauser Collection (Book – At Guggenheim Museum)

Justin Thannhauser Obituary (The New York Times – 12/31/76) “Justin Thannhauser Dead at 84; Dealer in Art’s Modern Masters”

Uncle Heinrich and His Forgotten History (PDF Book) (by Sam Sherman)

Heinz H. Thannhauser

Für die Freiheit gefallen – Heinz Thannhauser (Article in Aufbau, at Archive.org)

Thannhauser, Heinz H – Biographical Profile at FindAGrave (at FindAGrave.com)

College Art Journal Volume 4, Issue 2, 1945 (Tribute to Heinz H. Thannhauser)

Furlough in Rome (Letter by Heinz H. Thannhauser in College Art Journal)

320th Bomb Group

320th Bomb Group Mission Reports (at 320th Bomb Group website (“When Gallantry was Commonplace”))

441st Bomb Squadron Insignia (at Vintage Leather Jackets)

Freeman, Roger A., Camouflage & Markings – United States Army Air Force 1937-1945, Ducimus Books Limited, London, England, 1974 (B-26 Marauder on pp. 25-48)

Tannehill, Victor C., Boomerang! – Story of the 320th Bombardment Group in World War II, Victor C. Tannehill, Racine, Wi., 1980. (Photo of “Becky” on page 115)

George E. Rosing

Ambrose, Stephen E., The Victors: Eisenhower and His Boys: The Men of WW II, Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y., 2004.

George E. Rosing Cemetery Record (at Billion Graves)

George E. Rosing Cemetery Record (at FindAGrave)

103rd Infantry Division (103rd Infantry Division WW II Association)

103rd Infantry Division Award List for December 19, 1944 (103rd Infantry Division WW II Association)

12/30/17 – 661

What’s So Funny?…  Thoughts from the Frontier: Curse of Jewish Comedians, by Henry Montor (Jewish Frontier, November, 1935)

“…they think that self-derision is the mark of the “good sport”.

                                                                  

On October 1, 2013, the Pew Research Center released the results of a telephone poll entitled “Portrait of Jewish Americans“.  The poll explored the identity of American Jews in terms of child rearing, intermarriage, denominational affiliation, attitudes about Israel, and, the personal and communal factors that comprise the “meaning” of being a Jew in the United States of the early 21st Century.  Comprising land-line and cellphone interviews of 3,475 persons, the poll was reported by Pew to have been the, “…most comprehensive national survey of the Jewish population since the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Survey,” the central criterion for inclusion in the survey being identification – or as it turned out the lack thereof for some 689 respondents! – with the Jewish people in terms of religious affiliation.

Several results emerged from the poll, the central take-away being – as displayed in a graph at Pew’s website – that “culture” (an ambiguous concept open to wide interpretation!) and familial or ethnic ancestry had – as opposed to religious affiliation and observance – by 2013 become the primary markers of Jewish identity, reflective of trends by then prevailing across much of American society, if not Western civilization as a whole.

In terms of, “What does being Jewish mean in America today?”, the central take-aways from the poll were:

1) Large majorities of U.S. Jews said that remembering the Holocaust (73%) and leading an ethical life (69%) are essential to their sense of Jewishness.
2) More than half (56%) said that working for justice and equality is essential to what being Jewish means to them.
3) And about four-in-ten said that caring about Israel (43%) and having a good sense of humor (42%) are essential to their Jewish identity.

I don’t know what such a survey would reveal of the opinions and American Jews now, well into the opening decades of the twenty-first century – and in the future – in the wake of Hamas’ slaughter of Jewish civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023; in the context of Israel’s war against that terrorist organization; amidst the global eruption of openly antiJewish rhetoric and calumny that’s transpired since October 7, and in a larger context, America’s post-January-20-2009 ongoing “fundamental transformation”.  (The ultimate results of the latter are not yet in, but thus far we have a solid indication of where things might be headed.  Then again, history hides its own surprises.)  But in terms of the survey itself, a specific result, that a good sense of humor had become central to the identity of American Jews – far, far (far) more than being part of a Jewish community, observing Jewish law (halacha), and keeping kosher – was, subsequent to the survey’s release, a point of particular notice and commentary.  

Well…

Sometimes in life there’s this thing called synchronicity…   

Roughly coincident with the poll’s release, during one of my many visits to the Dorot Jewish Division of the New York Public Library, while researching the Jewish Frontier (which has been the basis of many posts at this blog!) – without knowledge of its contents beforehand – I chanced across an opinion piece written 78 years before, which pertained to the topics of Jews, humor, and Jewish humor (should I put that in quotes, as per “Jew-Ish Humor?).  Written by Henry Montor and published in November of 1935, his essay, “Curse of Jewish Comedians”, discusses the nature and implications of tropes and visual stereotypes utilized by American Jewish comedians in vaudeville and popular culture during the 1930s (and by implication even earlier), and, the implications of this in terms of the collective perception of American Jews: By American society as a whole, and even more importantly (though not explicitly stated in the essay, the inference is obvious!) by the Jews of the United States themselves.  Montor specifically pointed to Lou Holtz and Harry Hershfield in this regard, to a minor degree adding to this not-so-august duo George Jessel, Milton Berle, and Al Jolson.  However, Montor does express praise for Jack Benny, (George) Burns and (Gracie) Allen, and another married comedic duo (never heard of them ’til I read the essay!), (Jessie) Block and (Eva) Sully

Given the – by the 1930s – waning of vaudeville and the simultaneous preeminence of radio, Montor closed on a note of optimism: 

“It is fortunate that vaudeville is dying.
It is also fortunate that radio is governed by rigid rules.
For otherwise,
the attempt to combat anti-Semitism in America
would be even more thoroughly hampered than it is
by Jews who think they are funny when they are merely being contemptible.”

When I read Montor’s essay in 2013 – even as I contemplate it now, in 2023 – it was impossible not to weigh its message in terms of what the Pew survey reported about the Jews of America, and, the nature and implications of the humor created by Jewish comedians – funnymen and funnywomen both – during the intervening decades and well into contemporary times.  Leaving aside the vehemence of Montor’s arguments, I solidly empathize with his underlying theme concerning the imperative of the Jewish people manifesting a sense of pride, whether in the America – the world – of the 1930s, or the world – the America – of the 2020s. 

But in a far larger sense, I can’t help wonder about the very association of Jews and humor; Jews and comedy; the assumption that a sense of humor is so central to and perhaps (perhaps…?) a part of Jewish identity.  About that, I wonder.  About that, I have long been a skeptic.

Does the association of Jews and comedy; the taken-for-granted belief about a sense of humor being an inherent and perennial part of the Jewish character, really reflect a continuing and inherent quality of the Jewish people?  Or, is the association of Jews and humor simply a passing coincidence of long duration that reflected the confluence of modern communications technology, the ascendancy of the mass media, and – at least during the past century, but not anymore – a homogenous popular culture?

I think so.  The explanation’s pretty straightforward. 

Given the perennial emphasis among the Jewish people of literacy, then in light of secularization, and, Jewish political emancipation (…more de facto than de jure? – time will tell!…) social and technical developments in the modern world enabled those exceedingly few individuals favored by talent, drive, and luck (never discount luck!) the opportunity to observe, find, and enter a “niche” in mass culture – whether in print, stage, film, or pixel – created by the incongruity between the past, the present, and even the future.  In this situation, the fact that some (not all) Jewish comedians and humorists would unhesitatingly promulgate negative stereotypes about Jews – regardless of the media, platform, or technology – is not at all surprising.      

During an age characterized by continuing social transformation and the loss of a sense of “place” and “identity” among so very many men, they were people of two (or more) worlds who I think felt at home in none; for whom ties to the Jewish people had desiccated to the point of sentimental irrelevancy; for whom the need for social acceptability had become an end in itself. 

If social acceptability and “success” internalizing and then projecting prevailing negative stereotypes, then so be it.     

To sum things up, a joke is nice.  A joke is funny.  But, more than mere irreverence, the abiding need to make “jokes” concerning oneself and one’s people is a sign of something else entirely. 

______________________________

And so, for your consideration, here’s Henry Montor’s essay, followed with an excerpt from an interview of Aharon Appelfeld by Philip Roth.

Curse of Jewish Comedians
Jewish Frontier
November, 1935

THE average American knows the average Jew as a caricature and not as a flesh-and-blood reality.  His picture of the typical Jew is of a hunch-backed, long-nosed, gesturing individual, marked by a harsh accent and a cupidinous, lecherous mind.

Due to this portrayal of the Jew there has developed in America a sympathy, more widespread than is acknowledged, for the anti-Semitic program that has its most refined executioners in the Nazis of Germany.

For decades before Hitler the German public and private presses were turning out the most grotesque cartoons of Jews.  Violent and offensive, they were nevertheless the product of consummate artists.  Hitler had invaluable allies in these accumulating ribald sketches.

The anti-Semitic movement in America has a similar background, though the caricatures are supplied from an entirely different source.  In this country they are furnished not by hostile newspapers and magazines but by Jews themselves.

For the Jews of the United States are cursed with their comedians.  With a great measure of pride Jews point to the predominance on the vaudeville and musical comedy stage of men and women who originated in New York’s East Side or in some equally Jewish section of a native metropolis.  They have insisted that these masters of the quip were making a genuine contribution to American folklore and that they represented the best in American humor. 

It is true that these Jewish comedians have made innumerable millions laugh.  They have coined phrases that have been the bulk of conversation of street-curb and drawing-room alike.  In New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and other equally large centers of Jewish population, as well as in the smaller towns where few Jews have ever penetrated, there is a portrait of the Jew as clear and unequivocal as though some distinct personality had actually sat for it.  The average American Christian knows the Jew only as he has been presented on a thousand stages – by Jewish comedians. 

Virtually every characteristic which the Christian links with the Jew has been impressed upon him by the clowning antics of Jews.  The violent gesturing with the hands, the shrugging of the shoulders, the obscene self-humiliation, the eagerness to outwit friend or foe – these attributes are the contributions of Jewish funmakers. 

The stage portrayals of practically every actor whose name appears on the long list of comedians usually noted in books summarizing Jewish contributions, to American culture, contribute to the anti-Semitic indoctrination of America.

Lou Holtz, who achieved a miraculous fame during the year that New York’s Palace Theatre collapsed as the country’s premier vaudeville house, has since become known more widely through radio and movies.  His stage Jew, is, in many respects, the symbol of the vulgarity, offensiveness and viciousness with which the great majority of Jewish comedians have shrouded Jews and their characteristics. 

“…the prey thought that, on the whole, the hunter was right.”

 – Peter Gay, from “Hermann Levi – A Study in Service and Self-Hatred”,
(in) Freud, Jews and Other Germans – Master and Victims in Modernist Culture

With the exception of several minor skits, notably his Maharajah story, Lou Holtz specializes in interpretations of Jewish eccentrics.  Like most of his craft, Mr. Holtz has probably never given a second’s thought to the effect achieved by his stories.  But the non-Jew listening to Lou Holtz’s act sees a race of whining, wheedling people who are cunning and self-opinionated, who have no hesitancy in betraying and defaming their co-religionists. 

The possession of an accent is neither criminal nor dishonorable.  And yet Lou Holtz manages to give to his nasal accent, presumably native to all Jews, an obsequiousness and poltroonery that must turn the stomach of any self-respecting Jew.  Lou Holtz’s Jew is both a knave and a fool, a trickster and a buffoon.  The audiences who laugh uproariously at his gags are nonetheless acquiring what they believe to be a realistic understanding of the true Jew.

It will be pleaded for the Jewish comedian that the effect of their portraiture is, ultimately, to display a lovable, jovial people.  It will be said that there is no reason why the Jews, as well as the Scotch, Irish and Negroes, should not have their foibles satirized good-humoredly.  It has also been I said that it is far better that Jews should do the fun-poking than non-Jews.

Insofar as the first two contentions are concerned the Jewish comedians are not preoccupied with portraiture; their aim is exaggeration.  The more ludicrous the sketches they make, the more laughs they draw, the more salary they eventually get.  Furthermore, there is not another race which is so infamously derided on the American stage as are the Jews.  That is because the Jewish comedians feel no one can suspect their motives.  With their twisted ideas of sportsmanship, they think that self-derision is the mark of the “good sport”. 

The Jew sharpens, so to speak,
the dagger which he takes out of his enemy’s hand,
stabs himself,
then returns it gallantly to the anti-semite
with the silent reproach,
“Now see if you can do it half as well.”

– Theodor Reik

Creator and introducer of some of the most unfortunate paraphrases of Jewish thought and action is Harry Hershfield, the celebrated cartoonist.  A person of the kindliest feelings and of some sensitivity, Hershfield nevertheless seems unaware of the fact that the bon mots he creates circulate in a thousand directions, bringing to the most distant points a vision of the Jew who has no regard for his traditions, who sponges on anyone who is innocent enough to be imposed upon; who leaves no path untried if it will bring him quickly to undeserved riches.  As the creator of Abel Kabibble and other famous figures of the cartoon pages, Hershfield has revealed an unusual appreciation of the ambitions and failings of the average Jew.  But that sense of proportion is abandoned when he frames or adapts gags for the vaudeville stage.  These gags must be saltier and rawer than the next man’s offerings if they are to “wow” the customers.  The result is a ghastly race between Jewish comedians to see who can create more raucous laughter by more vindictive caricatures.

Few of the Jewish comedians are genuine masters of the comedic situation.  They are, in large part, slap-stick artists who provoke hearty guffaws by falling on banana peels or stepping in the way of lemon meringue pies.  The intelligent play on words, the creation of intrinsically humorous scenes are processes that escape the majority of these comics.  Their forte is the stimulation of belly-laughs by wisecracks that just about hit that section of the anatomy

Probably the outstanding Jewish comedian in America today is George Jessel, who is distinguished by the fact that he can speak without having a ghost writer draft his remarks in advance.  He is nimble-witted, sensitive to the possibilities of phrasing.  Possessed of a sly gift for satire, he has won no love from radio because he has always refused to take ether himself, the product or the manufacturer seriously.  But even Jessel’s anecdotes on numerous occasions have given the quaintest ideas of Jewish practices.  He has never been as offensive as his colleagues because he has always emphasized the emotional traits of Jews in such a manner as to create sympathy.  His mother-and-son conversations are epics of American humor, conducted in the main with a healthy gift for wit that doesn’t leave a nauseous taste on the tongue after completion.  But during the years a “fire” story here, a seduction story there, a sharp practice narrative elsewhere – all have added pigment to the American portrait of the Jew.

“He understood other people so well
that he adapted himself too much
to what they desired of him.”

– Sir Isaiah Berlin

No one would contend that it is the function of the comedian, any more than of the novelist or sociologist, to present Jews as a race of purely angelic creatures to whom the slightest vice is alien.  But the Jewish comedians have been making a living by doing virtually nothing else but caricature their people.  One of the most horrible experiences is to sit in a metropolitan vaudeville house and listen to the roaring of an audience as some Jewish comedian concludes a story depicting a Jew getting the best of his neighbor in an underhanded way.  It is no less gruesome that Jews form a large portion of such audiences.

A new crop of Jewish comedians is coming to the fore.  They are imitating and enlarging upon the fashion set by their predecessors, Milton Berle, youngest of the new stars, is typical.  He tells stories of perversion and “bootlegging of bottles in kosher hotels” with equal gusto.  That he is an excellent comedian is undeniable.  It is equally undeniable that his presumably innocently intended wisecracks are adding to the proportions of the amazing caricature of the Jew. 

Jack Benny is one of the few comedians who does not infringe on good taste.  But that is because he must yield to the regulations of radio.  There was a time, when working for Earl Carroll, when his suave manner was being used to exploit stories more obnoxious than those he pours on the air today. 

Sobbing-voiced Al Jolson has fortunately stuck to his mammy roles.  The musica1 comedies in which he appeared with such great success provided him with scripts that vaulted over his own stage ideas.  In radio, too, he has been more or less tied down to a routine.  And yet there are occasions when he vulgarizes with the least of his imitators.  It is his manner rather than the substance of Jolson’s stories that is offensive.  He leaves no doubt that he is posturing as a Jew.

“What if there is too much reliance on joking, and the cure proves worse than the disease?”

Ruth R. Wisse, “Philip Roth: Portnoy’s Complaint” (from the “Rediscovered Reading” series), Sapir, Winter, 2023

That it is possible to be funny without being offensive is proved by Jack Pearl, by Burns and Allen and, to a lesser degree, by Block and Sully.  For years Jack Pearl has been doing a Germanic accent.  Never once has he said or done anything that would reflect on the essential honesty and decency of tree German type he was representing.  He has always steered clear of Jewish caricatures, because he happens to be one of the few men on the vaudeville stage who has some conception of the responsibility he bears.  Burns and Allen, most popular of the radio teams, have always managed to extract their humor from situations and not from individuals.  Their phenomenal success is the greatest indictment of the other Jewish comedians, for it reveals their lack of ingenuity as well as their social irresponsibility.

Radio has been a boon to the Jews America, for it has curbed practically all the Jewish comedians who have been lucky enough to enter that kingdom.  From time to time, however, they appear briefly on the national chains.  Their menace is not so well curbed, on the individual and smaller chains. 

It is fortunate that vaudeville is dying.  It is also fortunate that radio is governed by rigid rules.  For otherwise, the attempt to combat anti-Semitism in America would be even more thoroughly hampered than it is by Jews who think they are funny when they are merely being contemptible.


                                
                                                                 

Walking the Way of the Survivor: A Talk With Aharon Appelfeld
by Philip Roth
The New York Times Book Review
February 28, 1988

“It took me years to draw close to the Jew within me.
I had to get rid of many prejudices within me
and to meet many Jews in order to find myself in them.

Anti-Semitism directed at oneself was an original Jewish creation.
I don’t know of any other nation so flooded with self-criticism.
Even after the Holocaust Jews did not seem blameless in their own eyes.

On the contrary, harsh comments were made by prominent Jews against the victims,
for not protecting themselves and fighting back.

The Jewish ability to internalize any critical and condemnatory remark
and castigate themselves is one of the marvels of human nature.

What has preoccupied me,
and continues to perturb me,
is this anti-Semitism directed at oneself,
an ancient Jewish ailment which,
in modern times,
has taken on various guises.”

                                                                 
                                

What’s so funny about it?

HENRY MONTOR IS DEAD AT 76; U.J.A. AND ISRAEL BOND LEADER, The New York Times, April 16, 1982

Henry Montor Dead at 76, April 16, 1982 (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

Freud, Jews and Other Germans – Master and Victims in Modernist Culture, Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y., 1978

Tobin, Jonathan S., American Jews: Laughing but Shrinking, Commentary, October 1, 2013

The Calculus of Patriotism: Arnold Zweig’s “Judenzählung” – “The Census of the Jews Before Verdun” – in Die Schaubühne, February, 1917

“Great fatherland, I intended to die and rest for you!” 
But a whirlwind stirred the dead;
they stood at the table one after the other,
captains and medical officers
first and lieutenants and doctors,
sergeants and watch-masters,
non-commissioned officers, privates,
common soldiers. 
And the scribe put a dry quill in each hand;
it flowed like a scratched finger;
each one wrote his Hebrew name in small red letters that shone like square seals. 

✡                                 ✡

But a bright cross shone over the forehead of some who were baptized;
the writer asked everyone:
Jew? 
And he nodded, he said, “You know”; he said,
“Mosaic denomination”;
“Israelite” he said,
“German of Jewish faith” –
“Jew, yes” some said and stretched,
and the crosses faded from everyone. 

✡                                 ✡

“Oh Akiba,” I cried, “when will the Messiah come?”
His gaze examined my soul.
“At the gates of Rome a hunchbacked beggar,
the Messiah, sits and waits,” said he;
it frightens me like a threat.
“What is he waiting for, Master?” I cried out in fear.
“For you” said the old man and turned.
And I awoke to a sudden, glaring, heart-breaking shock.

✡                                 ✡                                 ✡

The lives of men, as much as peoples and nations, are affected by the winds of history in different ways.  Some men, entirely unaffected by the even most threatening physical and spiritual challenges, “after the fact” remain much the same as before.  Other men, to a greater or lesser degree, may “pause” for a time … weeks, months, years … and eventually, though the trajectory of their lives may be temporarily altered, return to the path previously charted for them by decision and happenstance.  Other men are different.  An event that for most may have been seen as trivial, or at worst an unintended and soon forgotten diversion, may be perceived in the fullness of its meaning, message, and implications, and symbolically become part of one’s identity, outlook upon life, and vision of the future.

Such seems to have been true of the German writer Arnold Zweig as a soldier in the Deutsches Heer – the Imperial German Army – in the First World War, the course of whose life was strongly influenced by the German Army’s Judenzählung – Census of the Jews – of late 1916. 

There are many, many sources of information about the Judenzählung, encompassing books and academic papers, focusing on the event in terms of the specific history of Jews in the German military, to the larger scope of German Jewish history, and in an even wider perspective (like that of David Vital), the post-Emancipation history of European Jews as a whole.  However, for the sake of brevity, I’ll simply quote the Wikipedia entry for the the Judenzählung.  (Yeah, I know it’s Wikipedia, but the information is definitely useful, while the 12 references and 8 extra readings do provide paths for further understanding of the event.)

So…

[The] Judenzählung … was a measure instituted by the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL) in October 1916, during the upheaval of World War I.  Designed to confirm accusations of the lack of patriotism among German Jews, the census disproved the charges, but its results were not made public.  However, its figures were published in an antisemitic brochure.  Jewish authorities, who themselves had compiled statistics that considerably exceeded the figures in the brochure, were denied access to government archives, and informed by the Republican Minister of Defense that the brochure’s contents were correct.  In the atmosphere of growing antisemitism, many German Jews saw “the Great War” as an opportunity to prove their commitment to the German homeland.

Background

The census was seen as a way to prove that Jews were betraying the Fatherland by shirking military service.  According to Amos Elon, “In October 1916, when almost three thousand Jews had already died on the battlefield and more than seven thousand had been decorated, War Minister Wild von Hohenborn saw fit to sanction the growing prejudices.  He ordered a “Jew census” in the army to determine the actual number of Jews on the front lines as opposed to those serving in the rear. Ignoring protests in the Reichstag and the press, he proceeded with his head count.  The results were not made public, ostensibly to “spare Jewish feelings.”  The truth was that the census disproved the accusations: 80 percent served on the front lines.”

Results and Reactions

The results of the census were never officially released by the army and any records of the census were most likely lost when the German military archives were destroyed during the allied bombing campaigns of Berlin and Potsdam.  The episode marked a shocking moment for the Jewish community, which had passionately backed the War effort and displayed great patriotism; many Jews saw it as an opportunity to prove their commitment to the German homeland.

That their fellow countrymen could turn on them was a source of major dismay for most German Jews, and the moment marked a point of rapid decline in what some historians (Fritz Stern) called “Jewish-German symbiosis.”

(Digressing…  Was there a German-Jewish symbiosis?  As described by Yehuda Bauer in the Yad Vashem publication ”German-Jewish Symbiosis” – Against The Background Of The 30’s”, interviewed by Amos Goldberg in 1998:

Question: From a historical perspective, was the so-called “German-Jewish symbiosis” real or an illusion?

Answer:  People talk today about a Jewish-German symbiosis that existed before Hitler.  There was a love affair between Jews and Germans, but it was one-sided: Jews loved Germany and Germans; Germans didn’t love Jews, even if they didn’t hate them.  One-sided love affairs usually don’t work very well.  In this case, the so-called symbiosis between Jews and Germans is a postfactum invention.  It never existed.  Jews participated in German life, in German cultural life, but to say that they were accepted, even if the product they produced was accepted….  They were not accepted, even if they converted.”)

You can read much more about the above topic in Alexander Gelley’s essay “On the “Myth of the German-Jewish Dialogue”: Scholem and Benjamin”, particularly noting his reference to Gershon Scholem’s essay, “Against the Myth of the German-Jewish Dialogue,” from On Jews and Judaism in Crisis.

Back to the Judenzählung…  Reproduced as the Appendix (pp. 167-168) of Werner Angress’ 1978 Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook article “‘Judenzählung’ of 1916 Genesis – Consequences – Significance”, here’s an image of the questionnaire used for the survey: ‘Nachweisung uber noch nicht zur Einstellung gelangte, auf Reklamation zuriickgestellte und als kr.u. [kriegsuntauglich] befundene Juden’. [‘Proof of items that have not yet been discontinued, are deferred following a complaint and are considered Jews found [unfit for war]’.  The document is from the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Reichskanzlei, Film 2197, No. 161 (Sections A and B); and ibid., No. 161 a (Section C).

✡                                 ✡

Angress discusses the origin, implications, and impact of the Judenzählung are discussed in great detail, concluding that the contemporary and retrospective significance of the Judenzählung – was it portentous or not? – must understood in the context and contingencies of history:

“We may ask, in conclusion, whether the Judenzdhlung was a watershed, a milestone on the road to Auschwitz as has been occasionally maintained.  For those who reject the inevitability of human events – and most historians do – the answer must be in the negative.  Antisemitism had been a part of the German scene before the First World War and remained a potent force during the brief life of the Weimar Republic, though here, too, its intensity fluctuated.  Granted that during the First World War antisemitism had gained new strength, and that the War Ministry’s Erlass [order] of 11th October 1916 was a direct outgrowth of this trend.  But taken by itself, the Judenzdhlung — a tactless blunder committed by a handful of high-ranking and most probably antisemitic army officers – was a symptom, a warning sign that antisemitism in Germany was alive and well, especially in times of stress and national reverses.  More than this it did not signify.  If the course of German history during the post-war period had taken a different direction from that which it ultimately did take – and this possibility existed at least until 30th January 1933, if not beyond that date – the Judenzdhlung would have remained a mere episode, a humiliation like others before, remembered with distaste, but ultimately shrugged off as just another manifestation of Risches [modernism; radicalism] on the part of Wilhelminian Germany’s military elite.”

Though a subject of straightforward academic interest several decades later (but no longer in the early 21st Century, it seems!) the Judenzählung most definitely impacted German Jewish soldiers on an individual level.  Though I don’t know if – and I doubt that – any large-scale research as ever been done into any still-extant letters and diaries of German Jewish veterans of the Great War pertaining to their reactions to the census, the event did have an impact – an extremely significant, life changing impact – upon a writer whose future oeuvre focused upon themes of the First World War, the European Jewish experience in the early twentieth century, and to a lesser extent (*ugh*) socialism (oh well, two out o’ three ain’t bad!):  Arnold Zweig. 

As variously recounted by Noah William Eisenberg, Martin Grabolle, and Bernd-Rüdiger Hüppauf, Zweig, then a private in the German Army, a, “loyal Vaterlandsverteidiger (defender of the Fatherland),” so patriotic as to have been married in uniform in 1916, was very deeply affected by the implications of the Judenzählung.  As he described in a letter of February 15, 1917 to Martin Buber written from the Maas Front (quoted by Martin Grabolle), “Judenzählung war eine Reflexbewegung unerhörter Trauer über Deutschlands Schande und unsere Qual; kein Essay sondern ein Bild…  Wenn es keinen Antisemitismus im Heere gabe: die unerträgliche „Dienstpflicht“ wäre fast leicht.  Aber: verächtlichen und elenden Kreaturen untergeben zu sein!  Ich bezeichne mich vor mir selbst als Zivilgefangen und staatenlosen Ausländer.“  [“’The Census of the Jews’ was a reflex movement of unheard-of grief over Germany’s shame and our torment; not an essay but a picture…  If there were no anti-Semitism in the army: the unbearable “duty” would be almost easy.  But: to be subordinate to contemptible and miserable creatures!  I refer to myself a civil prisoner and a stateless alien.”]

The then twenty-nine year old private’s response was to pen an extraordinarily vivid short fictional piece that was macabre, haunting, grotesque, and yet (with intended irony?) – by the tale’s end – deeply inspirational, entitled “Judenzählung vor Verdun” [The Jewish Census at Verdun]. 

Inwardly, Zweig was transformed by the census.  According to Martin Grabollle, “Where not too long ago Zweig had celebrated the new-found unity of the German people, he now felt himself to be a foreigner without a state (“staatenlose[r] Ausländer).  All that remained two years after his embrace of Germany at war was a feeling of “unerhörte Trauer über Deutschlands Schande und unsere Qual” (“enormous grief for Germany’s disgrace and our [the Jews’] pain”).” 

Outwardly, Zweig was also transformed.  Quoting Eisenberg, “…in June, 1917, he was transferred to the Eastern region of Ober-Ost (in Lithuanian Kovno) to serve in the special wartime press division.  There, as he traveled to the various shtetls in Lithuania, Zweig witnessed for the first time the problems that the Eastern Jews faced during the war – animosity and ill-treatment from both sides of the battle – and, more importantly, the unique community they maintained in the face of such contradictions.”  One result of his spiritual and intellectual metamorphosis appeared six years later, in the volume Das ostjüdische Antlitz [The Eastern Jewish Face], produced in collaboration with artist Hermann Struck.

The first commentary about the Judenzählung (that I know of!) was a leading page editorial by “M.M.” in the October 27, 1916 issue of Judische Rundschau.  M.M. correctly surmises that, “The tendency of those who introduced the resolution is clear.  An anti-Semitic suspicion should be given special weight by a parliamentary resolution.”  The author then discusses the influence on the position of Jewish citizens in the Allied countries resulting from the Allies’ alliance with Imperial Russia, but notes that such a factor was irrelevant in Germany, since anti-Jewish feeling in that country was in some ways already parallel to – but obviously independent of – Russian influence.  The editorial explains that even as early as 1916, despite the valor, sacrifice, and patriotism of German Jewish soldiers, there was, and would be, no commensurate “improvement in the political position of German Jews after the war”.  He then correctly explains that antisemitism is entirely unrelated to the actions and beliefs of Jews, instead being primarily “rooted in the consciousness of the surrounding people”.  M.M. concludes with the imperative of collectively establishing Jewish life on a common territory, albeit naively concluding (the naivete can be forgiven given the what we know in 2023, let alone what was known in 1948, let alone the 1930s) that a Jewish nation-state would actually reduce antisemitism.   

Here’s an English-language translation of “M.M.’s” editorial about the Judenzählung, from the October 27, 1916, issue of Judische Rundschau, via Goethe University.  

The Jewish Census [Alternatively, “Count of the Jews”]

On October 19, 1916, the Budget Commission of the German Reichstag resolved to compile statistics on the denomination of the people employed in the wartime societies.  The decision is justified by the fact that the survey is intended to refute “a widespread opinion” that there were a particularly large number of “Jewish slackers” in the war societies.  The Reichstag plenum has not yet approved the implementation of the resolution, but the symptomatic fact is sufficient that the representatives of all factions belonging to the commission, with the exception of the Liberals and Social Democrats, i.e. also the National Liberals and clericals, voted in favor of the resolution.  The tendency of those who introduced the resolution is clear.  An anti-Semitic suspicion should be given special weight by a parliamentary resolution.  The result of the inquiry will not be according to the applicants’ secret wishes.  Because even if, which is by no means certain, a larger number of Jews were to be employed in the German wartime societies, that would still not be proof of “Jewish shirking”.  The proportion of Jews in German economic life is proportionately greater than that of the rest of the population, and it has rightly been pointed out that the number of indispensable Jews in other occupations closed to Jews is all the smaller.

There has been much talk lately of the pernicious influence which the alliance of the western powers with Russia had on the position of the Jews of those countries.  Conservative and clerical German newspapers also stated that the French and British governments gave in to pressure from St. Petersburg and gave the anti-Semites of both countries a freer hand, not without condemning references to the bad effects of the Russian reaction.  The anti-Semites of Germany do not seem to have needed this Russian pressure in order to shame the German Jews by a measure that would do even Russian Jew-baiting credit.  The statistics passed by the budget commission of the German Reichstag are in line with some Russian army orders, about which the entire German press, including the conservative and clerical ones, broke the baton.  About the Russian secret order that the Russian soldiers should observe the attitude of their Jewish comrades-in-arms very closely and provide information about it for statistical purposes, there was only one voice in the German press of indignation.  As much as German Jews should consider it beneath their table dignity to justify themselves against the anti-Semitic insinuation that there is a specifically “Jewish shirking,” they have a duty to protest against this “census.”  It is a monstrous violation of the honor and civil equality of German Jewry.

The decision of the German Reich Budget Committee has another meaning.  It confirms the fear that German anti-Semitism did not decrease during the war and that hopes for an improvement in the political position of German Jews after the war are premature.  Since the outbreak of the war, certain Jewish circles in Germany had been full of high hopes for the post-war period, reveling in envisioning the brilliant civic position which the Jews would enjoy after the war in recognition of their patriotic and military prowess, and could not do enough in apologetic references to the patriotic attitude of German Jewry.  They will have to see that anti-Semitism is not, as they think, a reaction to “bad Jewish habits” but a power deeply rooted in the consciousness of the surrounding people, which is even sometimes – and not only in Russia – used to distract attention the masses of burning but uncomfortable domestic issues.  This deep-rooted anti-Semitic mood is neither erased by apologies and references to merits, nor even diminished by the striving for conformity.  There is only one way to effectively combat hatred of Jews.  It is the way of redeeming the Jews from their isolation by concentrating on a common territory.  And even if this goal can only be reached through the work of generations, striving for it improves our situation among the peoples.  Objectively, in that the virtues of pride and self-dignity, developed through the uncompromising emphasis on Jewish characteristics, wrested more respect for the Jews from the surrounding peoples than the unstable method of assimilation, subjectively, insofar as the defense against anti-Semitism, albeit with all the honorable means of the carried out with passion and acumen, will only make up a modest part of our Jewish life.  Only when the work for the restoration of the Jewish people in our own land has become our main Jewish focus will we be able to fight anti-Semitism effectively and at the same time reduce it to the natural degree that its importance in Jewish life is: an annoying defense against intolerance and slander coming from the outside. – M.M.

✡                                 ✡

Here’s the editorial, in the original German…

Judenzählung

Die Budget-Kommission des Deutschen Reichstags hat am 19. Oktober 1916 den Beschluss gefasst, eine Statistik über die Konfession der in den Kriegsgesellschaften beschäftigten Personen vorzunehmen.  Der Beschluss wird damit begründet, dass durch die Erhebung “eine weit im Volke verbreitete Meinung” widerlegt werden soll, wonach in den Kreigsgesellschaften besonders viel “jüdische Drückeberger“ sässen.  Noch hat das Reichstagsplenum die Durchführung des Beschlusses nicht genehmigt, aber es genügt die symptomatische Tatsache, dass die Vertreter aller Fraktionen, die der Kommission angehören, mit Ausnahme der Freisinnigen und Sozialdemokraten, also auch die Nationalliberalen und Klerikalen, für die Resolution stimmten.  Die Tendenz derer, die den Beschluss einbrachten, liegt klar zutage.  Einer antisemitischen Verdächtigung soll durch Parlamentsbeschluss besonders Gewicht gegeben werden.  Das Ergebnis der Enquete wird nicht nach den geheimen Wünschen der Antragsteller ausfallen.  Denn wenn auch, was durchaus nicht feststeht, in den deutschen Kriegsgesellschaften eine grössere Anzahl Juden angestellt sein sollte, so wäre das noch kein Beweis für die “jüdische Drückebergerei”.  Der Anteil der Juden am deutschen Wirtschaftsleben ist verhältnismässig grösser als der der übrigen Bevölkerung und mit Recht hat man darauf hingewiesen, dass die Zahl der jüdischen Unabkömmlichen in anderen, Juden verschlossenen Berufszweigen um so geringer ist.

Man hat in letzter Zeit viel von dem schädlichen Einfluss gesprochen, den das Bündnis der Westmächte mit Russland auf die Lage der Juden dieser Länder hatte.  Die französische und englische Regierung hat, so konstatierten auch konservative und klerikale deutsche Blätter nicht ohne verurteilenden Hinweis auf die schlimmen Wirkungen der russischen Reaktion, dem Drucke Petersburgs nachgegeben und den Antisemiten beider Länder freiere Hand gegeben.  Dieses russischen Druckes scheinen die Antisemiten Deutschlands nicht bedurft zu haben, um die deutschen Juden durch eine Massnahme an den Schandpfahl zu stellen, die selbst russischen Judenhetzern alle Ehre machen würde.  Die von der Budget-Kommission des deutschen Reichstags beschlossene Statistik steht mit manchen russischen Ameebefehlen in einer Reihe, über die die gesamte deutsche Presse auch die konservative und klerikale, seinerzeit den Stab brach.  Ueber den russischen Geheimbefehl, die russischen Soldaten sollten die Haltung ihrer jüdischen Mitkämpfer genauestens beobachten und darüber zu statistischen Zwecken Auskunft geben, herrschte im deutschen Blätterwald nur eine Stimme der Entrüstung.  So sehr es die deutschen Juden unter ihrer tische Wurde halten sollten, sich gegen die antisemitische Insinuation, es gäbe eine spezifisch “jüdische Drückebergerei,” zu rechtfertigen, so sehr haben sir die Pflicht, gegen diese “Zählung” zu protestieren.  Sie ist eine ungeheuerliche Verletzung der Ehre und der bürgerlichen Gleichstellung des deutschen Judentums.

Der Beschluss des deutschen Reichshaushaltausschusses hat noch eine andere Bedeutung.  Er bestätigt die Befürchtung, dass der deutsche Antisemitismus während des Krieges nicht abgenommen habe und dass die Hoffnungen auf eine Besserung der politischen Stellung der deutschen Juden nach dem Kriege verfrüht seien.  Gewisse jüdische Kreise Deutschlands waren seit Ausbruch des Krieges voll hochgespannter Hoffnungen für die Zeit nach dem Weltkrieg, schwelgten im Ausmalen der glänzenden staatsbürgerlichen Stellung, deren sich die Juden in Anerkennung ihrer patriotischen und militärischen Bewährung nach dem Kriege zu erfreuen haben werden, und konnten sich nicht genug tun in apologetischen Hinweisen auf die vaterländische Haltung des deutschen Judentums.  Sie werden einsehen müssen, dass der Antisemitismus nicht, wie sie meinen, eine Reaktion auf “schlechte jüdische Gewohnheiten” ist, sondern eine im Bewusstsein des umgebenden Volkes tiefwurzelnde Macht, deren man sich sogar manchmal – und nicht bloss in Russland – zur Ablenkung des Interesses der Massen von brennenden, aber unbequemen innerpolitischen Fragen bedient.  Diese tiefwurzelnde antisemitische Grundstimmung wird weder durch Apologie und Hinweis auf Verdienste aus der Welt geschafft, noch durch das Streben nach Anpassung auch nur vermindert.  Es gibt nur einen Weg zur wirksamen Bekämpfung des Judenhasses.  Es ist der Weg der Erlösung der Juden aus ihrer Vereinzelung durch Konzentrierung auf einem gemeinsamen Territorium.  Und wenn dieses Ziel auch erst durch die Arbeit von Generationen erreich bar sein wird: schon das Streben nach ihm bessert unsere Lage unter den Völkern.  Objektiv, indem die durch die kompromisslose Betonung der jüdischen Eigenart entwickelten Tugenden des Stolzes und der Selbstwürde den umgebenden Völkern mehr Achtung gegen den Juden abringen als die haltlose Anpassungs-methode, subjektiv, insofern die Abwehr gegen die Judenfeindschaft, wenn auch mit allen ehrenhaften Mitteln der Leidenschaft und des Scharfsinns durchgeführt, nur noch einen bescheidenen Teil unseres jüdischen Lebensinhaltes ausmachen wird.  Erst wenn die Arbeit für die Wiederherstellung des jüdischen Volkes im eigenen Lande zu unserem jüdischen Hauptinhalt geworden ist, werden wir den Antisemitismus wirksam bekämpfen und seine Bekämpfung zugleich auf das natürliche Mass zurückführen können, das seiner Bedeutung für das jüdische Leben zukommt: einer lästigen Abwehr gegen Intoleranz und Verleumdung, die von aussen kommt. – M.M.

…and, as it actually appeared in the newspaper…

…where it can be found on the newspaper’s front page, comprising two columns.

✡                                 ✡                                 ✡

The first appearance of “Judenzählung vor Verdun” was in the February, 1917 (Volume 13, Issue 1) issue of Die Siegfried Jacobsohn’s Die Schaubühne (The Theater).  Here (…drum roll!!…) is an English-language translation of the tale. 

The Jewish Census at Verdun

At midnight a soft hand touched me: “Get up”.  I stepped in front of the door of the silent bunkhouse and saw: “Azrael, cherub who commands the dead, fell from the night sky – vengeful anger – blew the shofar and cried: “To the count, you dead Jews in the German army!”

Before long the field swarmed with silent figures up to the rolling hills, behind which the Fortress of Verdun roared, fanned anew, and their little bastards roared loudly; flames erupted terribly, twitching and shattering the wailing night on the gun’s horizon.  The wind flew from Orion, which hung feebly over the heights in dim veils.  Murmurs trembled over the area; a gloomy glow surrounded thousands.  A table stood, a large book open, and a clerk in uniform sat behind it, pointy-nosed with yellow hair.  He called:

“Line up according to rank!  The roll of names of the people is to be recognized!”  Then a gentle voice said: “Oh, why don’t you let us sleep, since we were already lying in the restful arms of the earth!”  And the writer: “Statistics ask how many of you Jews pressed themselves to their graves from the distant war.”  Groans rose from the ground, as if the earth was wailing, and the voice cried out painfully:

“Great fatherland, I intended to die and rest for you!”  But a whirlwind stirred the dead; they stood at the table one after the other, captains and medical officers first and lieutenants and doctors, sergeants and watch-masters, non-commissioned officers, privates, common soldiers.  And the scribe put a dry quill in each hand; it flowed like a scratched finger; each one wrote his Hebrew name in small red letters that shone like square seals.  There the corpses stood patiently and waited, and whoever wrote silently placed on the table the badges he wore and stood back, as one in the crowd.  There lay the thick epaulettes of the medical officers and the silver ones of the officers, sword knots like silver eggs, the braids of the non-commissioned officers, the small batons of the Rod of Asclepius, the big buttons of privates; the Iron Crosses of the First Class and like many of the Second Class, other crosses and medals, black and white ribbons in all sorts of colors.  But the heap swelled on the table.

The quiet men approached, wrote and became a crowd.  The outline of the old body surrounded it like a light aura, phosphorescent like rotten wood; but the darker core was given by the body which was laid in the grave in due time.  The bellies were eaten away by typhus and hollowed out by dysentery.  Their heads showed holes from bullets, half of their skulls had been carried off by grenades, arms were missing, broken legs and ribs protruded from tattered uniforms; they were bandaged, clothed in rags, without boots; dead eyes looked gloomy, white light fell from lowered foreheads, the dead were silent in shame and mourning.  Youngsters stood next to boys and young men next to mature ones.  And they stated how old they were and where they were born: everywhere in Germany, and what their professions were: teachers and lawyers, rabbis and doctors, travelers, many students of all faculties, pupils, painters, young poets, merchants, craftsmen and merchants in turn and merchants again and again.  And where fallen; where did they lie in the grave?  Near Lille, they said, and Pozieres, all along the Somme, Thiaumont it was called and Azannes, Fleury and Vaux, Champagne, Argonne, Vosges, all of Flanders (they lay in the damp ground the longest); Bzuraklangs, East Prussia, the Carpathians, the Slota Lipa (which was called Sanward), Kovno and Dunaburg, Volhynian swamp, Hungarian forest, Serbian mountain, Galician valley: and Azrael, the angel, nodded at everyone, he had sown them like seeds, thrown far away here; there.  Everything was written down in the book, the pen moved, small red letters appeared on the pale sheet.  But a bright cross shone over the forehead of some who were baptized; the writer asked everyone: Jew?  And he nodded, he said, “You know”; he said, “Mosaic denomination”; “Israelite” he said, “German of Jewish faith” – “Jew, yes” some said and stretched, and the crosses faded from everyone.  And as the freshest stood at the table, almost still bleeding, blown from Romania, the Dobruja, the Somme…

The moon lost its shine, the wind blew more violently into the darkness, Azrael raised his hand, the field lay empty, overgrown with scattered light.  Night fell, all black, blazing at the edge of the forge of Verdun roaring behind the heights.

But the dead Jews could no longer stand at the bottom of their graves.  They sank; slowly and soullessly the bodies slid deeper down, deeper down.  A river, black and soundless, flowed in the veins of the earth, taking it up and rolling it eastward; each one became a round cylinder, shrunk, became as big as a brick and very soft.  And it threw them out in the early morning, flowing under palm trees into the light of a jubilant sun that rose from the sea.  But a tall man with a broad black beard, a reproachful look and a workman’s apron, the trowel lying to his right and his naked sword to his left, seized each one and pressed it; it became hard as a stone in the sun and laid it into low masonry, and the stream threw roller after roller at his feet.   The waller put stone next to stone; he didn’t look up.  An old man came up to him and greeted him, a young smile lay like dawn on old rock over the weather-beaten forehead and the aged beard. “Greetings to he who builds the tower,” he said, and: “Thanks to him who has seen the daughter of Zion,” answered the builder and set a stone.  “The daughter of Zion is on her way,” said Akiba, and the maker blushed with happiness.  But I could no longer contain myself: “Oh Akiba,” I cried, “when will the Messiah come?”  His gaze examined my soul.  “At the gates of Rome a hunchbacked beggar, the Messiah, sits and waits,” said he; it frightens me like a threat.  “What is he waiting for, Master?” I cried out in fear.  “For you,” said the old man and turned.  And I awoke to a sudden, glaring, heart-breaking shock.

✡                                 ✡

Some comments…

Note how Zweig introduces the tale with mention of “Azrael”, the angel of death. 

Wikipedia reveals that – oddly – while the figure of “Azriel” is mentioned in the Zohar, neither “Azrael” or “Azriel” appear in the Tanach or Talmud, also stating that, “… the name Azrael is suggestive of a Hebrew theophoric עזראל, meaning “the one whom God helps,” and that, “Archeological evidence uncovered in Jewish settlements in Mesopotamia confirm that it was indeed at one time used on an Aramaic incantation bowl from the 7th century.  However, as the text thereon only lists names, an association of this angelic name with death cannot be identified in Judaism.” 

Azrael is a much more significant figure in Islam, being one of the four archangels, the others being Jibrāʾīl, Mīkāʾīl, and Isrāfīl.  The only mention of the name in the context of Christianity is in the Ethiopic version of Apocalypse of Peter (dating to the 16th century), where Azrael – spelled as Ezrā’ël – appears is an angel of hell who avenges those who had been wronged during life.”  In a much different sense, Azrael appears in the works of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and G. K. Chesterton’s, and in the world of the Smurfs, as the evil wizard Gargamel’s cat.

And so, the tale…

And then…  A “whirlwind” stirs the dead.  At Azrael’s command, after a momentary protest, the spirits of fallen Jewish soldiers rise from the sleep of death within in their graves, and stand before the angel. 

And then… One after another in line, without regard to rank, the spirits stand before a table upon which lies an open book, upon which they inscribe their names in small, block-like Hebrew letters, with a quill given to them by Azrael.

And then… Nearby, they deposit their insignia of rank and medals in a swelling pile.

And then…  Zweig’s tale becomes explicit; macabre, grotesque.  The fatal wounds of the fallen are described in graphic detail; then, their professions or vocations are given; then, they state where they fell.  This is are also recorded by each man’s spirit.  Every fallen soldier appears as a phosphorescent aura with a dark, inner core, the latter vaguely implied to still lie within his grave. 

And then…  Those Jews who had been baptized are also standing before Azrael, bright crosses shining above their foreheads.  As they identify themselves as members of the “Mosaic denomination”, “Israelites”, or “Germans of Jewish faith”, the crosses fade away. 

And then…  The souls and bodies of the dead are transformed.  They sink into the earth, roll eastward, and with this they shrink to the size of bricks, take on the shape of cylinders, become pliable and soft, and move eastward under the sea, until they emerge under a bright sun, in a land of sunlight and palms. 

And then…  As each brick is taken up by a black-bearded mason with a sword and trowel it hardens, and is pressed into a wall of masonry.  And the process continues, brick by brick.

And then…  Akiba (Rabbi Akiba) and the anonymous mason greet one another, the former anticipating the arrival of the Daughter of Zion.

And then…  The anonymous narrator implores of Akiba to know the date of the Messiah’s arrival.  And as Akiba turns away, he reveals that the Messiah’s arrival depends, “on you”: on the narrator himself. 

And finally…  From nightmare, from dream, from mystical vision, the narrator awakens… 

And then…?

Here’s the tale in the original German:

Judenzählung vor Verdun

Um Mitternacht rührte mich eine leise Hand an: “Steh auf”.  Ich trat vor die Tür der schweigenden Schlafbaracke und sah: “Azrael, Cherub, der über Tote gebietet, stürzte vom Nachtfirmament herab, rachegeflügelter Zorn, stiess ins Horn Schofar und schrie: “Auf zur Zählung, ihr toten Juden im deutschen Heer!”

Es verging keine Zeit, da wimmelte das Feld von leisen Gestalten bis an die gebogenen Hügel, hinter denen brüllte die Feste Verdun, neu angefacht, und ihre kleinern Essen brüllten laut; Flammen schlugen furchtbar auf, zuckend zerbrach am Horizont des Geschützes die wehklagende Nacht.  Der Wind flog vom Orion her, der schwach über den Höhen hing in trüben Schleiern.  Raunen bebte übers Gelände, düsterer Schein umwitterte Tausende.  Ein Tisch stand, aufgeschlagen ein grosses Buch, ein Schreiber sass in Montur dahinter, spitznäsig mit gelbem Schopf.  Er rief:

“Antreten dem Range nach!  Die Totenstammrolle ist anzuerkennen!”  Da sagte eine milde Stimme: “Oh warum lasst ihr uns nicht schlafen, da wir schon lagen in der Erde Arm ruhevoll!”  Und der Schreiber: “Die Statistik fragt, wieviel von euch Juden sich vom fernern Krieg gedrückt ins Grab.”  Stöhnen steig auf vom Gelände, als klagte der Boden, und die Stimme rief schmerzlich:

“Grosses Vaterland, ich gedachte für dich zu sterben und zu ruhn!”  Aber ein Wirbel bewegte die Toten, sie standen am Tische einer nach dem andern, Hauptleute und Stabsärzte zuvor und Leutnants und Aerzte, Feldwebel und Wachtmeister, Unteroffiziere, Gefreite, Gemeine.  Und eine dürre Feder gab der Schreiber in jede Hand, sie floss wie ein geritzter Finger, seinen hebräischen Namen schrieb ein jeder in kleinen roten Lettern, die leuchteten wie quadratische Siegel.  Da standen die Leichname geduldig und warteten, und wer geschrieben, der legte schweigend die Abzeichen auf den Tisch, die er trug, und trat zurück, einer in der Menge.  Da lagen die dicken Achselstücke der Stabsärzte und die silbernen der Offiziere, Portepees wie silberne Eier, die Tressen der Unteroffiziere, die kleinen Aeskulapstäbe, die grossen Knöpfe der Gefreiten; die Eisernen Kreuze der Ersten Klasse und wie viele der Zweiten, andre Kreuze und Medaillen, schwarzweisse Bänder in allerlei Farben.  Der Haufen schwoll aber auf dem Tische.

Die stillen Männer traten heran, schrieben und wurden Menge.  Wie eine leichte Aura umgab sie der Umriss des alten Leibes, phosphoreszierend wie faules Holz; aber den dunklern Kern gab der Körper, den man ins Grab gelegt zu seiner Zeit.  Die Bäuche waren zerfressen vom Flecktyphus und ausgehöhlt von Ruhr.  Ihre Köpfe wiesen Löcher auf vom Geschoss, halbe Schädel hatten Granaten entführt, Arme mangelten, Beine, Rippen zerbrochen drangen aus zerfetzten Uniformen; sie waren mit Verbänden umwickelt, mit Lumpen bekleidet, ohne Stiefel; erloschene Augen blickten düster, von gesenkten Stirnen fiel weisser Schein, die Toten schwiegen in Scham und Trauer.  Da standen Jünglinge bei Knaben und junge Männer neben reifen.  Und sie gaben an, wie alt sie seien und wo geboren: überall im deutschen Land, und was für Berufe: Lehrer und Rechtsanwälte, Rabbiner und Aerzte, Reisende, viele Studenten aller Fakultäten, Schüler, Maler, junge Dichter, Kaufleute, Handwerker und Kaufleute wiederum und immer wieder Kaufleute.  Und wo gefallen, wo lagen sie im Grabe?  Bei Lille, sagten sie, und Pozieres, die ganze Somme entlang, Thiaumont hiess es und Azannes, Fleury und Vaux, Champagne, Argonnen, Vogesen, ganz Flandern, die lagen am längsten im feuchten Grund; Bzura klangs, Ostpreussen, Karpathen, die Slota Lipa, der San ward genannt, Kowno und Dünaburg, wolhynischer Sumpf, ungarischer Wald, serbischer Berg, galizisches Tal: und Azrael nickte, der Engel, bei jedem, er hatte sie ausgesät wie Samenkörner, weit geworfen, hierhin, dorthin.  Alles stand verzeichnet im Buche, die Feder bewegte sich, kleine rote Buchstaben erschienen auf dem bleichen Blatte.  Manchen aber leuchtete ein helles Kreuz über der Stirn, die waren getauft; der Schreiber fragte jeden: Jude?  Und er nickte, er sagte: “Sie wissen doch”; er sagte: “Mosaischer Konfession”; “Israelit” sagte er, “Deutscher jüdischen Glaubens” – “Jude, ja” sprach mancher und streckte sich, und die Kreuze verblichen jedem.  Und wie die frischesten am Tische standen, fast noch blutend, aus Rumänien hergeweht, der Dobrudscha, der Somme…

Der Mond verlor der Schein, Wind wehte heftiger ins Dunkel, Azrael hob die Hand, das Feld lag leer, überbuscht von zerstiebendem Scheine.  Nacht brach herein, ganz schwarz, am Rande zerloht von der Esse Verdun brüllend hinter den Höhen.

Aber es war den toten Juden kein Halt mehr auf dem Grund ihrer Gräber.  Sie sanken, langsam glitten und seelenlos tiefer die Körper abwärts, tiefer hinab.  Ein Strom, schwarz und lautlos, floss in den Adern der Erde, er nahm sie auf und wälzte sie ostwärts; runde Walze wurde jeder, schrumpfte, ward gross wie ein Ziegel und ganz weich.  Und er warf sie aus im frühen Morgen, mündend unter Palmen ans Licht einer jubelnden Sonne, die stieg aus dem Meer.  Ein grosser Mann aber mit schwarzem, breitem Bart, dem rügenden Blick und der Schürze des Werkmannes, die Kelle rechts neben sich liegend und links das nackte Schwert, ergriff einen jeden und presste ihn, er ward in der Sonne hart zum Stein und gefüat in ein niederes Mauerwerk, und Walze neben Walze warf der Strom ihm zu Füssen.  Stein neben Stein setzte der Mauernde, er sah nicht auf.  Ein Greis trat zu ihm und grüsste ihn, ein junges Lächeln lag wie Morgenrot auf altem Fels über verwitterter Stirn und dem greisen Barte.  “Gegrüsst sei, der am Turme mauert”, sagte er, und: “Gedankt dem, der die Tochter Zions erblickt hat”, antwortete der Baumeister und setzte einen Stein.  “Die Tochter Zions ist auf dem Wege”, sprach Akiba, und der Schaffer errötete vor Glück.  Ich aber konnte nicht mehr an mich halten: “Oh Akiba”, rief ich, “wann kommt der Messias!”  Sein Blick prüfte meine Seele.  “Vor den Toren Roms sitzt ein buckliger Bettler, der Messias, und wartet”, sprach er; mich erschreckt’ es wie Drohung.  “Worauf wartet er, Meister? rief ich voll Angst.  “Auf dich” sprach der Greis und wandte sich.  Und ich erwachte vor jähem, grellem, herzerneuerndem Schreck.

This is Zweig’s text as published in Siegfried Jacobsohn’s Die Schaubühne (Band 13, Ausgabe 1 [Volume 13, Issue 1]).  You can see that it appears on three successive pages.

And…here are the cover and title pages of the same issue of Die Schaubühne, which can be found at OogleBooks.

✡                                 ✡                                 ✡

Zweig’s tale is as vivid, as it is haunting, as it is compelling.  Below, I’ve transformed it into a prose poem, the appearance of which, though entirely identical in content to the original text, perhaps lends it a degree of visual impact not apparent in the text in the original paragraph format. 

The Jewish Census at Verdun

At midnight a soft hand touched me:
“Get up”.
I stepped in front of the door of the silent bunkhouse and saw:
“Azrael, cherub who commands the dead, fell from the night sky –
vengeful anger –
blew the shofar and cried:
“To the count, you dead Jews in the German army!”

Before long the field swarmed with silent figures up to the rolling hills,
behind which the Fortress of Verdun roared,
fanned anew,
and their little bastards roared loudly;
flames erupted terribly, twitching and shattering the wailing night on the gun’s horizon.
The wind flew from Orion, which hung feebly over the heights in dim veils. 
Murmurs trembled over the area; a gloomy glow surrounded thousands.

A table stood, a large book open,
and a clerk in uniform sat behind it, pointy-nosed with yellow hair.
He called:

“Line up according to rank!
The roll of names of the people is to be recognized!”
Then a gentle voice said:
“Oh, why don’t you let us sleep,
since we were already lying in the restful arms of the earth!”
And the writer:
“Statistics ask how many of you Jews pressed themselves to their graves from the distant war.”  Groans rose from the ground,
as if the earth was wailing, and the voice cried out painfully:

“Great fatherland, I intended to die and rest for you!”
But a whirlwind stirred the dead;
they stood at the table one after the other,
captains and medical officers
first and lieutenants and doctors,
sergeants and watch-masters,
non-commissioned officers, privates,
common soldiers.
And the scribe put a dry quill in each hand;
it flowed like a scratched finger;
each one wrote his Hebrew name in small red letters that shone like square seals. 
There the corpses stood patiently and waited,

and whoever wrote silently placed on the table the badges he wore and stood back,
as one in the crowd.
There lay the thick epaulettes of the medical officers and the silver ones of the officers,
sword knots like silver eggs,
the braids of the non-commissioned officers,
the small batons of the Rod of Asclepius,
the big buttons of privates;
the Iron Crosses of the First Class and like many of the Second Class,
other crosses and medals, black and white ribbons in all sorts of colors.
But the heap swelled on the table.

The quiet men approached, wrote and became a crowd.
The outline of the old body surrounded it like a light aura,
phosphorescent like rotten wood;
but the darker core was given by the body which was laid in the grave in due time.
The bellies were eaten away by typhus and hollowed out by dysentery.
Their heads showed holes from bullets,
half of their skulls had been carried off by grenades,
arms were missing,
broken legs and ribs protruded from tattered uniforms;
they were bandaged, clothed in rags,
without boots;
dead eyes looked gloomy,
white light fell from lowered foreheads,
the dead were silent in shame and mourning.
Youngsters stood next to boys and young men next to mature ones.
And they stated how old they were and where they were born:
everywhere in Germany,
and what their professions were:
teachers and lawyers,
rabbis and doctors,
travelers,
many students of all faculties,
pupils,
painters,
young poets,
merchants,
craftsmen and merchants in turn and merchants again and again.
And where fallen; where did they lie in the grave?
Near Lille, they said, and Pozieres, all along the Somme,
Thiaumont it was called and Azannes,
Fleury and Vaux,
Champagne,
Argonne,
Vosges,
all of Flanders (they lay in the damp ground the longest);
Bzuraklangs,
East Prussia,
the Carpathians,
the Slota Lipa (which was called Sanward),
Kovno and Dunaburg,
Volhynian swamp,
Hungarian forest,
Serbian mountain,
Galician valley:
and Azrael, the angel, nodded at everyone,
he had sown them like seeds, thrown far away here; there.
Everything was written down in the book,
the pen moved, small red letters appeared on the pale sheet.
But a bright cross shone over the forehead of some who were baptized;
the writer asked everyone:
Jew?
And he nodded, he said, “You know”; he said,
“Mosaic denomination”;
“Israelite” he said,
“German of Jewish faith” –
“Jew, yes” some said and stretched, and the crosses faded from everyone.
And as the freshest stood at the table, almost still bleeding,
blown from Romania, the Dobruja, the Somme…

The moon lost its shine,
the wind blew more violently into the darkness,
Azrael raised his hand,
the field lay empty, overgrown with scattered light.
Night fell, all black,
blazing at the edge of the forge of Verdun roaring behind the heights.

But the dead Jews could no longer stand at the bottom of their graves.
They sank; slowly and soullessly the bodies slid deeper down, deeper down.
A river, black and soundless, flowed in the veins of the earth,
taking it up and rolling it eastward;
each one became a round cylinder, shrunk, became as big as a brick and very soft.
And it threw them out in the early morning,
flowing under palm trees into the light of a jubilant sun that rose from the sea.
But a tall man with a broad black beard,
a reproachful look and a workman’s apron,
the trowel lying to his right and his naked sword to his left,
seized each one and pressed it;
it became hard as a stone in the sun and laid it into low masonry,
and the stream threw roller after roller at his feet.
The waller put stone next to stone; he didn’t look up.
An old man came up to him and greeted him,
a young smile lay like dawn on old rock over the weather-beaten forehead and the aged beard. “Greetings to he who builds the tower,” he said, and:
“Thanks to him who has seen the daughter of Zion,” answered the builder and set a stone.
“The daughter of Zion is on her way,” said Akiba, and the maker blushed with happiness.
But I could no longer contain myself:
“Oh Akiba,” I cried, “when will the Messiah come?”
His gaze examined my soul.
“At the gates of Rome a hunchbacked beggar, the Messiah, sits and waits,” said he;
it frightens me like a threat.
“What is he waiting for, Master?” I cried out in fear.
“For you” said the old man and turned.
And I awoke to a sudden, glaring, heart-breaking shock.

An observation…

Zweig’s concluding paragraph struck a distant chord of memory within me.  I vaguely remembered that I’d encountered a legend concerning the resurrection of the dead in Messianic days, to the effect that they will literally roll across land and under sea to reach Eretz Israel.  My memory was correct, and was verified at Jack Zaientz’s blog, “Jewish Monster Hunting: A Practical Guide to Jewish Magic, Monsters, and Mayhem”, in his post “First we die.  Then we roll.  A “Rolling To Jerusalem” Subway Map.”  This references Talmud, Kettubot 111a (3) at Sefaria, in which the following debate is recorded:

וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֵינָם חַיִּים?! אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא סַלָּא רַבָּא: גִּלְגּוּל לְצַדִּיקִים צַעַר הוּא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְחִילּוֹת נַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם בַּקַּרְקַע.

“The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, will the righteous outside of Eretz Yisrael not come alive at the time of the resurrection of the dead?  Rabbi Ile’a said: They will be resurrected by means of rolling, i.e., they will roll until they reach Eretz Yisrael, where they will be brought back to life.  Rabbi Abba Salla Rava strongly objects to this: Rolling is an ordeal that entails suffering for the righteous.  Abaye said: Tunnels are prepared for them in the ground, through which they pass to Eretz Yisrael.”

Another observation…

There’s “something” about the concluding three sentences of Zweig’s text:

“What is he waiting for, Master?” I cried out in fear.
“For you” said the old man and turned.
And I awoke to a sudden, glaring, heart-breaking shock.

Specifically, there’s a remarkable similarity to the closing lines of Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law”:

“What do you still want to know, then?” asks the gatekeeper.
“You are insatiable.”
“Everyone strives after the law,” says the man,
“so how is that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?”
The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and,
in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him,
“Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you.
I’m going now to close it.”

In both cases, the anonymous narrator implores of an authority figure – Rabbi Akiva, or, “the gatekeeper” – that his future course of action, or, secret knowledge, be revealed.  The two answers lead to dramatically different outcomes:  In Zweig’s tale, the narrator lives, and, transformed, faces a perhaps revised future, which is entirely dependent on his choice of action.  In Kafka’s story, the narrator is at the point of death, the outcome of events – perhaps preordained by circumstance or providence? – having already been preordained for him.

I have no idea of the degree of Kafka and Zweig’s familiarity with one another’s works, but they were contemporaries, the former having been 29 years old in 1916, and the latter 32.  Being that “Before the Law” (“Vor dem Gesetz”) was published in the 1915 New Year’s edition of the independent Jewish weekly Selbstwehr, the possibility exists that the final lines of “Judenzählung vor Verdun” were inspired by Zweig’s reading of Kafka’s tale.

Having come this far, one can readily appreciate Zweig’s literary talents.  The piece is short – a little less than a thousand words in length – yet even with this economy of words, the imagery of the tale is stunning in its clarity, in terms of physical setting, atmosphere, mood, and the description of the fallen as both spirit and body; spirit in body. 

✡                                 ✡                                 ✡

Arnold Zweig, 1916 (From deutsche-kinemathek)

✡                                 ✡

Arnold Zweig, New York City, 1939 (Photo by Eric Schaal)

✡                                 ✡

Arnold Zweig, Haifa, Yishuv, 1939 (Photographer Unknown)

✡                                 ✡                                 ✡

I’ve not read any other works by Zweig, but given his skill and imagination; his ability to so powerfully craft scene and mood; the era in which he was active – the first half of the twentieth century – I can readily envision him – if the trajectory of his life had been different, having been a masterful and successful writer of pulp fiction, perhaps in the genres of adventure, fantasy, or horror.  Perhaps his work would have appeared in such pulps as The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction; Weird Tales; Unknown; Fantastic Novels.  It’s nice to speculate…

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, December, 1950 (Absolutely wonderful cover art! – by Chesley Bonestell) (From my own collection.)

Fantastic Novels, July, 1950 (Cover art by “Lawrence” (Lawrence Sterne Stevens)), illustrating Moore and Kuttner’s “Earth’s Last Citadel”) (Also from my own collection.  (Shameless self-promotion!)  See more of such, here.)

✡                                 ✡                                 ✡

Zweig’s macabre story concludes by transitioning to a scene of transformative and mystical renewal – an explicitly collective renewal – with startling abruptness, revealing to the narrator; to the reader – to us, even and especially in this year of 2023 – that to the Jews is granted the ability to return. 

And so, in symbolic answer to the anonymous narrator’s awakening, let’s wordlessly conclude with an allegorical image entitled “Der Jüdische Mai” [“The Jewish May”], from Ephraim Moses Lilien’s, Sein Werk, published in 1903 in Berlin.  (Specifically, page 280 in volume 2.)

For your consideration: Some references…

Arnold Zweig, at…

Wikipedia

Britannica

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

GoodReads

Kuenste im Exil [Art in Exile]

Deutsche Kiemathek [German Cinema Library]

University of Massachusetts DEFA Film Library

Mahler Foundation

Internet Movie Database

Geni.com

FindAGrave

Die Schaubühne [“The Stage”], at …

Internet Archive

… Wikipedia (Die Weltbühne)

Weimar Berlin

University of Michigan Digital Library

Die Schaubühne (Band 13, Ausgabe 1 [Volume 13, Issue 1]), pages 115-117

…at OogleBooks

Siegfried Jacobsohn, at…

Wikipedia

FindAGrave

Franz Kafka, at…

Wikipedia

“Before the Law”, at…

Wikipedia

Azrael, at…

Wikipedia

Some books…

Eisenberg, Noah William, Between Redemption and Doom – The Strains of German-Jewish Modernism, University of Nebraska Press, 1999

Grabolle, Harro, Verdun And the Somme, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary, 2004

Hüppauf, Bernd-Rüdiger, War, Violence, and the Modern Condition, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 1997

Franz Kafka – The Complete Stories

Lilien, Ephraim Mose, and Zweig, Stefan, E. M. Lilien, Sein Werk, mit einer Emleitung von Stefan Zweig, band zwei, Schuster & Loeffler, Berlin, Germany, 1903, OCLC 7720842

Vital, David, A People Apart – A Political History of the Jews in Europe, 1789-1939, Oxford University Press, 2001

Vital, David, A People Apart – A Political History of the Jews in Europe, 1789-1939, at GoodReads.com

Wenzel, Georg, Arnold Zweig, 1887-1968 : Werk und Leben in Dokumenten und Bildern : mit unveröffentlichten Manuskripten und Briefen aus dem Nachlass [Arnold Zweig, 1887-1968: Work and life in documents and images: with unpublished manuscripts and letters from the estate], Aufbau-Verlag, Berlin, 1978

Zweig, Arnold, and Struck, Hermann, Das ostjüdische Antlitz [The Eastern Jewish Face], Berlin Weltverlag, Berlin, Germany, 1922

(Das ostjüdische Antlitz includes many, many thematic sketches by Hermann Struck, none of which, unfortunately, have captions.  (Oh, well!)  This drawing of a young woman appears on page 112.)

Some articles…

Angress, Werner T., The German Army’s “Judenzahlung” of 1916 Genesis – Consequences – Significance, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, V 23, N 1, 1978

Gelley, Alexander, On the “Myth of the German-Jewish Dialogue”: Scholem and Benjamin, University of California, Irvine, 1999

Goldberg, Amos, “German-Jewish Symbiosis” – Against the Background of the 30s – Excerpt from interview with Professor Yehuda Bauer, Director of the International Center for Holocaust Studies of Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Israel

And, otherwise…

The World at War, The Jews in War: Jewish Military Service in World War One, in David Vital’s “A People Apart”

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) VI – January 15, 1943: The “Bogey” of Zionism, by Rabbi Simon Greenberg

A Controversy of Zion – VI

“Rabbi Schachtel claims that he does not know what Zionists mean
when they speak of the “historic homelessness of the Jews.”
Jewish tradition records that there were also some Israelites,
close to the ruling powers in Egypt,
who could not understand why Moses wanted to take them out of that land.
They were quite at home even in Egypt.”

***

“There is also in both articles the expressed or implied fear
that the existence of a Jewish homeland will encourage anti-Semites to persecute us
and force our expulsion from the countries in which we now live.
In that regard there is this simple historic fact to remember.
The absence of a Jewish homeland these 1800 years
never restricted the hands of our persecutors.”

***

“Why some Jews should be ready to join the enemies of their people
in open combat against the hope that has sustained their fathers through 1800 years of persecution
no one will ever be able to fully explain.
The phenomenon belong to those dark mysteries of the human soul
which under the cover of idealism and resounding phraseology
can turn a man to hate against himself, or the nearest of his kind.

The sixth and final of the Jewish Exponent’s series of articles about Zionism, and, Anti-Zionism, among American Rabbis in the early 1940s brings us to an essay by Rabbi Simon Greenberg, the President of the “Philadelphia Zionist Organization” (a local chapter of the Zionist Organization of America?), in response to Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel’s essay in the Exponent’s prior issue. 

Rabbi Greenberg performs a thorough job of refuting Rabbi Schachtel’s arguments, touching upon issues such as the status of the remaining Jews of Europe subsequent to German’s surrender, and – I think this is important – the way Rabbi Schachtel in his denial of Jewish homelessness in the United States, England, Russia, and Poland (did the Jews of Poland genuinely feel so at home?; were they perceived as such by non-Jewish Poles?) completely and I think calculatedly glosses over the actual pre-WW II status of the Jews of Germany, the countries of Eastern Europe, and, Yemen.  

Then, Rabbi Greenberg discusses the concern, expressed or implied, that the reestablishment of a Jewish nation-state will engender antisemitism and cause the expulsion of Jews from countries in which they live.  His rejoinder is very astute: The absence of a Jewish homeland these 1800 years never restricted the hands of our persecutors. … The treatment we receive at the hands of our fellow citizens will and does depend exclusively upon the degree of humanity and democracy prevailing amongst them and not upon whether there is or is not a place to which they can send us.”

But, the central thrust of his essay addresses an issue touched upon by neither Rabbi Schachtel nor Exponent columnist Al Segal, an issue refreshingly unrelated to the idea the purpose for the re-establishment of a Jewish state would simply to be to provide a refuge for Jews suffering persecution. 

Rabbi Greenberg sees far beyond this, realizing that beyond political security lie aspects of human nature, whether individual or collective, that speak to facets of human experience that cannot be understood in a purely material sense.  Namely: “Hence, even though democracy were to be fully implemented all over the world, they [the Jewish people] would still want one spot where their own cultural and religious traditions would have an opportunity for normal development equal to that which all other spiritual and cultural traditions have in areas where they can claim the majority of the population.”

THE “BOGEY” OF ZIONISM

By RABBI SIMON GREENBERG

The Jewish Exponent
January 15, 1943

EDITOR’S NOTE: – The following article by the President of the Philadelphia Zionist Organization is in reply to an article by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel of New York, which appeared in last week’s issue of The Jewish Exponent.  Rabbi Schachtel is a member of the newly formed Council for American Judaism, who stated the position of his group in an article titled, “We Reject Zionism.”  Rabbi Greenberg’s article also contains an answer to last week’s “Plain Talk” column by Al Segal.

The recent activities of the handful of anti-Zionist rabbis and laymen have stirred the deepest passions and profoundest emotions.  It is not easy, therefore, to analyze their arguments of motives with a calm, intellectual objectivity.  But since they insist in pressing their views upon public attention, discussion with them, unfortunate as it may be in this tragic hour of Jewish history, cannot be avoided.

The Jewish Exponent and I presume many other Anglo-Jewish weeklies throughout the country, recently published two statements which attempted further to clarify the position of the anti-Zionist group.  One was written by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel, the other by a layman, Al Segal.

The original contribution to the discussion made by Rabbi Schachtel is summarized in the following paragraph:  “If Europe is emancipated, if Europe after the war has a new birth of freedom, there will be no need for artificial lands of refuge for forced migrants.  If Europe and the world are not so emancipated, then there is no refuge anywhere.”  Rabbi Schachtel thus apparently bases his opposition to a Jewish commonwealth on the proposition that no matter what happens the Jews of Europe will or should remain in Europe after the war.  If the Nazis win, Jews have “no refuge anywhere”.  If the Nazis lose “Europe will be emancipated” and there will be no need for Jews to leave it.  Since I cannot imagine a Nazi victory there is no point in discussing the first alternative.  But what will be the situation when the inevitable Nazi defeat occurs?  Zionists, like all democrats, of course, expect the Jews of Europe to have their full citizenship rights restored.  Moreover, Zionists have no desire to see Europe of any other part of the world become “Judenrein”; free of Jews.  If after the war there will be no Jews who will want to leave Europe, and no Jews anywhere else who will want or need to go to Palestine, then the whole problem will of itself be solved.  Certainly no Jewish commonwealth can be established in Palestine, if there are no Jews who want to go to live there.  And surely no Zionist will tolerate the thought that Jews should in any way be forced to migrate to any place.  Zionists were the first to denounce publicly the position taken by the Polish government in the pre-war days that Poland had a “surplus” of one million Jews.  But just as vigorously as we reject a policy of “forced migration”, would we also reject a policy of “forced fixation”.  Is Rabbi Schachtel’s thought that with Europe emancipated no Jew and no European should be permitted to migrate anywhere outside of Europe?  Or is his opinion that with political liberty restored to Europe no European will need or want to leave his native land?  Obviously neither of the two positions can be maintained.  The defeat of the Nazis should mean a world more widely open that ever before for the free flow of men and goods.  And obviously there will be a great outpouring of Europeans who will need and desire the opportunity to find physical and spiritual renewal in other parts of the globe.

In these matters the Zionists, the so-called “romantic dreamers”, attempt to be realists.  They heed the warnings of the best authoritative observers.  There seems to be practical unanimity of opinion that after the war a large percentage of the Jews remaining in Europe will for sociological, psychological, or economic reasons want to and have to find new homes for themselves.  As a matter of fact, many non-Zionist Jewish bodies are engaged even now in looking about for possible countries of immigration for the Jews of post-war Europe.

Rabbi Schachtel claims that he does not know what Zionists mean when they speak of the “historic homelessness of the Jews.”  Jewish tradition records that there were also some Israelites, close to the ruling powers in Egypt, who could not understand why Moses wanted to take them out of that land.  They were quite at home even in Egypt.  “American Jews,” the rabbi says, “are not homeless”.  Every American Zionist will heartily agree with him.  The same is true of the British Jews.  But I wonder whether Dr. Schachtel is on equally safe ground when he speaks of Polish Jews?  Even with minority rights granted them at the end of the last war, and with further constitutional guarantees provided for the Jews of other central and eastern European countries, there was never a year in which there were not four and five times as many Jews from these countries asking for admission to Palestine as were granted the much-sought-for vise!  Homelessness, the rabbi writes, is not “a mystical concept”… derived from an abstract philosophy but from the realty of persecution.  Quite right.  Ask the Jews of Yemen today, or of Poland and Roumania and Germany of yesterday.

We were quite aware in 1918 that a new era of human brotherhood has dawned.  We were sadly disappointed.  I pray fervently and daily that we may not be disappointed this time.  But while my religion teaches me to expect miracles it warns me against depending upon them, or even against expecting them when other avenues of help are available.  Hence through the restoration of equal political rights to the Jews of post-war Europe is the least we expect from the defeat of the Nazis.  I do not feel that we have the right to depend entirely upon that, and to neglect any other possibility which may be available for further securing the future of all or many of these, our grief-stricken brethren.

There is also in both articles the expressed or implied fear that the existence of a Jewish homeland will encourage anti-Semites to persecute us and force our expulsion from the countries in which we now live.  In that regard there is this simple historic fact to remember.  The absence of a Jewish homeland these 1800 years never restricted the hands of our persecutors.  It did not restrain Torquemada in 1492, nor the Czaristic government in the 19th century.  Nor the Nazis in the 20th.  Certainly then the argument that the existence of a Jewish commonwealth will increase Jewish persecution gets no corroboration from Jewish history.  Nor would my self-respect permit me to remain at ease even in America if for a moment I felt that the only reason I am permitted to live here is because my fellow citizens have no place to which to eject me.  Such a thought, I feel, is not merely a deep wound in my own dignity, but a grievous insult to my fellow citizens.  The treatment we receive at the hands of our fellow citizens will and does depend exclusively upon the degree of humanity and democracy prevailing amongst them and not upon whether there is or is not a place to which they can send us.

But there is a kind of “homelessness” which a rabbi in particular should be able to understand, even though he is not physically molested.  Physical and political and even economic security are not the whole sum and substance of life, important as these are.  Henry James and a goodly number of other 19th century American intellectuals did not feel at home in America in the 19th century.  Now, strange as it may appear to Rabbi Schachtel and others, there are some Jews, particularly among the much-harassed Jews of central and eastern Europe, who do not find in political and physical security all that they want in life.  They would, for example, like to speak Hebrew, and to have Hebrew as one of the world’s modern languages.  They want it to be a medium for the expression of a full cultural and spiritual life in every possible way.  There are Jews who would like to have one spot in the world where the Sabbath would have the same status that Sunday has in America, and where Passover, and Rosh Hashanna, and Hanukah fit as normally into the pattern of their lives as Christmas and Easter and Thanksgiving day fit into the normal pattern of our lives here.  There are many Jews who are as deeply concerned for the preservation and the further development of the Hebrew culture and the pattern of life developed in the Torah and in later Rabbinic literature, as they are for the preservation of the physical existence of the Jewish people as such.  Hence, even though democracy were to be fully implemented all over the world, they would still want one spot where their own cultural and religious traditions would have an opportunity for normal development equal to that which all other spiritual and cultural traditions have in areas where they can claim the majority of the population.  Nor does that in any way reflect upon the appreciation of the peoples among whom they live as equal citizens of the state, nor upon their while-hearted loyalty to the democratic government under which they live.  A normal human being’s desire to build his own home after he marries, even though his parents may offer him a part of their spacious home, is not considered a reflection upon his love for or his loyalty to his parents.

From Mr. Segal’s article we gather that the one thing which stirs the darkest forebodings in the minds of the anti-Zionists is the concept “Jewish Commonwealth” or “Jewish State”.  They dread the possibility of being accused of a double allegiance, of being “lumped together” with another political entity in the minds of their fellow citizens.  Let us examine this bogey, “Jewish State” or “Jewish Commonwealth” for a moment.  Do the anti-Zionists have a clear notion of what the concepts imply in the light of the actual situation in Palestine, or the new world conditions which will come after the war?  If they do, I would like to know their opinions.  They would, I am sure, be very helpful.  Mr. Segal and others may be interested in knowing that among Zionists themselves there has never been any unanimity of opinion on the definition of “Jewish State” or “Jewish Commonwealth”.  They only things on which there is unanimity of opinion among Zionists are: (1) Political conditions with Palestine and within the framework of international relations should be established which would make it possible for as many Jews to enter Palestine as freely desire to do so, and as the economic possibilities of the country could maintain.  (2) No artificial obstacles should prevent the Jews from ever becoming the majority population in Palestine.  (3) The Jewish majority in Palestine should have the right to govern itself, it being clearly understood that nothing would ever be done in any way to impair the political, the economic, and the cultural rights of any of the other inhabitants of Palestine.

There are all kinds of plans being worked on for the future political relationship between the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine.  There are schemes for a bi-national State, and plans for an International Commission that might act as the impartial arbitrator to all matters of dispute between the two populations.  No one at present can envision all of the details of the practical implementation either of the Zionist Basle Program, or of the Balfour Declaration.  Much, of course, will depend upon the nature of the international organization which will emerge after the war.  But does it seem fair for Jews in America because of a fear which has no basis in the experiences either of our people or of any other people now to insist that until the end of time the Jews of Palestine, no matter what their number, may never exercise those political powers and rights which any other group in the world, religious or non-religious, has always considered a normal, and inalienable right and privilege?  Is this a dignified and courageous attitude?

Mr. Segal is very explicit in expressing his fear that if there will be a “Jewish State,” the Jews of America will “be counted in, or counted out, as a people who are somehow of another nation and another country”.  Strange that no Irishman in the United States seems to worry because Eire has now practically become independent.  No American Pole fighting for Polish independence, or Czech, or Frenchman has that fear.  Mr. Segal has the same fear that the German Jew once had about being “lumped together” with “Ost Juden,” East European Jews.  What logical basis does Mr. Segal have for his fear that if there will be a self-governing Jewish group in Palestine, American – Jewish loyalty to America will then be under greater suspicion than the loyalty of the Englishman, or Frenchman, or Pole to America?

Moreover, Mr. Segal does not object to Jews building colonies or planting forests in Palestine.  He dreads only the thought that the Jews in Palestine may have the political power necessary to enlarge and develop and protect these forests and colonies.  Mr. Segal seems to imply that if the Jews of Palestine as a community do not have any of the rights and powers usually associated with a state or a commonwealth, they will have the good will and friendship of their neighbors.  Otherwise they will be ever beset by “hostile and resentful elements”.  Does Jewish or general human history bear out the assumption that the friendship of one’s neighbors increases in proportion to one’s weakness and defenseless?

Finally, may I say that what Zionists resent most deeply, and consider nothing less than a vicious traitorous libel, is the implication, as well as the explicit statement made by anti-Zionists, which question the sincerity and the wholeheartedness of a Zionist’s American patriotism.  Such a statement as the following, made by Mr. Segal, is what we have in mind.  He (Mr. Segal) “simply cannot think of any other national allegiance but American.  He is not of Palestine at all.”  With men like the late Justice Louis D. Brandeis, and the present Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Judge Julian W. Mack, and a vast host of other outstanding leaders in American civic and political life, having been so intimately and definitely identified with the Zionist movement, can Mr. Segal and his like still continue to talk even in the vaguest terms of the American Zionist as one who has “other national allegiance but American?”  It might be of interest to know that of all of the charges brought against Mr. Brandeis by his many enemies, when his career was so punctiliously scrutinized before his appointment to the Supreme Court was ratified by the Senate, no one thought of accusing him of a double allegiance because of his Zionism  That form of attack on Zionism, we repeat again, belongs to the meanest and lowest type of libel.
Zionists can very well agree with Rabbi Schachtel, when he says that, “what we want for the Jews after this war is what we want for all the people.  We want a world in which Jews, wherever they may be, are free citizens entitled to the same privileges and subject to the same responsibilities of all other free citizens.  Now one of the rights and privileges enjoyed by free citizens everywhere is to establish their own governments and to govern their own cultural, social and political life.  We want that right for the Jewish community of Palestine, just as surely as the American Czechs want it for the Czechs in Czecho-Slovakia, and the Poles want it for the Poles in Poland.

The governments of the world through the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate have recognized that by virtue of historic associations and present needs, the Jews have an inherent right to enjoy the privileges of self-government in Palestine.  Why some Jews should be ready to join the enemies of their people in open combat against the hope that has sustained their fathers through 1800 years of persecution no one will ever be able to fully explain.  The phenomenon belong to those dark mysteries of the human soul which under the cover of idealism and resounding phraseology can turn a man to hate against himself, or the nearest of his kind.  Where else are we to look for an explanation of the action of spiritual and lay leaders of a people who in the hour of its direst need seek to crush its fondest hope, and help to close the gates to the one spot on earth which can and does offer immediate refuge to their bruised and beaten bodies.

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) V – January 8, 1943: We Reject Zionism, by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel

A Controversy of Zion – V

“The problem was the denial of fundamental human rights.
It was part and parcel of
the same onrushing forces of darkness
which sent hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Protestant faith out of their homes and countries,
and which finally precipitated the war.”

***

“The followers of Judaism look upon Palestine as the cradle of their faith,
but they regard the world as their domicile,
so that, together will all other God-revering men and women,
they may work out a way of life which shall bring justice and peace to all.
The Jews are essentially a religious community,
whose mission is to lead themselves towards,
and co-operate with others into, the way of righteousness.”

As the fifth of its series of six articles covering the opposition to Zionism – in the context of the late 1942 establishment of the American Council for Judaism, and, opposition to the Council by pro-Zionist Rabbis from across the religious spectrum of the Jews of the United States – on January 8, 1943 the Jewish Exponent granted the Council an opportunity to discuss and elaborate upon its beliefs and aims.  This came in the form of an essay by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel, who at the time was Rabbi at Congregation Shaaray Tefila in New York City.  

Rabbi Schachtel’s essay is well-written, sensibly laid out, and, clearly explains the ACJ’s attitude toward pro-Zionist activism, the perception of the place (for lack of a better word) of the Jewish people historically and theologically in Europe in particular and in Western civilization in general, the origin and nature of the unprecedented crisis then facing the Jews of Europe, and, ultimately, the postwar future of the Jewish people.  Yet, regardless of the quality and forcefulness of the Rabbi’s essay in literary and emotional terms – and yes, it is well written – several aspects of it are striking:  They kind of “jump out”, whether “now”, in the hindsight of eighty years, and I’d think even “then”, in early 1943.

First, I find it more than disconcerting that Rabbi Schachtel introduces the essay by describing pro-Zionist activity in terms of being a blitzkrieg.  The word can be understood as an ostensibly neutral term simply pertaining to military tactics – combined arms engaged in a rapid movement and force concentration designed to break through a foes defenses over a changing front, ultimately aimed at a decisive defeat (this is derived from Wikipedia).  But, it’s the very 1943 timing of Schactel’s essay, and the association of the term blitzkrieg with the Wehrmacht in the opening phases of WW II (though the word dates back to the 1920s) that disparages Zionism by indirectly and subtlely associating Jewish nationalism with the worst manifestation of nationalism then prevalent in the West.  (Though of course Nazism was foremost national socialism.)  It’s just one word. 

But, the symbolism of words can carry great weight.  

Of greater import, the essay reveals astonishing naivete and misunderstanding about the existing predicament of the Jews of Germany, and Europe in general, even as the Shoah was ongoing.  Schachtel’s, “…onrushing forces of darkness which sent hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Protestant faith out of their homes and countries,” were emphatically not identical to those prevailing against the Jews of Europe in origin, magnitude, and relentlessness.  To write so – as with other assertions in the essay – reveals a remarkable level of provinciality; a way perceiving the (then) present through the prism of the past, let alone a past that never genuinely existed; or a striking example of denial.

However, the essay is correct in respect of being consistent with the foundations of Reform (and now “Progressive”) Judaism:  Reflective of currents of thought prevailing with the advent of the Enlightenment and, Jewish political emancipation particularly as the latter emerged and spread from Napoleonic France, the Jews are seen – through the window of a kind of christological secularism – as a purely religious body, unmoored from place and time, fated to dissolve – a la Immanuel Kant’s “Euthanasia of Judaism” – into the hoped for and quietly nullifying comfort of a universalist future. 

History has shown differently.

It will continue to do so.

An Anti-Zionist Leader States the Position of His Group
WE REJECT ZIONISM

By RABBI HYMAN J. SCHACHTEL

The Jewish Exponent
January 8, 1943

In recent weeks a group of anti-Zionist Rabbis have formed an organization called the American Council for Judaism, whose purpose is to combat Zionism and to hinder the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine.  An opportunity is here afforded to Rabbi Schachtel of New York, a member of this group, to state its position.  As a background to this article, some sentences from the recent address of former President Herbert Hoover may be in point.  In reviewing the prospects for peace and stability, he said: “Idealism must have a balance wheel of realism – that is, if the day’s work is to be done.  We cannot ignore the wickedness of the human animal and the wickedness of some dynamic forces.  Every realist knows that the dynamic forces of nationalism, of economic interest, of ideologies, of militarism, of imperialism, of fear, hate, revenge and personal ambition have not died out in the world.”

American Jewry is being subjected to a blitzkrieg by the political Zionists.  They fill the press and platform.  They miss no opportunity to try to convince us that we are Jews by race and nationality.  Palestine is our hope and salvation, they insist.  Not until a Jewish State in Palestine is a fact, they declare, will we stop anti-Semitism and end what they call our tragic sense of homelessness.

But the blitzkrieg has failed.  Only fifty thousand are members of the Zionist Organization of America.  Even in this comparatively small number there are many who have given their support to developments in Palestine without by any means subscribing to the Zionist political platform.  Of course this does not stop the zealous political Zionist from making it seem as if this legitimate philanthropic concern embraces a completely defeatist pessimism for the Jews in the postwar world; makes acceptable a concept of mass immigration; approves political objectives unrelated to the strictly humanitarian considerations.

I, for one, differ from political Zionists in their historical appraisal of the Jews in Europe.  True, the last two decades have been bitter ones in some countries, but those decades were only part of a stream of history which in the last century and a half has shown enormous progress in the expansion of freedom.  The development and achievement of the Jews in Europe in the last 150 years are not to be measured only by a recapitulation of their disabilities and advantages.  It is no more accurate to make that stress than it is to describe the history of the Jews in Palestine only in terms of the tensions of the last 20 years, the friction between Arab and Jew, the outbreaks and pogroms against the Jews.  That is not history.  That is a partisan portrait.

There are in particular two points that seem to me to need emphasis.  The first relates to the political Zionist’s lack of faith.  For to maintain that postwar Europe will be eternally and unchangeably hostile to the Jew is to call the objectives of the United Nations so much poppycock and to imply that the world tomorrow will only carry on the evils of the world of yesterday.  It is to accept a barren philosophy of defeatism to believe that while the Axis will be defeated, the Axis ideology will be triumphant.  It is to grant Hitler NOW his victory in making Europe “Judenrein (without Jews)”.

In such a world it appears to me that it is a little naïve to assume that Jews who cannot be safe in Europe can be safe in Palestine.  By what flight of the imagination can we see a world where the climate of public opinion is so hostile to the Jews up to the Eastern Mediterranean as to force his emigration; but from that point on, the climate miraculously changes so as to offer a peaceful home for millions of Jews?

The second point that calls particularly for refutation is the so-called historic homelessness of the Jews which the political Zionist continually stresses.  Here I must confess I don’t know what they mean.  We American Jews are not homeless.  The British Jews fighting valiantly for Britain do not regard themselves as homeless.  Nor do the Russian Jews shedding their blood along the 2,000-mile-front.  Nor do the Polish Jews fighting with their Christian fellow-citizens in the ranks of the Polish army.  If there are Jews who feel homeless, that emotion derives not from an abstract philosophy but from the reality of persecution.  Palestine itself has had within the last 10 years a large increase in its Jewish population.  But it was no mystical concept of homelessness that brought them there.  Quite the contrary; it was lack of democracy, it was fascism that sent thousands of Jews to Palestine from Germany and neighboring countries, just as it sent thousands of them to other parts of the world.  The problem was the denial of fundamental human rights.  It was part and parcel of the same onrushing forces of darkness which sent hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Protestant faith out of their homes and countries, and which finally precipitated the war.

If Europe is emancipated – if Europe after the war has a new birth of freedom, there will be no need for artificial lands of refuge for forced migrants.  And if Europe and the world are not so emancipated then there is refuge nowhere.

The followers of Judaism look upon Palestine as the cradle of their faith, but they regard the world as their domicile, so that, together will all other God-revering men and women, they may work out a way of life which shall bring justice and peace to all.  The Jews are essentially a religious community, whose mission is to lead themselves towards, and co-operate with others into, the way of righteousness.

God bless the Jews who have settled in Palestine.  May they find there, and we shall help them to do so, the fullest development of their religious, economic and cultural aspirations.  After the war we hope that as many Jew who so desire may go to Palestine and there become free Palestinians whose religion is Judaism even as we here are, and shall continue to be, free Americans whose religion is Judaism.  But what we want for Jews after this war is what we want for all people.  We want a world in which Jews, wherever they live, are free citizens entitled to the same privileges and subject to the same responsibilities as all other free citizens.

It is because the majority of American Jews believe in this that they reject Political Zionism.  No amount of paid advertisement in the press with their long list of endorsements by well-meaning, yet misled Christians will change our mind.  Nor will the Zionist spokesmen, who claim to speak for all Jewry, persuade us.

The political Zionists have looked backwards too long.  Let them turn around and see the future: let them open their hearts to confidence and faith that this war of the United Nations will end in the triumph of the Atlantic Charter, and in the reassertion everywhere of the dignity of all human beings.

And to conclude: January 15, 1943: “The “Bogey” of Zionism”, by Rabbi Simon Greenberg

Rabbi Hyman Judah Schachtel, at…

Wikipedia

FindAGrave

Texas State Historical Association

This video, from Howard Mortman’s YouTube channel, shows Rabbi Schachtel at the inauguration of President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) IV – December 18, 1942: 36 Local Rabbis Support Jewish Home in Palestine

A Controversy of Zion – IV

“Following an Allied victory,
the Jews of Europe,
we are confident,
will be restored to their political rights and to equality of citizenship.

But they possessed these rights after the last war
and yet the past twenty-five years have witnessed
a rapid and appalling deterioration in their position.”

* * * * * * * * * *

“Nationalism as such,
whether it be English, French, American or Jewish,
is not in itself evil.”

“The prophets of Israel looked forward to the time
not when all national entities would be obliterated,
but when all nations would walk in the light of the Lord,
live by His law and learn war no more.”
______________________________

Paralleling the letter of the Zionist Organization of America’s President concerning anti-Zionism, published in the December 18, 1942 issue of The Jewish Exponent, the newspaper on the same date published a statement drafted by hundreds of Rabbis representing the three primary branches of Judaism in the United States, supporting the restoration of a Jewish national home in what was then called “palestine”.  Though the article doesn’t specify the total number of signatories, mention is made that 36 Rabbis specifically from Philadelphia, and, 14 others from the city’s general metropolitan area and nearby suburbs, affixed their signatures to the document.  

Though drafted eighty years ago, what’s particularly notable in terms of the year 2023 is the document’s support and unabashed acceptance of the concept of nationalism – for all peoples – with is sensibly, simply, and directly drawn from the Tanach. 

36 Local Rabbis Support Jewish Home in Palestine

The Jewish Exponent
December 18, 1942

Thirty-six Philadelphia Rabbis placed their signatures together with hundreds of others of their colleagues throughout America amongst the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform groups, to a historic statement supporting Palestine as the Jewish national home, to which Jews of the world, particularly of Europe, might wish to go.  The Rabbis are as follows:

Solomon Barsel, Samuel Blinder, Elias Charry, Mortimer J. Cohen, Aaron Decter, M. Eckstein, Leon H. Elmaleh, Maxwell M. Farber, Max I. Forman, Jacob Freedman, Samuel Glasner, Marvin J. Goldfine, Morris S. Goodblatt, Solomon Grayzel, Simon Greenberg, Julius A. Greenstone, Jacob Hurwitz, Joseph Klein, Maurice Kliers, Leon S. Lang, Meir Lasker, Oscar Levin, S.L. Levinthal, Abraham J. Levy, C. David Matt, Abraham A. Neuman, N. Olinsky, Abraham L. Poupko, David Pruzansky, Reuben Pupkin, Matthew S. Rosen, Leon W. Rosenberg, Isidor Solomon, David B. Swiren, Philip Tatz, Ralph M. Weisberger.

Fourteen others Rabbis of metropolitan and suburban Philadelphia affixed their names to the statement which reads, in part, as follows:

“Zionism has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism.  Scripture and rabbinical literature alike are replete with the promise of the restoration of Israel to its ancestral home.

“Zionism is consistent with the universalistic teachings of Judaism.  Universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism.  Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil.  It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism which shamelessly flouts all manner of international morality which is evil.  The prophets of Israel looked forward to the time not when all national entities would be obliterated, but when all nations would walk in the light of the Lord, live by His law and learn war no more.

“Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance – and that is to America.  Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States.  The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.

“Jews and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe.  An Allied peace which will not frankly face the problem of the national homelessness of the Jewish people will leave the age-old tragic status of European Jewry unchanged.  The Jewish people is in danger of emerging from this war not only more torn and broken than any other people, but also without any prospects of a better and more secure future and without the hope that such tragedies will not recur again and again.  Following an Allied victory, the Jews of Europe, we are confident, will be restored to their political rights and to equality of citizenship.  But they possessed these rights after the last war and yet the past twenty-five years have witnessed a rapid and appalling deterioration in their position.  In any case, even after peace is restored Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jews will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.  Indeed, for most of them there may be no other substantial hope of economic, social and spiritual rehabilitation.

“The freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a plane of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as such, restored in its homeland, where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.”

______________________________

Take another look at the list of Rabbis who signed the statement supporting the Jewish national home in “palestine”.  You’ll notice the name of Leon H. Elmaleh of Congregation Mikveh Israel.

Rabbi Elmaleh and his wife Fanny had two sons, one of whom was Jacob David Alflolo Elmaleh. 

Less than two months after this article appeared in the Exponent, Jacob David, by then a Second Lieutenant (0-562947) in the Army Air Force, lost his life in the sinking of the USS Dorchester in the North Atlantic on February 3, 1943, the incident best known in popular culture from the story of “The Four Chaplains”, among whom was Rabbi (First Lieutenant) Alexander D. Goode (Without impugning the bravery of those four men, I’m skeptical that this event occurred as described in official documents and citations, or perhaps even occurred at all.  To me, the story has a striking resonance with the tale of Rabbi Abraham Bloch, who was killed on August 29, 1914, while serving as a chaplain in the French Army.  But that speculation will be the subject of another post.  Well, maybe…) 

A member of the University of Pennsylvania’s class of 1940, here’s Jacob David’s portrait from The Record, the University of Pennsylvania yearbook… 

…and, his Draft Registration card, reflecting his attendance at the University of Wisconsin, from which he attained a Master’s Degree.  

This article about Jacob David’s “Missing in Action” status appeared in the Exponent on February 29, 1943, a little over three weeks after the Dorchester’s sinking…  

…while this is the news item that appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on February 16.

And, an enlargement of his portrait from the article…

Along with his parents Leon H. (1873-4/25/72) and Fanny (Feinberg (Polano)) Elmaleh (9/27/84-7/21/66), Jacob David was survived by a brother, Joseph S. Elmaleh (104/27-6/20/10).

Jacob David’s name appears on page 518 of American Jews in World War II.  He’s commemorated on the Tablets of the Missing at the East Coast Memorial, in New York City.  Though in the context of military service of American Jews Rabbi Goode’s name is centrally associated with the Dorchester’s sinking, in actuality there were numerous other Jewish servicemen – members of the Army, Army Air Force, and Merchant Marine (among the latter the Dembofsky brothers) aboard the ship on that February Wednesday in the winter of 1943.  

So, what’s next? January 8, 1943: “We Reject Zionism”, by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel

Some Things to Refer to…

USS Dorchester…

… at Wikipedia

The Four Chaplains…

…at Wikipedia

Fanny and Leon Haim Elmaleh, at FindAGrave…

Fanny

Leon Haim

Congregation Mikveh Israel (“Notable People”)

 

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) III – December 18, 1942: ZOA President Replies to Anti-Zionist Group

A Controversy of Zion – III

“They seem to think they have but to wave their hand,
draw up a charter of incorporation,
and the reality of the Jewish people will disappear into thin air
and Zionism will be exorcised.”

Continuing from the prior post – a discussion of the first meetings of the American Council for Judaism in Philadelphia – the same December 1942 issue of the Jewish Exponent carried a statement by the President of the Zionist Organization of America criticizing the premises and rationale of anti-Zionism.  The organization’s president (uncertain, but possibly Rabbi Simon Greenberg, who was Rabbi at Har Zion Temple in Philadelphia until 1946) focuses on the central and animating fallacy at the heart of the Council’s agenda: Denial.  That is, denial of Jewish peoplehood, and from that, the inevitable denial of the natural legitimacy of a Jewish nation-state.

I find it especially interesting that the author mentions the “Protestrabbiner”, a term coined by Theodore Herzl for the title of an article which appeared in Die Welt on July 16, 1897.  Herzl’s article was a protest against a letter written by five German rabbis – both Liberal and Orthodox – against Zionism and the Zionist Congress, written in the name of the German Rabbinical Association. 

As described in the 1971 edition of Encyclopedia Judaica, “Their attitude as formulated in the protest letter contained three postulates: the intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine contradicts the messianic destiny of Judaism; Judaism obligates all her believers to be faithful to their native land, serving it as best they can; philanthropic support for agricultural settlers in Palestine is permissible, since it is not connected with the establishment of a Jewish national state.  The letter closes with the assertion that love for one’s country obligates all those who care for Judaism to shun Zionism and in particular the Zionist Congress.  It was mainly because of this letter that the first Zionist Congress was held in Basle rather than in Munich, as was originally planned.  The letter also aroused an unusual amount of agitation because of its hints about the Zionists’ unfaithfulness to Germany.  Herzl severely criticized the signatories (two Orthodox rabbis – M. [Markus Mordechai] Horowitz of Frankfurt and A. [Sigmund Selig Aviëzri] Auerbach of Halberstadt – and three liberals – S. [Siegmund] Maybaum of Berlin, J. [Jakob] Gutmann of Breslau, and K. [Mose Cosman] Werner of Munich) – and a great number of Zionist rabbis, Orthodox, and liberal, wrote letters and articles condemning the “protest rabbis.”  The protest letter was endorsed, however, by the general assembly of the Rabbinical Association, convened in Berlin a year later (July 1–2, 1898), with only one rabbi – Selig Gronemann (Samuel Gronemann ‘s father) – voting against it.  Seventy years after the publication of the protest letter, a survey discovered that almost all the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the “protest rabbis” had settled in Israel. – BIBLIOGRAPHY: Zionistisches A-B-C Buch (1908), 227–30; Ma’ariv (July 16, 1968). (Getzel Kressel)”

Here’s Theodore Herzl’s letter as it appeared in Die Welt.  It’s followed by an English-language translation, and, the text in the original German.  

As relevant in 2023 as in 1897.

If not more.

Zentralorgan der Zionistischen Bewegung
Zentralorgan der Zionistischen Bewegung

_____________________________

Protest Rabbis

The World

No. 7 – Year I.
Appears every Friday.
Vienna, July 16, 1897.

The latest in the Jewish movement are the protest rabbis.  Max Nordau has already branded this type with a word that will remain: They are the people, who sit in the safe boat and hit the heads of the drowning people who want to cling to the edge of the boat, with the oar.  That’s how the usual aggressive Jewish enemy of Zion is.  If you add employment as a “spiritual forger” of a larger community, then the protest rabbi is serious.  Five such protest rabbis issued the following statement in the Berliner Tageblatt and elsewhere:

The Executive Board of the Rabbinical Association in Germany: Dr. Maybaum (Berlin), Dr. Horovitz (Frankfurt), Dr. Guttmann (Wroclaw), Dr. Auerbach (Halberstadt), Dr. Werner (Munich) publishes the following statement: “By convening a Zionist Congress and publishing its agenda, such erroneous ideas about the doctrinal content of Judaism and the aspirations of its adherents have been spread that the undersigned board of directors of the Rabbinical Association in Germany considers it necessary to make the following statement:

1.  The efforts of so-called Zionists to found a Jewish national state in Palestine contradict the messianic promises of Judaism as contained in the Holy Scriptures and later religious sources.

2.  The Jewish theme obliges those who misjudge it to serve the fatherland to which they belong with all devotion and to promote its national interests wholeheartedly and with all their might.

3.  This obligation, however, does not conflict with those noble aspirations aimed at the colonization of Palestine by Jewish farmers, because they have no connection whatsoever with the establishment of a national state.

In the same way, religion and love of fatherland impose on us the duty to ask all those who care about the well-being of Judaism to keep away from the aforementioned Zionist efforts and especially from the Congress, which is still planned despite all warnings.”

This is a strange document.  The first impression we have of this is that it’s not exactly going to improve the reputation of the Jews.  The whole explanation is, as every Jew sees at first sight, turned outwards.  It is one of those contemptible and despised protestations that beg for the favor of enemies.

Luckily not all rabbis are like that.  Names like those of Mohilewer in Bialystok, Zadok Kahn in Paris, Rülf in Memel, Gaster in London and many, many others we can only mention with sincere admiration.  And we don’t do it as [political] party people.  Zionism is not a party.  One can come to it from all parties, just as it encompasses all parties in a people’s life.  Zionism is the Jewish people en route.  And that’s why the reproach of the protest rabbis is an outrageous one.

If someone wants to turn away from the Jewish nation from which he comes and go over to another people, he may do so.  We Zionists will not stop him.  He is only a stranger to us.  His new national affair does not bother us any further, but neither does ours.  He has nothing to interfere with us, and if he’s clever he won’t even try, because it can only make him suspicious among Teutons, Gauls, [and] Anglo-Saxons if he’s still concerned about internal Jewish things.  If he wants to be comrades for his assimilationist solution to the Jewish question, the best means is for him to show how well he is received; how fully he is recognized; how well he feels.

But belonging to Judaism, practicing Judaism as a profession, so to speak, and fighting it at the same time; that is something against which every legal feeling must rebel.

Now let’s take a look at the “statement” of the five gentlemen point by point.  It is based on your fundamental untruth.  The five gentlemen state that “by convening a Zionist congress and by publishing its agenda, such erroneous ideas about the teachings of Judaism and the aspirations of its adherents were spread”.  Where did the five gentlemen read any reference to the “doctrinal content of Judaism” in the “convocation” or in the “agenda” of the Congress?  There is not a word, not even a hint of this, in the announcements of the conveners.  Consequently, something other than the convocation of the Congress can also be to blame for the “so erroneous ideas about the teaching content” that these five gentlemen claim to be familiar with.  Incidentally, the five gentlemen must have laughed heartily when they presented “such erroneous ideas about the teaching content” and so on as an excuse.  And now you go to point 1.  “The efforts of so-called Zionists, etc.”  “So-called” is good, “so-called” is even very good.  There’s irony in that.  Later commentators will call point 1 of the explanation the ironic one.  What kind of a face might the five gentlemen have made when they put the “messianic promises of Judaism” into their mouths?  We already know how they turn everything into its opposite and reinterpret it.  When they speak of Zion they mean anything but, for God’s sake, not Zion.

A thorough refutation of this first point has been put at our disposal by a man as truly pious as he is learned.  Our friend proves the correctness of the Zionist efforts precisely from the Holy Scriptures and later religious sources.  But we refrain from bringing up these reasons because this is not a theological discussion.

And now we come to point two.  What does that mean when “Jewishness obliges its believers to serve the fatherland to which they belong with all devotion” etc.?  That only has a denunciatory meaning.  Incidentally, one notices that Mr. Maybaum’s cradle was not in Germany.  The protest rabbis of Frankfurt, Breslau, Halberstadt and Munich should have entrusted the drafting of the document to a writer who was more proficient in German.  A German would never write: “the fatherland to which I belong”, but “my fatherland”, “your fatherland”, “her fatherland”.  One does not belong to a fatherland, it belongs to one; the whole fatherland belongs to each individual.  But whoever does not own his fatherland is in bad shape.  He still loves it because he just can’t stop loving it.  This love does not express itself in hollow declamations, it includes every willingness to make sacrifices; but it does not preclude the energetic from turning to themselves and seeking a solution that can remedy the situation.  And there is no sophistication in the Zionist view: that everyone serves his fatherland just as much as the nation to which he belongs – the word is appropriate here – if he strives to bring about the inner peace of the citizenry through a reasonable and modern colonization movement.

Incidentally, the five gentlemen bow to the third point, which one can call the evasive one, also to the “noble efforts” to settle Jewish farmers in Palestine.  And that contains a light but understandable pandering to certain wealthy co-religionists who want to make great sacrifices for colonization.  Of course, we Zionists consider the attachment of peasants to be more foolish than noble if it happens without guarantees under international law.  We don’t just want to take our poor, severely oppressed, persecuted brothers away from prison, we want to secure their future as well.  And that we want to establish these guarantees, dare one suspect, attack?

The five gentlemen close with the urgent request to stay away from the “despite all warnings still planned Congress”.  The gentlemen may admonish as much as they like; the Congress is taking place because it must take place, because the scattered people are awaiting it with longing and hope.  The situation of the Jews is unprecedented, and it would be impossible for us to discuss it calmly and in full legality, before the eyes of the whole world?  What righteous Christian will find anything blameworthy in that?  If our efforts do not arouse any sympathy, then the mighty of this earth will simply not support us, then the peoples will not help us in the work of redemption – and the misery will continue.  Whose situation will we make worse?  Is there a single reproach that hasn’t been leveled at us before?  The incendiary speeches and diatribes that have been used against us ninety-nine times will be repeated for the hundredth time.  But we don’t believe that either.  We have clear signs that our loyalty and openness do not displease even our opponents, before whom we calmly face.  After all, a great suffering speaks from our movement, and with the human one always finds the way to the heart of the people.  Who will blame us if we, who are mostly not directly affected, do not ignore the nameless misery of our brothers?

But where were and are the protest rabbis with their protests when unhappy Jews, unhappy only because they are Jews, were and are being insulted, robbed and killed.  Now in Algiers, now in Russia, now in Persia and now in Galicia, here and there and everywhere cries of lamentation.  And the protest rabbis then only murmur something about a mission in their after-dinner hours; of a mission that would be the most crass pride, if it meant anything at all, because the civilized peoples would and must resolutely refuse to be missionized by us.  If there was a Jewish mission, it was Christianity, and that is no longer dependent on the protest rabbis.

But Zionism, as we see more and more clearly, will become a healing force in Judaism.  The contrasts that arise must lead to a clarification of rotten relationships and finally to a purification of the character of the people.  Everything is for the better!  It is also for the good that some rabbis take such a stand against their own people.  And even if it were only that a new name was won for these gentlemen, that would also be of value.  A [Rabbi Samuel] Mohilewer, a [Rabbi Isaac] Rülf; noble, admirable men, who in their faithful hearts sympathized with every suffering of their poor co-religionists, who stand in the midst of the people, where it is most severely persecuted – their names were none other than the first wedding or funeral orator who came along.  Now we have the distinction.  Lest they be confused with the good rabbis in the future, let us call the synagogue employees who oppose the salvation of their people the protest rabbis.

H.

__________ __________ __________

Protestrabbiner

Die Welt

Nr. 7 – I. Jahrgang.
Erscheint jeden Freitag.
Wien, 16. Juli 1897.

Das Neuste in der Judenbewegung sind die Protestrabbiner.  Max Nordau hat diesen Types bereits mit einen Worte gebrandmarkt, das bleiben wird: Es sind die Leute, die im sicheren Boot sitzen und den Ertrinkenden, die sich an den Bootrand klammern möchten, mit dem Ruder auf die Köpfe schlagen.  So ist schon der gewöhnliche aggreisive jüdische Zionsfeind.  Nimmt man noch die Anstellung als „Seelforger“ einer grösseren Gemeinde hinzu, so ist der Protestrabbiner serrig.  Fünf soche Protestrabbiner haben in „Berliner Tageblatt“ und an anderden Orten die nachstehende Erklarung erlassen:

Der Geschäftsführende Vorstand des Rabbinerverbrandes in Deutschland: Dr. Maybaum (Berlin), Dr. Horovitz (Frankfurt), Dr. Guttmann (Breslau), Dr. Auerbach (Halberstatd), Dr. Werner (München) veröffentlicht folgende Erklarung: „Durch die Einberufung eines Zionisten-Congresses und durch die Veroffentlichung seiner tagesordung sind so irrige Vorstellungen über den Lehrinhalt des Judenthums und über die Bestrebungen seiner Bekenner verbreitet worden, dass der unterzeichnete Vorstand des Rabbinerverbrandes in Deutschland es für geboten erahtet, folgende Erklärung abzugeben:

1. Die Bestrebungen sogenannter Zionisten, in Palästina einen jüdisch-nationalen Staat zu gründen, widersprechen den messianischen Verheissungen des Judenthums, wie sie in der heiligen Schrift und den späteren Religionsquellen enthalten sind.

2. Das Judenthem verpflichtet seine Verkenner, dem Vaterlande, dem sie angehören, mit aller Hinbegung zu dienen und dessen nationale interessen mit ganzem Herzen und mit allen Kräften zu fördern.

3. Mit dieser Verpflichtung aber stehen nicht im Widerspruch jene edlen Bestrebungen, welche auf die Colonisation Palästinas durch jüdische Ackerbauer abzielen, weil sie zur Gründung einese nationalen Staates keinerlei Beziehungen haben.

Religion und Vaterlandsliebe legen uns dager in gleicher Weise die Pflicht auf, Alle, denen das Wohl des Judenthums am Herzen liegt, zu bitten, dass die sich von den Vorerwähnten zionistischen Bestrebungen und ganz besonders von dem trotz aller Abmahnungen noch immer geplanten Congress fern halten.”

Das ist ein merkwürdiges Document.  Der erste Eindruck, den wir davon haben, ist, dass es das Ansehen der Juden nicht gerade erhöhen wird.  Die ganze Erklärung ist ja, wie jeder Jude auf den ersten Blick, sicht, nach aussen hin gewendet.  Es ist eine jener verächtlichen und verachteten Betheuerungen, die um die Gunst der Feinde winseln.

Zum Glück sind nicth alle Rabbiner so.  Name, wie die von Mohilewer in Bialystok, Zadok Kahn in Paris, Rülf in Memel, Gaster in London unde viele, viele andere können wir nur in aufrichtiger Verehrung nennen.  Und wir thun es nicht als Parteileute.  Der Zionismus ist keine Partei.  Man kann zu ihm von allen Parteien kommen, gleichwie er alle Parteien eines Volkslebens umfasst.  Der Zionismus ist das jüdische Volk unterwegs.  Und darum ist das Vorhalten der Protestrabbiner ein ungeheureliches.

Will Einer von der jüdischen Nation, aus der er stammt, sich wegwenden und zu einem anderen Volk übergehen, so mag er es nur thun.  Wir Zionisten werden ihn nicht aufhalten.  Nur ist er ein Fremder für uns.  Seine neuen Volksangelegenheiten tümmern uns nicht näher, aber auch ihn nicht die unserigen.  Er hat bei uns nichts dreinzureden, und wenn er klug ist, wird er es auch gar nicht versuchen, deen es kann ihn bei Teutonen, Galliern, Angelsachsen nur verdächtig machen, wenn er sich noch um innere jüdische Sachen sorgt.  Will er für seine assimilatorische Lösung der Judenfrage Genossen werden, so ist dazu das beste Mittel dass er zeige, wie gut man ihn aufnimmt, wie voll man ihn anerkennt, wie wohl er such befindet.

Aber dem Judenthum angehören, das Judenthum sozosagen berufsmässig ausüben und es gleichzeitig bekämpfen, das ist etwas, wogegen sich jedes rechtliche Gefühl auflehnen muss.

Sehen wir uns nun Punkt für Punkt die „Erklärung“ der fünf Herren an.  Sie beruht auf euner fundamentalen Unwahrheit.  Die fünf Herren geben an, dass „durch die Einberusung eines Zionistencongresses und durch die Veröffentlchung seiner Tagesordnung so irrige Vorstellungen über den Lehrinholt des Judenthums und über die Bestrebungen seiner Bekenner verbreitet worden“ seien.  Wo haben die fünf Herren in der „Einberusung“ oder in der „Tagesordnung“ des Congresses irgend einen Hinweis auf den „Lehrinhalt des Judenthums“ gelesen?  Davon steht kein Wort, keine auch nur entfernte Andeutung in den Verlautbarungen der Einberufer.   Folglich kann an den „so irrigen Vorstellungen über den Lehrinhalt“, den diese fünf Herren zu kennen angeben, auch etwas Anderes Schuld sein, als die Einberusung des Congresses.  Die fünf Herren müssen übrigens recht herzlich gelacht haben, als sie die „so irrigen Vorstellungen über den Lehrinhalt“ u.s.w. zum Vorwand nahmen.  Und sie gehen nun zu Punkt 1 über.  „Die Bestrebungen sogenannter Zionisten u.f.w.“  „Sogenannt“ ist gut, „sogenannt“ ist sogar sehr gut.  Es ist Ironic darin.  Spätere Com2mentatoren werden Punkt 1 der Erklärung den ironischen nennen.  Was mögen die fünf Herren wohl für ein Gesicht dazu gemacht haben, als sie die „messianischen Verheissungen des Judenthums“ in den Mund nahmen?  Wir wissen ja schon, wie sie Alles in sein Gegentheil drehen und umdeuten.  Wenn sie von Zion sprechen ist Alles darunter zu verstehen, nur um Gotteswillen nicht Zion.

Es ist uns von einem ebenso wahrhaft frommen wie gelehrten Manne eine gründliche Widerlegung dieses ersten Punktes zur Verfügung gestellt worden.  Gerade aus der heiligen Schrift und den späteren Religionsqullen beweist unser Freund die Richtigkeit der zionistischen Bestrebungen.  Aber wir versagen es uns, diese Gründe in’s Treffen führen zu lassen, weil es sich nicht um eine theologische Discussion handelt.

Und nun kommen wir zu Punkt zwei.  Was soll das heissen, wenn „das Judenthum seine Bekenner verplichtet, dem Vaterlande, dem sie angehören, mit aller Hingebung zu dienen“ u.f.w.?  Das hat doch nur einen denunciatorischen Sinn.  Man merkt übrigens, dass die Wiege des Herrn Maybaum nicht in Deutschland gestanden ist.  Die protestrabbiner von Frankfurt, Breslau, Halberstadt und München hätten einen des Deutschen mächtigeren Schriftsteller mit der Abfassung der Urkunde betrauen sollen.  Ein Deutscher schriebe nie: „das Vaterland, dem ich angehöre“, sondern „mein Vaterland“, „dein Vaterland“, „ihr Vaterland“.  Man gehört einem Vaterland nicht an, sondern es gehört Einem; jedem Einzelnen gehört das ganze Vaterland.  Wem aber sein Vaterland nicht gehört, der ist übel dran.  Er liebt es darum noch immer, weil er eben nicht aufhören kann, es zu lieben.  Diese Liebe äussert sich nicht in hohlen Declamationen, sie schliesst jede Opferbereitschaft ein; aber sie schliesst nicht aus, dass sich die Energischen auf sich selbst besinnen und nach einer Lösung suchen, durch die Abhilfe geschaffen werden kann.  Und es ist durchaus keine Spitzfindigkeit in der Auffassung der Zionisten: dass Jeder seinem Vaterland ebensosehr diene, wie der Nation, der er angehört – hier ist das Wort am Platze – wenn er den inneren Frieden der Bügerschaft durch eine vernünstige und moderne Colonisationsbewegung herbeizuführen trachtet.

Die fünf Herren verbeugen sich übrigens heim dritten Punkt, welchen man den ausweichenden nenne kann, auch vor den „edlen Bestrebungen“, jüdische Ackerbauer in Palästina anzusiedeln.  Und das enthält eine leichte aber verständliche Augendienerei gegenüber gewissen wohlhabenden Glaubensgenossen, die für die Colonisation grosse Opfer bringen wollen.  Wir Zionisten halten nun freilich die Bauernanfiedlung für thörichter als edel, wenn es ohne völkerrechtliche Garantien geschieht.  Wir wollen ja unsere armen, schwerbedrückten, verfolgten Brüder nicht nur in der Haft fortschaffen, sondern auch ihre Zukunft sichern.  Und dass wir diese Garantein herstellen wollen, das wagt man zu verdächtigen, anzugreifen?

Die fünf Herren schliessen mit der dringenden Aufforderung, man möge sich von dem „trotz aller Abmahnungen noch immer geplanten Congress“ fernhalten.  Die Herren mögen abmahnen so viel sie wollen, der Congress findet statt, weil er stattfinden muss, weil das zerstreute Volk seiner mit Sehnsucht und Hoffnung harrt.  Beispiellos ist die Lage der Juden, und es wäre uns versagt, darüber in Ruhe und vollster Gesetzlichkeit, unter den Augen aller Welt zu berathen?  Welcher rechtschaffene Christ wird darin etwas Tadelnswerthes finden?  Wenn unsere Bestrebungen keine Sympathien erwecken, so werden uns die Mächtigen dieser Erde einsach nicht unterstützen, so werden uns die Völker nicht bei dem Erlösungswerke helfen – und der Jammer wird eben fortdauern.  Wessen Lage verschlechtern, wir damit?  Gibt es einen einzigen Vorwurf, den man uns nicht schon früher machte?  Die Brand- und Hetzreden, die neunundneunzigmal gegen uns geführt wurden, wird man zum hundersten Male halten.  Aber auch das glauben wir nicht.  Wir haben deutliche Zeichen dafür, dass unsere Loyalität und Offenheit selbst unseren Gegnern, vor die wir ruhig hintreten, nicht missfällt.  Schliesslich spricht doch ein grosses Leiden aus unserer Bewegung, und mit dem Menschlichen findet man immer den Weg zum Herzen der Menschen.  Wer wird es uns verübeln, wenn wir, die zumeist nicht unmittelbar betroffen sind, am namenlosen Elend unserer Brüder nicht kalt vorübergehen?

Wo aber waren und sind die Protestrabbiner mit ihren Protesten, wenn unglückliche Juden, unglücklich nur, weil sie Juden sind, beschimpft, beraubt und erschlagen wurden und werden.  Jetzt in Algier, und jetzt in Russland, bald in Persien und bald in Galizien, hier und dort und überall Klagerufe.  Und die Protestrabbiner murmeln dann höchstens in ihren Verdauungsstunden etwas von einer Mission; von einer Mission, die der krasseste Hochmuth wäre, wenn sie überhaupt etwas bedeutete, denn die Culturvölker wüden und müssten sich entschieden verbitten, von uns missionarisiet zu werden.  Wenn es eine jüdische Mission gab, so war es das Christenthum, und das ist auf die Herren Protestrabbiner nicht mehr angewiesen.

Der Zionismus aber, das sehen wir immer deutlicher, wird zu einer heilsamen Krife des Judenthums werden.  Die Gegensatze, die entsehen, müssen zu einer Klärung verrotteter Verhältnisse, und endlich zu einer Läuterung des Volkscharakters führen.  Alles ist zum Guten!  Es ist auch zum Guten, dass manche Rabbiner gegen ihr eigenes Volk eine solche Stellung einnehmen.  Und wäre es auch nur, dass eine neue Bezeichnung für diese Herren gewonnen wurde, so ist auch das schon von Werth.  Ein Mohilewer, ein Rülf, edle, bewunderswerthe Männer, die in ihren treuen Herzen jedes Leid ihrer armen Glaubensgenossen mitlitten, die mitten drin im Volke stehen, wo es am schwersten verfolgt wird – sir hiessen nicht anders, als der erstbeste Hochzeits – oder Leichenredner.  Jetzt haben wir die Unterscheidung.  Damit sie fürder nicht mit den guten Rabbinern verwechselt werden, wollen wir die Angestellten der Synagoge, die sich gegen die Erlösung ihres Volkes verwahren, die Protestrabbiner nennen.

H.

_____________________________

And so, now we come to the third of the Exponent’s six articles…

ZOA President Replies to Anti-Zionist Group

The Jewish Exponent
December 18, 1942

Announcement of the proposed organization of an anti-Zionist group under the leadership of Dr. Louis Wolsey of Philadelphia is but another manifestation of the irrational prejudice against our national movement which persists among a small minority of the Reformed rabbis of this country.  Personally, the feeling that I have toward these Protestrabbiner is one of pity as well as of scorn.

To pretend that Zionism is opposed to Judaism, as these men charge, is obviously absurd.  Zionism has its very roots in our Bible and every page of our Prayer Book gives expression to the Jewish yearning for the restoration of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel. 

The religious aspects of Zionism cannot be denied or ignored without eliminating the very soul and essence of the movement.  But those who speak of Judaism as only a religion, and then confine that religion to a few high-sounding universal ethical maxims, are reducing Judaism to a bare skeleton of itself.  These anti-Zionists are denuding Judaism; they seek to strip it bare of all the meaning with which history has endowed it.  They try, in effect, to tell us that the sixteen millions of Jews throughout the world today are but a spirit and a soul, bound together by naught but a few majestic prophetic utterances of the past and devoid of that feeling of brotherhood which a common ancestry, common historic and contemporary experiences, and a sense of common destiny have implanted in their inmost beings.  All the efforts of these anti-Zionists to convince themselves that we do not exist as a people prove but vain delusions.

I venture also to assert that by their disavowal of Zionism in America these Protestrabbiner have repudiated American democracy itself.  They have said, in effect, that in America Jews must not be themselves; they dare not be different.  They must reject Zionism or any other movement which recognizes the identity of the Jews as a people.  For as a people, these rabbis say, as a people the Jews do not exist.  Using the terms “nationality” and “nationalism” in their own peculiar misconception of their meaning, they insist that there is no Jewish nationality, no Jewish nationalism.  If they be right, then history is a lie, and all contemporary evidence which serves to confound their point of view is but illusion.  They seem to think they have but to wave their hand, draw up a charter of incorporation, and the reality of the Jewish people will disappear into thin air and Zionism will be exorcised.

I am confident that we Zionists need spend little time worrying about these anti-Zionists who hope by incantation and publicized statement to wipe Zionism out of existence.  The opposition of these men will but increase the passionate devotion of the overwhelming majority of Jews in this country to our sacred cause.  Jewish history will brand these internal enemies of the Jewish people as they deserve.

Arriving next: December 18, 1942 “36 Local Rabbis Support Jewish Home in Palestine”

Protestrabbiner, at…

Encyclopedia.com

Encyclopedia of Judaism (Encyclopedia of Judaism, 1971)

de.wikipedia

Maybaum, Sigmund (KehilaLinks)

Ruelf, Isaac (Jewish Virtual Library)

Vogelstein, Heinemann (Wikipedia)

Vogelstein, Heinemann (National Library of Israel (irony, irony, irony!))

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) II – December 18, 1942: Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine

A Controversy of Zion – II

For your consideration: Some thoughts, the naïveté of which are only exceeded by their unintended irony…

“We have spoken in the past of European Judaism,
we speak of Palestinian Judaism,” he said.
“There is no reason why for Jewish Americans
there shall not be a modern, vibrant, vigorous application of Jewish faith
which will be thoroughly and dominantly American.

“In advocating the formation of an American Council of Judaism,
we do not in any way minimize our kinship with our brothers
in every land and in every other interpretation of Judaism.
We merely say to our neighbors and to the world at large
that for us here in America our prayers and our customs
will be so shaped as to be intelligible not only to our children
but to all Americans and that we shall so use our Jewish heritage
that all who may wish to come to our temples will find themselves at home.
Thus, on our part,
the oft-repeated aim to Bring Christian and Jew together
will become more than a pious phrase or a publicity slogan.
It will become a sincere program of better understanding.”

Rabbi William F. Rosenblum, 1942

______________________________

Continuing with the Jewish Exponent’s mid-WW II articles about opposition to Zionism organized from within – but not entirely representing – Reform Judaism, and, countervailing forces from Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, let alone the Reform movement itself, here’s the newspaper’s second article.  From December 18, 1942, it’s one of three on this topic published on this date. 

This article focuses on the creation of the American Council for Judaism, in the text actually titled the “Council for American Judaism”.  Reporting comes from the “Independent Jewish Press Service, Inc.”, an organization – described in an extensively footnoted entry at Wikipedia – as having been founded in 1935, based in New York, and active in the 1940s.  The Service was under the leadership of Martha Neumark (executive director in the early 40s) and Dr. Judd L. Teller, one of its reporters having been Bernard Lerner, and ceased activity at the end of 1948.  Neumark was the first American women to have been accepted to Rabbinical School (at Hebrew Union College).  (However, she was only permitted to earn a “…qualification as a religious school principal instead of ordination, though she had spent 7 and a half years in rabbinical school.”)  

The Exponent’s article covers the initial two meetings of the Council, held on November 2 and November 23, 1942, at Temple Rodeph Shalom.  Though the reporter’s name is not given, the Philadelphia associations – Rodeph Shalom having been the setting of the two meetings, the Exponent’s detailed coverage of those events, the fact that the organization was founded in Philadelphia, and the mention of Attorney Morris Wolf and Lessing Rosenwald of that city – suggest to me that an IJPS correspondent or stringer simply sat in on one or both meetings, or, received information about the Council’s formation from one of its attendees.  More likely – given the level of detail, quotes, and unflattering anecdotes – the former.  

The Exponent’s article first summarizes the main points pertaining to the Council’s creation, and then goes into much deeper detail about the events, personalities, and agendas of the two meetings.  Particularly interesting are the reported claim by Rabbi William Fineshriber about interacting with Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and, Rabbi Morris Lazaron’s attempt “to “see” Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, in order to present the Council’s anti-Zionist position. 

The article closes with statements by Rabbi Louis Wolsey and Rabbi William F. Rosenblum which present the ethos and aims of the Council.  In that regard, it’s essential to present this quote from Rabbi Wolsey’s FindAGrave biographical profile:

“Beginning in the fall of 1944, however, Wolsey began to experience a sense of alienation from the anti-Zionist movement.  He felt that [Elmer] Berger and Wallach ran the ACJ in an “undemocratic fashion” and that they overemphasized ACJ’s anti-Zionist aspects rather than its Reform principles.  As a result, Wolsey resigned as vice-president in December 1945 and thereafter became totally inactive in the ACJ.

In 1948, upon the creation of the State of Israel, Wolsey formally withdrew as a member of the American Council for Judaism.  In a statement released to the press, he called for the dissolution of the Council and pleaded for an effort to heal all wounds in order to strengthen Israel by creating a united spiritual front of American Jews.  Wolsey’s recognition for the realities of the situation and his willingness to state his changed position in public won him much acclaim.”

And so, the article:

Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine

The Jewish Exponent
December 18, 1942

EDITOR’S NOTE: The story which follows is an exclusive account dealing with the formation of the Council for American Judaism, released to its subscribers by the Independent Jewish Press Service, Inc.

PHILADELPHIA (JPS) – With the objective of splitting all of American Jewish life, war has been pledged on Zionism and on all persons and institutions sympathetic to that program, with the wealth of influential Jews and the power even of irreligious Jews mobilized in order to smash every gain the Zionist movement has made in the United States and Palestine in forty years.

That is the goal set for itself by the group called the Council for American Judaism, which was born in this city six weeks ago although its birth was announced only this week.  Dedicated to battle against those who would build up the Jewish National Home in Palestine, the initial meeting was held in Temple Rodeph Shalom, Philadelphia.  The anti-Zionist rabbis held their first gathering here on November 2nd and perfected their plans on November 23rd.  Behind them, they contend, are some of the most powerful and wealthy Jews in America, who, one of the conveners alleged, have the power of persuasion over the State Department and ready access to present these anti-Zionist views to other members of the United States Cabinet.

The Independent Jewish Press Service has learned the secret background of the Council and, because of the extraordinary issues raised and the outstanding personalities involved, decided to make the lengthy material available to the general public.

These are some of the elements involved in a drama which derives special significance from the present situation in Europe, where millions of Jews are being slaughtered by the Nazis.

(1)  A small group of anti-Zionist Reform rabbis, many of them retired from their pulpits, has undertaken a wide-ranging political program against Zionism, to which these Rabbis allegedly object because it is political in character.  Asserting that Zionism is “secular” and “irreligious” and that is why Reform Judaism, as they understand it, opposes it, these anti-Zionist rabbis have decided to enlist irreligious Jews as well as the religious in order to attempt to achieve their anti-Zionist aims, long rejected by the majority of American Jewish leaders.

(2)  The names of Morris Wolf, prominent Philadelphia lawyer, associated with Lessing Rosenwald of this city, Henry Ittleson, wealthy head of Commercial Investment Trust; Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times; Samuel Leidesdorf, prominent New York accountant; Paul Baerwald, Honorary Chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, are among those of laymen involved in the remarkable story.

(3)  Match that lit the antizionist fire of these rabbis and laymen into flame was Sidney Wallach, until recently “educational director” of the American Jewish Committee, retiring from that body under unknown circumstances.  But a decade ago, Mr. Wallach was the editor of The New Palestine, official organ of the Zionist Organization of America.  Another person associated with the tale is Dr. Maurice Hexter, now Executive Vice-President of the New York Jewish Federation, but prior to that for many years in Palestine as the Felix Warburg named member of the Jewish Agency Executive.

(4)  Secretary of State Hull’s department can be “reached” by this anti-Zionist group, one member of it, Rabbi William Fineshriber, of this city, claims, quoting a statement of anti-Zionist intent by one of the leading members of the State Department.

(5)  Rabbi Lazaron also undertook to “see” Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes before he delivered his speech on December 6th at the National Council of the United Palestine Appeal in New York in order to present the anti-Zionist position to the Secretary.  Whether he “saw: him or not, Mr. Ickes said not one word about Palestine at a national Palestine gathering.

(6)  Among the epithets hurled at various other leading American Jewish personalities were these: Adolph H. Rosenberg, head of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, was described as an “appeaser” by Rabbi Louis Wolsey, of Philadelphia; Rabbi James G. Heller, President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Rabbi Israel Goldstein, President of the Synagogue Council of America, were both denounced as using these organizations for Zionist purposes; the American Jewish Committee itself, under present control, was charged with having “ducked” the Zionist issue.

Campaign for Large Funds

To achieve its purposes, the Council for American Judaism, a name proposed by Rabbi Lazaron, has launched a campaign for $25,000 in the first month.  On the advice of a “public relations” counsel that it would look “nicer” to have a rabbi instead of a layman as the executive director of the organization, youthful Rabbi Elmer Berger, of Flint, Mich., was appointed to the post.

Meeting of November 2nd

The story is best told as it unfolded, itself at two intimate and private meetings at Rabbi Wolsey’s Rodeph Shalom.  Rabbi Wolsey was in the chair.  Others present were venerable Rabbi Samuel Goldenson, of New York’s Temple Emanuel-El, William Rosenau, Morris Lazaron, A.D. Shaw and Abraham Shusterman, the last four of Baltimore, Rabbi William Fineshriber, H.J. Schachtel, and Isaac Landman of new York, Norman Gerstenfeld, of Washington; emeritus David Phillipson, of Cincinnati; emeritus Solomon Foster, of Newark; and C.A. Rubenstein, of Baltimore.

Rabbi Samuel Goldstein introduced Mr. Sidney Wallach, until recently with the American Jewish Committee but now a “free lance” in public relations.  Mr. Wallach, once the editor of the official Zionist journal, told the group that non-Zionism was the most important issue in American Jewish life and that the failure of this cause would be harmful to everything American Jewry values.  The opposition movement is the last stand of the anti-Zionist forces, he stressed, and to achieve its objective an organized group must be fought with organization.  The Zionists, he charged, have captured the organs and media of public opinion.  In his view, the number of Zionists is very small.  Most of them had been “taken in” and were, in reality, only philanthropically minded.  He said it would be regrettable if the anti-nationalist fight remained Reform.  A place should be found for the non-Reform, even in the irreligious anti-Zionist.  Let the irreligious Jew find his place in American Jewish life, but not the place the Zionists want him to have.  The American Jewish Committee, he charged, has “ducked” this issue.  Its members were not aggressively anti-Zionist, although they were and are basically anti-Zionist.

Mr. Wallach’s plan involved “grooming for action” several thousand people, at least one representative in every city who would fight for a hearing and who would have, according to Mr. Wallach, the same function as a Christian Science representative in a community.  He declared that Dr. Magnes was “crucified” by the Jewish press.  To reveal this, he stated, would reveal the unreliability of the Zionists, showing the parallelism between the German 19th century mysticism and Zionist ideology.  This would help show up Zionist errors.  Even the “gad-fly,” he declared, has a place in the establishing of truth.

At this point, Mr. Wallach modestly suggested that he did not want to earn his living doing this type of public relations but, after all, he would have to have the “burden of making a living lifted” from him, if he were to do this public relations work.

Rabbi David Phillipson said he had come from Cincinnati to present the point of view of Mr. Adolph Rosenberg, leader of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.  Mr. Rosenberg felt the group must have a “positive” view, with Americanism as its central theme.  The only salvation for Judaism, he felt, was to identify this movement with Americanism.  Dr. Phillipson said he shared that view and would return to Cincinnati to organize a group on that basis.  But this was not satisfactory to Rabbi Wolsey, with said that in his relations with the U.A.H.C., Mr. Rosenberg had been an appeaser.

Rabbi Rosenau said that the Baltimore rabbis had given a great deal of thought to this cause.  It was their endeavor to create a non-U.A.H.C. organ of Reform Judaism.  It was his thought, however, that stressing of the American keynote would cast aspersion on thousands of those who differ.  They claim to be Americans and are loyal Americans.  The movement, he felt, is a religious one in opposing Zionism.

Rabbi Schachtel was impatient to proceed with practical matters and said the immediate engagement of a person such as Mr. Wallach was essential.  Rabbi Fineshriber agreed that the group ought to follow Mr. Wallach’s plan.  It was necessary to have a person like Wallach or to start a magazine, for financial reasons.

Mr. Wallach responded that a “man’s size job must be done by a man,” whether himself or somebody else.  He felt it would be wise to get clarification of the views of Wendell Willkie and Secretary Hull on Zionism.  In his view, money-raising for anti-Zionist purposes should be very easy.  He knew many men who would be ready to contribute.

Dr. Goldenson agreed to this, saying once a man was engaged the financial support would flow in.

Rabbi Foster was opposed to joining with irreligious Jews, saying his antagonism to Zionism was of religious origin.

Rabbi Lazaron asked the practical questions:  How much would Wallach’s services entail?  What would he do if he had the money?  How would he raise the money?

Mr. Wallach said he would need from $7,200 to $7,500 a year.  He would get busy doing the kind of thing he had been talking about, get a hearing for anti-Zionism.  One magazine was not enough.  If we show we mean business, Wallach said, groups in every city will contribute, especially if we can get tax-exemption.  The zealots in every city must be found.  He believed that anti-nationalism would strengthen Reform, rather than Reform strengthen anti-nationalism.

Rabbi Gerstenfeld, of Washington, was satisfied.  He would call his laymen together promptly to raise funds.

Would Use Yiddish Press

Mr. Wallach suggested a key group of individuals in New York to supervise the spending of the money and the conduct of the work.  This group would have to have freedom to work and to make decisions.  The Yiddish press, he suggested, should be approached, so that with “friends” inside, an occasional item would be published to inject doubt of Zionism in the readers’ minds.

Rabbi Schachtel wanted to know whether “our movement is to be pro-Reform or anti-nationalist”.  In his view, the main program should be “anti-nationalist”.  Rabbi Lazaron said he did not like to see an anti-program but a positive one.  Rabbi Shaw agreed.

Then the discussion went on, with suggestions being offered for various types of magazines, methods of getting tax exemption, and getting speakers onto various lecture platforms.  Rabbi Goldenson asked whether the group should identify itself solely with Reform or strike the larger American note.  He was for the latter, although sole identification with either would be a limitation on any money-raising venture.

It was Rabbi Gerstenfeld, seconded by Rabbi Phillipson, who proposed that $25,000 be raised in one month, that Mr. Wallach be engaged and a program be worked out for the year.  The motion carried.

After adjournment for lunch, Dr. Goldenson started off the afternoon proceedings by reading the letter in the New York Times of November 1st, from Dr. Judah L. Magnes, President of the Hebrew University.  Each of the men, led off by Rabbi Phillipson, explained how he was going to raise funds in his city for this crusade.  With Rabbi Lazaron as chairman, a committee was appointed to formulate objectives.  Other members were Goldenson, Schachtel, Gerstenfeld, and Fineshriber.

Rabbi Wise Reports on Meeting

The second meeting of the group, called in the same temple, here, on November 23rd, heard a letter read from Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, of New York, a national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal and fund-raising chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, who described a meeting held in New York on November 16th to consider purposes in which Rabbi Wolsey’s group was extremely interested.

Rabbi Wise dismissed the importance of the answer to the 95 anti-Zionist rabbis singed by 733 rabbis.  He declared that only 199 of 476 members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis were included.  He pointed out that neither Dr. Julian Morgenstern, President of the Hebrew Union College, nor Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, had joined the 733 rabbis.

Another letter was then read by Rabbi Wolsey from Rabbi Jonah B. Wise.  In it the latter described a meeting in New York, on November 16th.  Those present were:  Alan M. Stroock, son of the late President of the American Jewish Committee; William Rosenwald, President of the national Refugee Service and a national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal; Paul Baerwald, honorary chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee; Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, who, in four years, made no contribution to the United Jewish Appeal on the ground of his principle objection to Palestine; Edward M.M. Warburg, a lieutenant and chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee; Maurice Hexter, once a member of the Jewish Agency Executive in Jerusalem; George Backer, president of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency; Samuel Leidesdorf, treasurer of the New York United Jewish Appeal; Edgar Nathan, Manhattan Borough president; Henry S. Hendricks, and Henry Ittleson, head of the Commercial Investment Trust.  Excuses for absence were sent by Judge Samuel Rosenman, confidant of President Roosevelt; Lewis Rosenstiel, head of Schenley Distillers; Nathan Ohrbach, New York merchant; and Alexander Kahn, managing editor of the Jewish Daily Forward; Joseph M. Proskauer, anti-Zionist candidate for the Presidency of the American Jewish Commiteee, conveyed his views to the group in a letter.

Rabbi Wise told the Philadelphia meeting in his letter to Rabbi Wolsey that the New York gathering of November 16th had reached certain conclusions on their common interests and that Maurice Hexter had been instructed to report as soon as possible on a program of procedure and an outline of probably enterprise.  Rabbi Wise concluded that he and Rabbi Goldstein were very much pleased with the results of the meeting.  There is no doubt, Rabbi Jonah Wise reported, that these laymen mean business.  What the Zionists regarded as a victory for themselves the men present at the Rabbi Wise meeting regarded, on the contrary, as a victory for their own viewpoint.  The reference was to a big story in The New York Times (whose publisher was present at the Wise meeting and who is related by marriage to Rabbi Wise), headed “733 Rabbis Rebuke Anti-Zionist Jews.”  The anti-Zionists at the Wise meeting regarded the story as an evidence of progress and as giving public notice that not all American Jews were Zionists.

At this point Rabbi Israel Goldstein, President of the Synagogue Council, came in for sharp criticism from Rabbi Schachtel, who charged that Goldstein was using the Synagogue Council for Zionist purposes.  He reported that he had secured the consent of Rabbi James Heller for a change in the constitution to permit, hereafter, a vote by majority instead of unanimously.  As criticism was offered, letters were read in criticism of Rabbi Julius Gordon, of St. Louis, for his activities as chairman of the Committee on Palestine of the C.C.A.R.  He was alleged to be acting without authority.  Rabbi Heller and Rabbi Barnett Brickner, of Cleveland, were charged with making replacements on C.C.A.R. commissions of Zionists almost exclusively.

During the discussion on the question of an executive director, it was pointed out that Sidney Wallach has advised that it would be better for a rabbi than a layman to be chosen.  Rabbi Elmer Berger was then selected to obtain “a salary commensurate with the position”.  A lay public relations adviser, t be Wallach, was also agreed upon, the actual choice to await the gathering of funds.

Rabbi Fineshriber then summed up the achievements of the group: 1. We have stirred up the Zionists and the country at large to a realization of the opposition; 2. We have started the first effective collective action on the part of American rabbis in opposition to Jewish nationalism; 3. Rabbi Lazaron has to his credit the achievement of wide publicity for Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s anti-Zionist speech in Baltimore; 4. We have 96 actively interested rabbis.

Rabbi Lazaron reported that he has already received some funds for his so-called Lay-Rabbinate Committee, the forerunner of which is now the Council of American Judaism, a name unanimously chosen after Rabbi Lazaron had suggested it.  It was pointed out that the name has several advantages.  1. It meets the desires of the financial backers; 2. It meets the request of Adolph Rosenberg, President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, for emphasis on Americanism; 3. It defines the aims of the group, it was said.

Rabbi William Rosenblum, of New York, was chosen chairman of a committee, with Rabbi Schachtel and Nathan Perilman, assistant Rabbi Goldenson, to draw up incorporation papers and a constitution.  They will submit their work to Lazaron, Wolsey, David Lefkowitz, of Dallas; Julius Feibelman, of New Orleans; Irving Reichert, of San Francisco; Louis Binstock, of Chicago; and Dr. Leo Franklin, retired Detroit rabbi.

The management of a lecture bureau, to send speakers all over the country to spread anti-Zionism, was entrusted to Solomon Foster, retired rabbi of Newark, who will operate the bureau form his home.  Rabbi Foster reported he had already obtained $1,500 in Newark for his work.

The rabbis, who continuously emphasize that they are in favor of the upbuilding of Palestine although they oppose Zionism, agreed that it would be an excellent thing to have their next meeting in New York on December 7th, because it was the day following the meeting of the National Council of the United Palestine Appeal, which is a non-partisan fund-raising organization for Palestine.  They could then deal with the subject matter of that meeting.

__________

Rabbi Wolsey’s Statement

PHILADELPHIA. – In explaining the functions of the Council for Judaism, Rabbi Wolsey said the plans for the American Council for Judaism were formulated at a meeting last June in Atlantic City, “with the purpose of combating nationalistic and secularistic trends in Jewish life”.

“We are definitely opposed to a Jewish State, a Jewish flag or a Jewish army,” he said.  “We are interested in the development of Palestine as a refuge for persecuted Jews, but are opposed to the idea of a political State under Jewish domination in Palestine or anywhere else.”

Rabbi William F. Rosenblum, of Temple Israel, New York City, chairman of one of the organizing committees, in addressing his congregation, declared that while Judaism was a universal religion, it was evident that the spiritual capital of world Judaism after the war would be in the United States.

“We have spoken in the past of European Judaism, we speak of Palestinian Judaism,” he said.  “There is no reason why for Jewish Americans there shall not be a modern, vibrant, vigorous application of Jewish faith which will be thoroughly and dominantly American.

“The members of this congregation have heard me advocate such an accent on our Jewish faith for the last twelve years.  In advocating the formation of an American Council of Judaism, we do not in any way minimize our kinship with our brothers in every land and in every other interpretation of Judaism.  We merely say to our neighbors and to the world at large that for us here in America our prayers and our customs will be so shaped as to be intelligible not only to our children but to all Americans and that we shall so use our Jewish heritage that all who may wish to come to our temples will find themselves at home.  Thus, on our part, the oft-repeated aim to Bring Christian and Jew together will become more than a pious phrase or a publicity slogan.  It will become a sincere program of better understanding.”

Appearing Next: December 18, 1942 “ZOA President Replies to Anti-Zionist Group”

The American Council for Judaism, at…

The American Council for Judaism (the organization’s own web page)

Wikipedia

Jewish Virtual Library

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) I – November 20, 1942: 733 Rabbis Rap Opponents of Zionism

A Controversy of Zion – I

“They are not ex-Jews or non-Jews,
because many of them are and remain deeply involved Jewishly,
despite their harsh dissent.
Many un-Jews are active in forms of Jewish leadership,
running Jewish studies departments,
speaking from rabbinic pulpits,
hosting Shabbat dinners.
For many of these un-Jews,
the public and communal staging of their anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist beliefs
appears to be the badge of a superior form of Judaism,
stripped of its unsavory and unethical “ethnocentric” and “colonialist” baggage.”

– Natan Sharansky and Gil Troy, “The Un-Jews“, 2021

______________________________

From late November of 1942 through early January of 1943, Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent published six articles that explored opposition to Zionism, explained the moral and historical imperative of the revival of Jewish statehood amidst the terrible context of the early 1940s and the anticipated urgency of post-war years, and, delved into the motivation and rationale for opposition to Zionism. 

The articles are:

November 20, 1942: 733 Rabbis Rap Opponents of Zionism
December 18, 1942: Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine
December 18, 1942: ZOA President Replies to Anti-Zionist Group
December 18, 1942: 36 Local Rabbis Support Jewish Home in Palestine
January 8, 1943: We Reject Zionism (by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel)
January 15, 1943: The “Bogey” of Zionism (by Rabbi Simon Greenberg)

The impetus for these articles was, unsurprisingly, no different in 1943 than 2023: Ambivalence about – if not flat-out opposition to – Jewish peoplehood, nationhood, and statehood, as expressed by individuals who’d attained positions of prominence and leadership in both the American Jewish Community and wider society, who viewed the “place” and future of the Jewish people along a continuum spanning the founding premises of Reform Judaism, and, secular universalism.  

The Exponent’s articles were in response to a “Statement of Principles” released in mid-1942 by a group of ninety Reform Rabbis – these men later to form the nucleus of the American Council for Judaism – who were members of but not acting within the auspices of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the central organization of Reform Rabbis in the United States and Canada.  The Statement declared that this group of Rabbis could not, “…support the political emphasis in the Zionist program which diverts attention from the historical Jewish role as a religious community and which confuses people as to the nature of Judaism.”

Unfortunately (!), I’ve been unable to find the full text of the Statement of Principles.  However, the origin and gist of the document is described in this American Council for Judaism 1969 Memorandum (for those interested, WorldCat Record ID 694520404!): 

“In 1942, at its annual conference held that year in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) passed a pro-Zionist resolution supporting the formation of a Jewish army in Palestine.  This resolution nullified a 1935 CCAR agreement which stated that the CCAR would remain neutral on the Zionist issue. Immediately after the 1942 conference, several non-Zionist rabbis met to discuss their displeasure with the resolution.

“As a result of this meeting, sixteen CCAR rabbis, led by men such as Louis Wolsey, William Fineshriber, and Morris Lazaron, addressed letters to CCAR members concerning the formation of a Jewish “anti-nationalist” organization.  Although various attempts were made to appease the “anti-nationalists” (on the grounds that they would split the CCAR as well as the American Jewish community) they remained adamant and held a meeting in early June.”

This is probably the meeting described by Howard Robert Greenstein in his PhD Thesis, “The Changing Attitudes Toward Zionism in Reform Judaism, 1937-1948”:

“On June 1, 1942, the non-Zionist rabbis convened in Atlantic City and organized the association which subsequently became the American Council for Judaism.  On June 2, the founders of this organization also issued a statement of principles which declared in part that “… realising the dearness of Palestine and its importance in relieving world problems, (the Council) members will render unstinted aid to all Jews in their economic, cultural and spiritual endeavors there.  But … (we) cannot support the political emphasis in the Zionist program which diverts attention from the historical Jewish role as a religious community and which confuses people as to the nature of Judaism.

This is consistent with the ACJ’s 1969 Memorandum: “At this meeting a “Statement of Principles” was formulated.  In essence, the “Principles” declared that the non-Zionists supported Palestine and Palestinean rehabilitation but, in light of their universalistic interpretation of Jewish history and destiny, and also their concern for the welfare and status of the Jewish people living in other parts of the world, they could not “subscribe to or support the political emphasis now paramount in the Zionist program.”  Futhermore, they could not help but believe “that Jewish nationalism tends to confuse our fellowmen about our place and function in society and diverts our own attention from our historic role to live as a religious community wherever we may dwell.”

“In August of that year, this “Statement,” signed by 90 Reform rabbis and lay leaders, was released to the press. By the end of 1942, this group of “anti-nationalists” had chosen a name for itself: the American Council for Judaism (ACJ). They adopted a constitution and named Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan, as executive director.  On March 19, 1943 the American Council for Judaism was incorporated in the state of New York and, by the end of the year, a slate of officers was selected.  As president, the Council chose Lessing Rosenwald; as vice-presidents, Rabbi Louis Binstock, Fred F. Florence, Ralph W. Mack, Rabbi Irving Reichert and Rabbi Louis Wolsey; and as treasurer, D. Hays Solis-Cohen.”

And here we come to the impetus for the Exponent’s series of articles, as described by Greenstein: “The “coup de grace” of repudiation appeared in the forum of a declaration entitled, “Zionism — An Affirmation of Judaism” signed by 757 Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis.  Circulated primarily under the direction of Stephen S. Wise, Abba Hlllel Silver, James Heller, Philip Bernstein, Joshua Loth Liebman and Barnett Brickner, the document charged that the non-Zionist statement “comes as a cruel blow” and that opposition to the restoration of a Jewish homeland at such a critical hour has been “unwise and unkind.”  The signatories rejected the Council’s attack upon the “political” aspects of Zionism by declaring that “there can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action.”

Which brings us to the first of the Exponent’s six articles, below…

The article focuses on a statement of over seven hundred Rabbis in response to the “Statement of Principles” issued by the above-mentioned group of non-Zionist Reform Rabbis.  Interestingly, the number of rabbis differs: Howard Greenstein states that the response was signed by 757 Rabbis, while the Exponent gives a total of 733.  How to explain the discrepancy?  I don’t know!  In any event, though I don’t have the full text of the Rabbis’ response, the Exponent’s excerpt should suffice.  As you can see from the hyperlinks in the Exponent’s article (hyperlinks of May 2023, not 1942!) three of the four listed organizations are still very much in existence. 

I hadn’t known – until writing this post – that the The Synagogue Council of America, as founded in 1926, actually encompassed Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.  As stated at Wikipedia, “The organization dissolved in 1994, facing financial difficulties and fractiousness among its members, the organization effectively collapsed after a proposal to relocate the council’s offices from Manhattan to White Plains, New York, where it would have been housed in a Reform congregation, was rejected by Orthodox members of the organization.  Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of the Orthodox Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun served as the organization’s final president lamented the lack of “people who are really interested in maintaining the organization.”  Steven Bayme considers that the Council’s collapse was symbolic of the general Orthodox 1drift to the right, and raised serious questions of how orthodoxy can cooperate with the broader Jewish community in areas of external protection, support for Israel and Jewish continuity.” 

All well and good, but it depends on one’s perspective: Could not the Synagogue Council’s dissolution instead be attributed to the ideological movement of Reform Judaism (and in 2023, hardly just Reform Judaism!) under the combined, ongoing, and accelerating influences of secularism and autonomy underlying contemporary Western civilization back to its original, founding principles?    

And so, the Exponent’s article:

733 Rabbis Rap Opponents of Zionism
The Jewish Exponent
November 20, 1942

In an action said to be without precedent in the history of American Jewry, 733 Rabbis, including the heads of all the national rabbinical associations and drawn from all wings of religious Jewry in America, this week issued a joint pronouncement severely rebuking Jewish opponents of Zionism as dealing a “cruel blow” to the Jewish people.  The statement declares that “the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe” and points out that after the war “Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jewish will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.”

Prominent among the signatories are Rabbi James G. Heller of Cincinnati, President of American Rabbis; Rabbi Louis M. Levitsky of Newark, President of the Rabbinical Assembly of America; Rabbi B.L. Levinthal of Philadelphia, member of the Praesidium of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis; Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein of New York, President of the Rabbinical Council of America, and Rabbi Israel Goldstein of New York, President of the Synagogue Council of America.  These leaders recently called on Secretary of State Hull and presented to him a memorandum in support of Zionism, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration which is being observed this month throughout the country.

The declaration now made public is a rejoinder to the statement recently made by a group of Reform Rabbis regarded as unfriendly to the Zionist cause.

The statement refutes the charge that Zionism is a secularist movement and asserts that “it has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism” and scores anti-Zionism as “a departure from the Jewish religion”.  It defends the political program of the Zionist movement as an indispensable means for assuring large-scale Jewish colonization in the Homeland and affirms that “the settlement of a half million Jews in Palestine since the last war was made possible by political action which culminated in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate”.  It adds “there can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for mass Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action.”

Scouting the idea that Jews in Palestine should be prevented from ultimately constituting a majority of the population, the rabbinical pronouncement declares that those who are opposing the movement render “a grave disservice” and adds “it may well be that to the degree to which their efforts are at all effective, Jews who might otherwise have found a haven in Palestine will be denied one.”  They also state “to the Jews of Palestine facing the greatest danger in their history and fighting hard to maintain morale and hope in the teeth of the totalitarian menace” anti-Zionist agitation comes as a “cruel blow”.

Continuing, the statement declares “the noblest spirits in American life – statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.

“The freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a place of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as men, restored to its homeland, where where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.”

Coming up next:  December 18, 1942 “Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine”

Three links…

American Council for Judaism memorandum, March, 1969.  WorldCat record id: 694520404

Greenstein, Howard Robert, The Changing Attitudes Toward Zionism in Reform Judaism, 1937-1948, Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973

Sharansky, Natan, and Troy, Gil, The Un-Jews – The Jewish attempt to cancel Israel and Jewish peoplehood, Tablet, June 26, 2021

Movie Time!…  The Invisible Sailor – The Invisible Jew: 1943’s “Destination Tokyo”

“I read where an American flier gets killed and I think of my uncle.
And I see pictures of those little Chinese kids gettin’ bombed and I think of my uncle.
I read where a Russian guerilla gets hanged and I think of my uncle,
and I see Mike lyin’ in there dead from a Jap killer and I think of my uncle
and I ain’t got no room in here to see one of our guys get buried!
Not yet!
Not until I’ve done something to even up the score.”

_____

“Why are there films in which Dutchmen,
Belgians,
Poles,
Chinese,
Britishers or any of the people who fight with us underground and above are the heroes,
but not a Jew as a Jew? 
Are the horrors that would have to be the background of such a film
if the truth were told too frightening for the box office?”

__________

Some movies leave a lasting impression, often in an unintended way.      

For me, one such film was Delmer Daves’ production of Warner Brothers Destination Tokyo, a story about the America’s submarine service seen through the experiences of the crew of the fictional sub USS Copperfin.  Released in December of 1943, the movie starred – as you can see from the poster below – Cary Grant (as sub commander Captain Cassidy), and John Garfield (as seaman “Wolf”).  Other members of the cast included Dane Clark, Warner Anderson, and not to forget, Alan Hale, Sr. … the father of the “skipper” from Gilligan’s Island: Alan Hale, Jr.  

__________

Destination Tokyo movie poster from Heritage Auctions.

__________

I first saw the film some decades ago (I’ve seen it a few times, since).  It was broadcast (remember broadcast TV?) by a local television station to accompany a telecast of Dialing for Dollars.  (Remember Janis Joplin?  So yeah, this dates me!)  At the time, I was in my very early teens, yet by then I’d acquired an interest in and familiarity with weapons and battles of the Second World War.  This came about through paperback books – fiction and non-fiction – pumped out by publishers such as Ballantine, as well as magazines aimed at devotees of plastic modelling, specifically Scale Modeler and its sister publication Scale Aircraft Modeler (there sure as hell wasn’t much else back then other than Airfix Magazine and Model Car Science), and aviation history, particularly Wings / Airpower.  The latter pair was – at the time – a quantum jump over the truly mediocre Air Classics, and was only exceeded in depth and quality by the British Flying Review International.

 ____________________

By way of illustration:  I discovered Scale Modeler in early 1971 with the magazine’s March issue, the cover of which featured Revell’s 1/32 P-38J Lightning completed in a very colorful and highly inaccurate representation of the markings of the 459th Fighter Squadron.  My reaction upon actually seeing the magazine at a newsstand?  “What?  Adults build model airplanes?!”  Though newsstands no longer exist, having been superseded by technological and sociological changes, scale modelling has continued, but in a way enormously different from the hobby as it existed half a century ago, which might be thought of as the Paleozoic era of Plastic Modelling.

____________________

Given the time-frame of the era, it’s unsurprising that much – not all, but definitely much – of the content of these publications pertained to World War Two, given that the war had ended a mere three decades previously; that veterans of that global conflict – so many of whom I knew – were at the time the social, vocational, cultural, and political “backbone” of American (and not just American) society; that events, weapons, and technology of that conflict – though imperfectly and inaccurately described and remembered – remained part of popular culture.  Yet, looking back from the vantage point of 2023, what’s remarkable was not merely the nominal presence of that generation, but how truly ephemeral and fleeting – in the face of ensuing decades of and technological, social, and ideological change, which was ongoing even throughout the course of their lives; even well before the 1920s – was their influence, impact, and legacy.  (That hefty topic could be the subject of another post…)   

Paralleling all this, by then – the mid-1970s – I knew “about” the Shoah, though I don’t think this specific term was then in the public lexicon.  I knew about this (anecdotally and indirectly) from family members.  I knew about this (tangentially) from the two-day-a-week / two-hours-a session / late-afternoon-after-public-school Hebrew School I attended, which to be fair, was probably no different in imparting a shallow (and naively well-intentioned) level of education in Jewish history, Hebrew, and Yiddishkeit than most other Conservative or Reform Hebrew Schools of the 60s and 70s. 

Instead, I learned about the Shoah through my own reading, from such books as Nora Levin’s The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry … though at the time I certainly couldn’t have known about historian Raul Hilberg’s claim that Levin “heavily borrowed from (Hilberg’s) own The Destruction (of the European Jews) without acknowledgment” in the crafting of her text.  And, from other readings as well; both books and news articles.  So, I knew that though the Shoah transpired during and within the Second World War – in time and place – it was altogether different in purpose and nature from that war.  It was part of that war, yet it was another war.  To put it not-so-simply (in a way I would’ve been unable to articulate at the time!), I’ll quote the late Robert Wistrich’s Hitler and the Holocaust: “…the Holocaust was driven by a millenarian, apocalyptic ideology of annihilation that overthrew all the enlightened and pragmatic assumptions of liberal modernity.  This does not in itself make it different from all other genocides but it does highlight the Holocaust as an extreme case.  The centrality of anti-Semitism and that of the Jews to this cataclysmic event was no accident, and this essential fact helps to explain why it resonates so strongly.  For the Holocaust cannot be divorced from the dominant religious tradition of Western civilization.”  And, he quotes Richard Rubenstein: “…the Holocaust [was] a modern version of a Christian holy war carried out by a neopagan National Socialist state hostile to Christianity.”  

But, I wasn’t thinking about this when I ignored my homework to sit down and watch Destination Tokyo

At least, not at at first.  At least, not in those terms.  I just wanted to watch a movie.  I knew it was fiction.  I knew it was just a story.  It was (it is, still) entertaining.  It was (it remains) evocative of an era. 

Lots of things happen in the film, here summarized from Wikipedia: 

1) The submarine departs from “Mare Island Naval Shipyard” on a secret mission.

2) Captain Cassidy opens sealed orders, directing him to proceed to the Aleutians to pick up a Navy meteorologist, and then, to enter Tokyo Bay to obtain weather intelligence for the forthcoming Doolittle Raid.

3) Two Japanese aircraft – Zero fighter seaplanes (“Rufes“) attack the Copperfin.  Both are shot down, with the pilot of the second Rufe parachuting into the sea.  When a crew member – “Mike Conners” – attempts to rescue the flyer (… under Captain Cassidy’s … ahem … orders …) he’s literally and explicitly stabbed in the back by the floating pilot.  Recruit Tommy Adams avenges Mike by emptying a magazine of machine-gun bullets into the enemy aviator. 

4) Mike dies from his wounds.  

5) A bomb dropped from that “second” Rufe is lodged in the Copperfin’s superstructure.  In an event remarkably similar to that aboard HMS Thrasher on Feb. 16, 1942 (for which P/O Thomas W. Gould and Lt. Peter S.W. Roberts received the Victoria Cross), the bomb is removed and defused.

6) Mike is buried at sea.  Greek-American crewman “Tin-Can”, who doesn’t attend Mike’s funeral, makes a speech. 

We’ll talk about this moment in a moment.

7) Tommy is diagnosed with appendicitis.  “Pills”, the submarine’s pharmacist mate successfully operates and saves the man’s life.

8) The reconnaissance party – including Wolf – debarks for Tokyo Bay, successfully securing a hiding place in a coastal cave, from which they transmit encrypted weather data to the Navy.  

9)  The Japanese detect the transmission and search Tokyo Bay for the submarine.  Undetected, the three-man team is retrieved from their hiding place.  The crew observes the attack of the Doolittle raiders through the periscope.  The submarine leaves Tokyo Bay the way it came in: by following a Japanese ship.

9) The Copperfin sinks an enemy aircraft carrier, but is damaged by an escort.  After undergoing depth charge attacks, Captain Cassidy attacks again, sinking an enemy ship and escaping from Tokyo Bay.

10) The submarine and crew return to Mare Island.

– Finis –

The Doolittle Raid, which occurred on April 18, 1942, sets the film as transpiring during the first half of that month.  As a minor point which wouldn’t have been known at the time (not that Warner Brothers or the Navy would’ve cared!), Rufes were only operational from bases at Kiska Harbor and Attu, in the Aleutian Islands, from June of 1942 through May of 1943, subsequent to the events of the movie.  There, the planes served with Japan’s 5th, 452nd, and Toko Air Corps.   

But…

…back to watching “Tin-Can”

As noted above, Tin-Can doesn’t participate in Mike’s funeral.  However, based on the camera angle from which the sequence is filmed, his absence only becomes apparent when he’s seen in the sub’s galley, alone; in intense thought, while his fellow sailors stand at attention as Captain Cassidy leads the funeral service.  Upon returning below, one crewmen gives Tin-Can the “silent treatment”, and then, Cookie, Tommy, and Wolf briefly express their anger at their fellow seaman.  For a moment reluctantly, and then with increasing intensity, passion, and clarity, Tin-Can explains why he remained below as Mike’s remains were consigned to the deep.  Wolf at first reacts with disgust, but then he and the other seamen listen attentively as Tin-Can continues his speech, uninterrupted.  The sequence, which spans 56:14 – 58:49, comprises just 2 1/2 minutes in a movie that’s nearly 2 1/2 hours long, or (if we’re counting!) a mere two per cent of the length of the movie.  But, it’s one of the very few explanatory moments in a movie otherwise centered upon action and adventure, humor and danger, and, patriotism. 

Here’s the scene’s complete dialogue:

Tommy Adams: Why weren’t you up there?!
Tin-Can: I got no use for burials.
Cookie: Oh, coffee’s more important, huh?
Tin-Can: You guys don’t think I care he’s dead?!
Tommy Adams: Well why didn’t you come up?  Sorry for that Jap?
Tin-Can: Shut up you, I don’t take that from nobody!  I’m surprised at you guys.  All of ya’!  Well you ought to have sense enough not to get such –  Such dumb ideas!  I told ya’ I had my reasons!
Wolf: Bilge!
Tin-Can: Look.  I had an uncle.  Lived in the old country see.  A real high-class guy, not like me.  You know what he was?  He was a teacher of philosophy.  And to be that in Greece, the very home of philosophy, you got to be a-number-one-smart and that was my uncle.  So they killed him, them Nazis.  They stood him up against a wall.  You know why?   Because he had brains.  Because everybody’s got to be their slave and them that won’t like my uncle they kill.
My old man was no good.  He was a boozer.  He died in bed having DTs.  But my uncle, a man with education in his head and charity in his heart, who used to send my ma’ what to eat with when we were kids…  Him they stood up against a wall and that sticks in here with me!
But the difference between them and us, is that with us, even the no-good gets a chance to die in his own bed.  So I don’t forget my uncle.  I read where an American flier gets killed and I think of my uncle.  And I see pictures of those little Chinese kids gettin’ bombed and I think of my uncle.  I read where a Russian guerilla gets hanged and I think of my uncle, and I see Mike lyin’ in there dead from a Jap killer and I think of my uncle and I ain’t got no room in here to see one of our guys get buried!  Not yet!  Not until I’ve done something to even up the score.
So I eat with it and I sleep with it…  So be sore at me, you – dopes.
Tommy Adams: I’m sorry, Tin-Can.

That first time I viewed Destination Tokyo, even though I knew the film was fiction, this scene was for me – in the scheme of things – a quiet epiphany; it was unlike the rest of the film. 

If I reimagine my thoughts then – in the early 1970s – from the vantage point of 2023, they would’ve gone something like this stream-of-consciousness melange:  “His people are from Greece and his dad’s a drunk and his family’s poor.  His uncle’s a philosopher and lives in Greece.  That must mean his family’s smart.  He’s talking about the people who were hurt and killed by the enemy but why doesn’t he say the words Jap and German?  He talks about American pilots getting killed.  That’s right they’re our guys.  I read about Bataan someplace and I know what happened to our pilots they captured on the Tokyo raid and my dad told me about some B-29 guys he knew who were captured.  The Japs were terrible to them.  He talks about the Chinese I know the Japs were really bad to them but why doesn’t he say the word Jap?  Then he talks about the Russians being treated bad by the Germans.  Poor Mike killed by that Jap pilot.  Wait something’s not missing.  It should be here.  I know the Germans were bad to everybody but hated and killed the Jews most of all.  So he talks about Russians and Chinese and Greeks but why can’t he talk about the Jews?” 

__________

Note!: Having created this post in mid-June of 2023, I just (it’s now early July) discovered a video of the sequence of the Rufes attacking the Copperfin, and Mike’s death, at info-peace’s YouTube channel.  Appropriately entitled “Destination Tokyo (1943) Enemy Aircraft”, it was uploaded way back in May of 2021. 

Here it is:

__________

Much more to follow.  But before I go further, here are screen-shots of this particular sequence (captured the Destination Tokyo DVD), as well the crew’s confrontation with “Tin-Can”, just to give you an idea. You can view the full movie (380 dpi) at ok.ru/video, this sequence starting at 56:14.

__________

Rufes sighted…

__________

Rufes dive to attack…

__________

Rufe strafes submarine.  (Those paired machine guns aren’t quiiite right for a Zero / Rufe.  Oh, well.)

__________

Pilot leans forward as he dives to attack the Copperfin…

__________

A low pass!

__________

This profile by Don Greer shows the appearance of an actual A6M2-N “Rufe”.  The painting, from Squadron-Signal’s A6M Zero in Action, shows an aircraft of the Solomon Island based 802nd Kokutai, as it appeared in January of 1943. 

__________

Pilot bails out.  (Canopy not at all right for a Zero / Rufe.  Oh, well.  Must’ve been a Warner Brothers stage prop.)

__________

Pilot lands in sea and cuts himself free from his shroud lines.

__________

Captain Cassidy: “Pick up that Jap Aviator, I want to question him!”

__________

Mike tells downed Japanese pilot in comradely manner: “Looks like the war is over for you, son!”  Camera focuses on knife in pilot’s upraised hand as Mike momentarily diverts his attention…

__________

…and then, the pilot stabs Mike – poor unwary and trusting Mike – in the back.

__________

Wolf and Tommy look on in horrified realization of what’s happening.  Then, Tommy commences firing machine gun at enemy pilot.

__________

The magazine is emptied of bullets.  Wolf to Tommy: “That’s enough, kid.”

__________

58:49: Tin-Can and fellow crewmen listen to a recording made by Mike’s wife, on sub’s record player.  As the recording becomes more personal and intimate, they leave, one by one.

__________

54:10: Wolf continues to listen, alone, but he, too – even a lothario – can listen no more.

__________

54:43: Tin-Can remains in the galley, flipping playing cards, as Mike is buried at sea.

__________

56:22: Captain Cassidy: “And whilst we consign his remains to the deep …”

__________

56:06: Crewmen return to galley and confront Tin-Can

__________

56:26: Tommy and Tin-Can.

__________

56:36: Cookie and Tin-Can

__________

56:39: Cookie, Tin-Can, and Tommy

__________

57:09: Tin-Can tries to explain the reason for his absence at Mike’s funeral.  Wolfe’s reply: “Bilge!”

__________

57:10: Tin-Can’s speech

__________

57:29: Tin-Can’s speech

__________

57:33: Tin Can’s uncle: “He was a teacher of philosophy.”

__________

57:47: Crewmen listen to Tin-Can, in silence.

__________

57:32: “Not until I’ve done something to even up the score.”

Back to the film…

Some things; things ostensibly minor; things ostensibly trivial but in reality significant, kind of “stick with you” and in time demand explanation.  As a movie buff, I really wanted to know what went on in the writing of this movie.  So I watched it again, did a little looking, and did a little thinking.

The film’s credits reveal that the screenplay was by Delmer Daves and Albert Maltz, the story by Steve Fisher, and the production by Jerry Wald and Jack L. Warner.  I suppose that by this point, eighty years later, the relative contributions of each to the final script will never be known.  Regardless, it seems that Tin-Can’s speech, which notably occurs near the film’s halfway point and thereby interrupts action with thought, provided a way to explain the moral basis of America’s participation in the war: First by personalizing the film in terms of Tin-Can’s family (read: ethnic) history, then, from the perspective of another branch of American military service (aviation), and finally, in terms of two other principal Allied powers:  The Soviet Union, and, China.  (Funny that Australia, Canada, and Great Britain aren’t mentioned.)  And so in terms of what puzzled me as a kid – “Hey why didn’t Tin-Can say Jew?“, part of the explanation was simply that the Jews, without then having a nation-state and collective political and military power of their own and as such not directly active in the war as a nation-state, were entirely beyond from the writers’ scope of thought. 

The Jews were irrelevant. 

Maybe.

But then again…

Jerry Wald was a Jew, as was Jack Warner.  In unsurprising irony, so, too, was “Tin-Can”, played by Dane Clark, born Bernard Elliot Zanville.  So too, “Wolf”, played by John Garfield, born Jacob Julius Garfinkle.  And Albert Maltz, as well.  And so I can’t help but wonder:  Given the tenor of the times, were Tin-Can’s comments about his family really a veiled allusion to the fate of European Jewry?  His Greek background symbolic of a family ancestry rooted in the the Levant?  His philosopher uncle a stand-in for intellectuality, and, the study of the Talmud and Tanakh?  Was Tin-Can speaking on behalf of studio heads, writers, and actors who wanted to bring the plight of the Jews of Europe before the American public, but for all their success and prominence – or precisely despite of their success and prominence – did not have the confidence to openly do so for fear of risking their social acceptability?  The Warner studio certainly did produce films that supported America’s war effort and were openly critical of German militarism and the Third Reich.  But, the tenor of the times and self-perception of those Jews who had attained high levels of status and public recognition in American society would mitigate against going so far as to call attention to the Shoah in clear, unambiguous, and explicit terms.  As well, though Albert Maltz’s relative contribution to the script is unknown, what is known is that he was an unapologetic Communist.  Could his ideology have imparted the sense of universalism in the seaman’s speech?  (Maybe.)

Then again, perhaps interpreting Tin-Can’s 1943 speech this way is really interpreting the past through the eyes of 2023. 

But still, even in mid-1943, four months before the release of Destination Tokyo, the issue was confronted in Aufbau’s August 27 editorial “Are Jewish Themes “Verboten?” by “H.K.”, probably Helen Kantzler, one of Aufbau’s rare publications of a news item in English.  If the author indeed was Kantzler, it was also she who authored an article that appeared in Pittsburgh’s Jewish Criterion in late September of 1946, entitled “Double Gold Stars“, which profiled American Jewish families who lost multiple sons during the recently ended world war.

Her question about the principle of telling the truth is as valid in 2023 as it was in 1943, for it will always be valid.

Film-Panorama
ARE JEWISH THEMES “VERBOTEN”?

H.K.  There have been many pictures on America at war.  There have been films of England under the Blitz, France, Holland, Belgium and Czechoslovakia under the Nazi heel.  There have been Hollywood presentations of our allies, form gigantic China with its four hundred millions to little Greece with its seven.  But there has not yet been a film about Jews.

There has neither been a film about the amazing contributions to the war of gallant Palestine, democracy’s arsenal for the Middle East of manpower, technical knowledge, food, arms and ammunition, alone against countries that were all hostile or neutral at the best, when things were going bad in that part of the world.

Nor has there been a portrayal on the screen of the greatest, the most horrifying tragedy history has witnessed in many centuries, the slaughter of the Jews of Europe.  Even the battle of Warsaw, the very thought of which hurts in its poignant drama, didn’t get a shot in a newsreel.

Sure, individual Jews or even families have been worked into refugee movies.  But they were always individuals, refugees like all others, except that their crime in a Nazi-Europe was to have been Jews.  Never, in all the many motion pictures that have been turned out, has there been one that was honest about Jews.  That showed that their suffering, their crushing, their fight and their death was not that of one human being, multiplied, but that of a people.

Why are there films in which Dutchmen, Belgians, Poles, Chinese, Britishers or any of the people who fight with us underground and above are the heroes, but not a Jew as a Jew?  Are the horrors that would have to be the background of such a film if the truth were told too frightening for the box office?

But then what about the story of those that fought back?  That fought back in Warsaw and in the ghettoes.  And those that are fighting today in the underground (they have to fight as separate units) or those that stopped Nazi tanks with their hands and picks and shovels in Dunkirk; those that helped to hold Alamein and Tobruk so that the last street that surrendered when Rommel advanced was called “Tel Aviv”?  The girls that served right in the front lines and the boys that go down to the sea in ships, those that fight with “Palestine” on their shoulder and the Magen David on their caps

Must they, too, fight and die “unwept, unhonored and unsung?”  Is there no one in the motion picture industry that has the strength and the guts to tell the truth, and tell it for the people of America to see?

The original editorial…

…the editorial as it appeared in the newspaper.

So to conclude, here’s the “what if” version of Tin-Can’s speech:  

Look.  I had an uncle.  Stayed in the old country.  A real mensch, not like me.  Know what a mensch is?  It’s Jewish for a true man.  A decent man.  Ya’ know what he did?  He was a rabbi.  Taught poor kids.  A cobbler, too.  Could hardly feed and clothe my aunt and cousins.  But so respected.  So they killed him, them Germans.  We found out, last year.  Took the whole family – my three cousins – uncle, aunt – stuck ’em in a ghetto.  Took ’em all – everyone in the ghetto – and shot ’em.  Everyone.  Y’know why?  Because they were Jews.  Like me.  That’s all.  Because the damned no-goods want to kill every Jew.  Anywhere.  Everywhere.

My old man was lost to us.  He was a boozer.  Smart, like my uncle.  Loved to learn and study Hebrew books, but there’s no place for that in America.  So see my mom, she worked in a shirt factory while pop turned to drink and dreams.  And drink.  He wandered off; we don’t know where.  Don’t want to know.  My pop, the dreamer…  But my starving uncle, the rabbi … see, he sent us charity.  Because of him my mom and sisters and me … had what to eat.  Had heat in the winter.  Him and my cousins and aunt the Germans stood over a ditch and shot and that sticks inside me.

But the difference between them and us, is that with us, even the no-good gets a chance to die in his own bed.  I read where an American flier gets killed and I think of my uncle.  And I see pictures of those little Chinese kids gettin’ bombed and I think of my aunt.  I read where a Russian guerilla gets hanged and I think of my little cousins.  And I see Mike lyin’ there dead from a Jap killer and I ain’t got no room in me to see one of our guys get buried!  Not yet!  Not until I’ve done something to even up the score.  For my family.  For the Jews.  For Mike.  For my country.  For them all. 

So I eat with it and I sleep with it…  So be sore at me, you – dopes.

Tommy Adams: I didn’t know, Tin-Can.

See? 

I fixed it for you. 

(There you go.)

______________________________

Destination Tokyo movie poster from SensCritique.  It’s obviously based on the horizontal-format poster (at the top of this post!), but redesigned for a theater marquee.

____________________

Suggested Viewing

“Destination Tokyo” (1943)

…at Internet Movie Database

… Full Film (380 dpi) at ok.ru/video

Trailer…

____________________

____________________

…For Further Pondering…

Suggested Reading

Bueschel, Richard M., Mitsubishi A6M1/2-2N Zero-Sen in Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service, Aero Publishing Company, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1970

Haynes, Stephen R., Reluctant Witnesses – Jews and the Christian Imagination, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Ky., 1995

Kellerman, Henry, Greedy, Cowardly, and Weak – Hollywood’s Jewish Stereotypes, Barricade Books, Fort Lee, N.J., 2009

Nirenberg, David, Anti-Judaism – The Western Tradition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, N.Y., 2013

Nohara, Shigeru, A6M Zero in Action (Aircraft Number 59), Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton, Tx., 1983

Wistrich, Robert, Hitler and the Holocaust, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, England, 2001

____________________

Suggested Listening

Henry Kellerman’s Oral History, at Yiddish Book Center

____________________

Suggested Remembering

C A S T

Dane Clark (Bernard Elliot Zanville) – “Tin Can” – 1912-1998
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

John Garfield (Jacob Julius Garfinkle) – “Wolf” – 1913-1952
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

See also!…

“John Garfield: Hollywood’s First Rebel”, at Cinema Cities.

“Bursting onto screens in 1938, Warner Brothers star Garfield captivated audiences with his unparalleled talent, charisma, and a unique style that set him apart from his contemporaries. Garfield’s on-screen presence was magnetic, his performances filled with raw emotion and authenticity.  Whether portraying a troubled anti-hero, a conflicted lover, or a defiant underdog in films like “Four Daughters,” “Body and Soul,” “Humoresque” and “The Postman Always Rings Twice,” he breathed life into every character he inhabited, leaving an indelible mark on cinema history.

Beyond his remarkable acting abilities, Garfield was a trailblazer in his own right.  He fearlessly tackled societal issues and pushed boundaries with his choice of roles, often shining a light on the harsh realities of the time.  His commitment to his craft and unwavering dedication to social justice resonate even today.  However, his unwavering stance against injustice came at a price.  Accused of harboring Communist sympathies, he was blacklisted by HUAC.”

____________________

Gary Grant (Archibald Alec Leach) – “Captain Cassidy” – 1904-1986
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

Alan Hale, Sr. (Skipper’s father!) – “‘Cookie’ Wainwright” – 1892-1950
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

Robert Hutton (Robert Bruce Winne) – “Tommy Adams” – 1920-1994
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

Tom Kane Tully – “Mike Conners” – (1908-1982)
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

W R I T E R S

Delmer Daves 1904-1977
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

Steve Gould Fisher 1912-1980
…at Internet Movie Database
… at FindAGrave

Albert Maltz 1908-1985
…at Internet Movie Database
…at FindAGrave

Et Cetera

The Doolittle Raid

…at Wikipedia

Mitsubishi A6M Zero

…at Wikipedia