BOOK REVIEW Persecution and Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses During the Nazi-Regime

Edited by Hans Hesse.  Edition Temmen/Courier Press 2001.  Pp. 405.  $39.95. 
ISBN: 3-861-08750-2

Reprinted from the JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION
Vol. XVIII, No. 1 (2002-2003) pp 101-119

Introduction

This anthology is the translation of the original German version published in 1998, with the exception of two additional essays and an updated chapter.  The book consists of two parts containing 26 contributions, preceded by a preface and an editorial foreword.  Part A presents analyses of the relationship between the Jehovah's Witnesses (hereafter "JWs") and the Nazi state with particular emphasis on the experiences of these believers in the concentration camps.  Persecution is the main theme of the book's first part.  It is estimated that out of the 25,000 to 30,000 JWs in Germany during 1933, about 10,000 were imprisoned.  Of these, more than 2,000 were sent to the concentration camps, 1,200 died in captivity, including 250 who were executed for refusing to serve in the army.  These are sad statistics, very much so, but the organization's claim, made in the 1960s, that they reflect a persecution "worse than that on the Jews" is an untenable assertion from any perspective. [1]

Preceded by an insightful analysis of the JWs' religious and social behaviour in the concentration camps by Daxelmüller, ten descriptive papers involve case studies at notorious locations such as Sachsenhausen and Bergen-Belsen.  Others focus on various topics, ranging from the reconstruction of a single victim's life history to the reproduction of an impressive series of paintings by a JW prisoner.  Two articles deal with the post-war situation in former Eastern Germany and will not be discussed here. [2]

Part B discusses the recent video documentary Jehovah's Witnesses Stand Firm Against Nazi Assault. [3]   This production by the umbrella organization of the JWs, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (hereafter "WBTS"), gave cause to considerable debate in Germany.  Though the WBTS intended to educate the public about the horrors this forgotten group of Holocaust victims endured, critics and opponents of the movement considered the documentary either a falsification of history, an attempt by the organization to obtain fully legal status in Germany by exploiting the vicissitudes of the ill-fated adherents, or a strategy to recruit new believers. [4]   A chronology, summing up origins and development of the JWs in Germany, and an extensive bibliography conclude this compilation.

The book is unique for several reasons.  First, it is to be applauded that details of the fate of the JWs during the Nazi period have finally been brought to the attention of the English-speaking audience.  The persistence of these believers in carrying on their religious practices after the movement was banned by Hitler in 1935, their repudiation of the fascist dictatorship resulting in relentless persecution and harsh treatment in captivity, and their refusal to relinquish their faith in exchange for freedom, still belong to the realm of lesser known events of the Holocaust.  Although some general overviews in the English language have been published, [5] it was not until the mid-nineties that German historians systematically embarked on studies dealing with the perilous situation of the JWs in their places of residence and the concentration camps.  Since then, a flood of articles, monographs and edited volumes on the subject has been printed, practically all in German.

Secondly, although the majority of authors are professional historians, high-ranking officials of the WBTS and critical representatives of mainline churches have contributed as well.  This is unprecedented since the traditional attitude of the JWs' organization is to keep aloof from university scholars-particularly those who study the WBTS-and even more so to avoid direct confrontations with dissenting opinions from established religious institutions.  With respect to the relationship between the JWs' organization and the academic world, the reluctance of the WBTS is not surprising.  The movement's theological maxim "we are no part of the world" not only resulted in a policy of social isolation (in spite of the high visibility of the proselytizing adherents).  It also involved a paradigmatic incompatibility: the scientific rational approach of the detached historian through universally accepted standards versus the religious orientation where authority is located in supernatural precepts and organizational jurisdiction.  It is clear that for the WBTS, the latter option-which concurs with the movement's traditional "wish for a monopoly on the interpretation of [its] own history" (see Garbe, 257)-prevails.

This practice of avoidance is one of the reasons the JWs' Holocaust period has been ignored by researchers for so long and frustrated the attempts of scholars to study the fate of these believers since the WBTS kept its archives closed to outsiders.  Slupina, one of the movement's officials, attributes this seclusion to the primary goal of proselytizing:

"If (the JWs) had become too immersed in the past they had just survived, it would have hindered or even paralysed this important work.  . . . .  They looked ahead.  With raised heads, they could resume their religious activities.  They felt that they lacked the time for historical documentation." (268, 269)

On the other hand, victims from minority groups such as homosexuals, the Sinti and Roma "gypsies," and the small religious bodies were not a major topic for historians until the end of the 1970s whereas systematic attention for the JWs started even later.  This hiatus even popped up in fiction, such as the following dialogue between two historians, the one an upcoming PhD graduate, the other a senior university professor, taken from Stephen Fry's novel Making History. [6] The occasion is a discussion about the pink triangle, identity symbol for homosexuals:

"You know in the camps there was a purple triangle too."

"Really?  Who for?"

"Take a guess."

 . . . .  "That wasn't the Gypsies?"

"No."

"Er  . . . criminals then?"

"No."

"Lesbians?"

"No."

"Communists?"

"No, no."

"Blimey.  Let me see  . . ."

"Yes, a strange game, is it not?  To put yourself into the mind of a Nazi.  You have to imagine a whole new collection of humans to hate.  Have another try."

"Interior decorators?"

"No."

"The mentally ill?"

"No."

"Slavs?"

"No."

"Poles?"

"No."

"Er  . . . Muslims?"

"No."

"Cossacks?"

"No."

"Anarchists?"

"No."

"Conscientious objectors."

"No."

"Deserters?"

"No."

"Journalists?"

"No."

"Christ, I give up."

What is more, the stigmatization in the academic world of so-called "sects" in general and Jehovah's Witnesses in particular contributed to this indifference by the scholarly establishment, in spite of earliest reports and autobiographies from camp survivors which regularly mentioned the striking behaviour of this religious group.

Since the 1990s, the movement's anti-worldliness has become less pronounced.  The WBTS seeks state recognition by resorting to politico-legal channels whereas its representatives participate in interfaith dialogues and have become regular attendants at scholarly conferences. [7]   The WBTS main office in New York and its German branch have special departments and officials that engage in Holocaust research, sometimes in cooperation with academic establishments and outside scholars.  Not surprisingly, one of the contributors attributes this increasing openness to the movement's "unequivocal wish for equality with other religious communities and for recognition (in Germany, author's note) as a corporation under public law." (203)

The cases in the first part of the book are based on archival material from the WBTS, interviews with survivors and war records.  These will be discussed in the upcoming section.  The public reception of the video documentary, aptly summarized by WBTS official Slupina, is informative since it illuminates European sentiments towards the JWs.  At the same time, this reaction points to a debate concerning the organization's accurate reproduction of the facts, particularly the relationship between the WBTS and the Nazi state.  Rather than "reviewing the reviews" of this documentary, the second part will be focussed on that specific topic.

Persecution: Religious Conscience and Social Control

As noted above, it is beyond all doubt that the JWs have suffered enormously under the Nazi terror.  Their stance of political neutrality implicated the rejection of the fascist regime and refusal to bear arms or contribute in any way to the German war efforts. [8]   Consequently, they were ostracized and harassed in their communities, lost their jobs, possessions, pensions and civil rights while in many cases their children were taken away from them to be placed in juvenile detention centres or foster homes in order to be re-educated. [9]   Finally, from 1936 onward, the Nazis sent them to concentration camps.  To regain their freedom, signing a document that stated the WBTS belief system was a heresy they would relinquish from now on, would suffice.  Apart from their purple triangle, their proverbial firmness in maintaining their faith and tight group cohesion made them a discernable category among their fellow-inmates.  From observing the JWs' unrelenting solidarity in the concentration camps, renowned psychoanalyst Bettelheim, himself a prisoner in Buchenwald, suggested reviewing the Freudian paradigm (which focuses on unconscious processes and early childhood experiences as motivators of behaviour) since it was unable to explain the effects of collective behaviour and inordinate stress upon the individual. [10]

The regime gradually realized that the effort to convince these believers to reject their faith, other than by outright killing, was doomed to fail.  Besides, the JWs rejected violence and did not sabotage their assigned tasks in the camps.  For these reasons, their position improved towards the end of the war.  Arduous labour was in many cases replaced by administrative functions, household activities in SS homes and farming.  "Unfortunately, there were too few," noted Auschwitz camp commander Höss when he recollected their exemplary conduct. [11]   (However, when one female JW-prisoner in Ravensbrück found out that the vegetables from her garden were intended for a SS military hospital, she refused the assignment since she considered her labour a contribution to the war industry, p. 200).  Daxelmüller, in his paper, states that the Gestapo and the SS misused them as informants by letting them co-supervise other prisoners. (29)  Several accounts indicate that fellow-captives took offence at this apparently "common cause with the enemy" conduct. [12]

The atrocities inflicted on the JWs are a recurring theme in the case studies.  Gruelling as they are, there is a distinct possibility that for the reader this consecutive presentation of horrors in the different camps reaches a saturation level.  Rather than this protracted enumeration of terror, it would have been instructive to diversify the focus by including contributions on how the JWs experienced their hardship in the daily life of their communities, e.g. the economic disruption of their very existence, the relationship with their (non-) sympathizing neighbours, or their strategies to continue their missionary activities in the face of continuous danger.  According to the bibliography, there appears to be an abundance of material on these topics.

An interesting phenomenon is the allegedly small number of JWs who relinquished their faith.  In numerous publications, the WBTS emphasizes that the religious conviction of the individual believer was strong enough to withstand the temptation to sign the document in order to be released from captivity.  Available data indicate that about 10 to 15% or, according to Düsseldorf Gestapo files, more than half signed. (49, 57, n. 78).  Undoubtedly, conscience played an important role as a barrier to rejecting the faith.  However, sociological research among millennial groups has demonstrated the crucial importance of the mutual support of beliefs and social relationships.  Particularly (and this largely resolves Bettelheim's question, since, for the Freudians, mechanisms of group cohesion lay outside their analytical range) when religious commitment requires individuals to relinquish some of the essentials of their existence, such sacrifice welds members together in their common suffering. [13]   For example, John-Stucke notes that the element of peer pressure in an extremely cohesive group like the JWs should not be underestimated. (66)  Out of fear of being excluded from their fellow-believers, some may have given in not to sign, particularly when such disassociation was widely announced.  For example, the commander of the women's concentration camp Moringen required the JWs to repudiate their belief in front of fellow-believers "for educational reasons." (50)

From these observations, an important question emerges: who were the JWs who signed and why?  Possibly their integration in the tightly woven network was inadequate, perhaps as a result of language problems since some came from occupied territories in Europe.  In his paper, Daxelmüller mentions two cases of young Dutch women in Ravensbrück who signed the declaration (30) while Zeiger refers to a Dutch prisoner in Sachsenhausen (84) who did likewise.  Or were they converted to the belief system only recently, so the mastering of the complex theology was still incomplete whereas the concomitant ties to the new network had yet to be sufficiently developed?  Or was it merely out of sheer fear, with the prospect of total collapse of the household they left behind, combined with the gloomy outlook of severe ill treatment?

Finally, the reason could be rather pragmatic, as exemplified by a Dutch survivor who stated in a recent radio interview "it's not about what you say, it's about what you do."  For him, signing the statement did not necessarily implicate strict adherence to its contents.  After his release, he continued his religious practices as before: an example of "theocratic war strategy" in the jargon of the JWs. [14]   After Wilhelm Hengeveld from the Netherlands was arrested in Germany in 1941, he signed the statement repudiating his belief.  Nevertheless, he continued his missionary activities until the Gestapo apprehended him again in 1944.  This time he was sentenced to death and decapitated. [15]   Unfortunately, this study does not address these questions; evidently, obtaining reliable information on this sensitive matter may be a major obstacle.

The element of social control indicated by John-Stucke, an inherent attribute of a highly disciplined religious movement like the WBTS, also appears to have played a prominent role in the decision-making concerning appropriate conduct.  The author notes:

"[I]n Wewelsburg, as in other concentration camps, discussions and disagreements about behaviour, standards of conduct, and interpretations of scripture occurred.  This is hardly surprising, if one considers that the Witnesses in the camps were cut off from the outside world for a long time and had to rely on themselves.  Watchtower publications could rarely be smuggled into the camp and therefore Witness communities had to rely on their memories.  . . . .  Whoever did not agree with the opinion of the group had to count on being ostracized.  This was disastrous for those affected, since they were still considered JW prisoners, but were excluded from the benefits of collective measures (parcel groups, medical support, spiritual sustenance)." (66, 68) [16]

Several scattered remarks throughout the book point to similar discussions among JWs prisoners about what they considered acceptable labour.  For example, in Ravensbrück the majority of JWs refused to work with angora rabbits, because the wool was used as lining for pilots' jackets, whereas in Neuengamme there was no resistance to do the same job. (70, n. 25)

Similar debates emerged concerning acceptable food products.  Krause-Schmitt appears to depict a rather cohesive group of women in Ravensbrück

"[who refused] to accept tiny pieces of blood sausage that, for a while, enriched meager foot rations on Sundays.  The SS responded to this refusal by removing 20 grams of margarine from their rations.  This had catastrophic consequences for the affected women because of endemic malnutrition." (200)

However, communist prisoner Margaret Buber, in the same camp, reported that only 25 out of the 275 detained JWs followed their inspired sister who had initiated the ban on eating blood sausage. [17]

Although personal conscience may have played an important role in these matters, one wonders about the influence of the internal balances of power on the outcome of such decisions.  Who decided in Ravensbrück that working with rabbits was inappropriate?  Moreover, why did most of the JWs agree with this decision, whereas in another location the collective conscience was evidently at odds with the view in Ravensbrück?  Who was the initiator of the blood sausage ban and why did the majority did not consider it worth following?  Since the focus of this study is on the interrelationship between the JWs and their enemy, these micro-sociological questions of decision-making and social control amongst the prisoners have still to be addressed.

Historical Interpretation: The Declaration of Facts

Every religion is entitled to its own interpretation of its history.  Its supporters do not need outsiders who wish to reconstruct and analyse the past, the inextricable part of the mythology that functions as one of the foundations of their faith.  The outcome may disrupt their existence, affect their very identity.  The historian or social scientist, on the other hand, deals with rational procedures that go beyond the supernatural, immune as they are to existential considerations.  In that sense, the researcher engages in a subversive activity.  A concrete example of this divergent interpretation of historical events is the so-called "Erklärung" of June 25, 1933, otherwise known as the "Declaration of Facts" or "Wilmersdorfer Declaration."

This extensive statement by the WBTS was promulgated during a convention in Berlin.  Since the Nazis had initially aligned the JWs with the Jews, considering them the vanguards of Zionist-Bolshevik plot to conquer the world, the writers of the resolution went to great lengths to distance themselves from their alleged co-conspirators. [18]   Moreover, during the previous months, many German provinces had banned the organization.  Members expected some form of protest was highly appropriate. The next fragments still give rise to numerous disputes as regards the movement's stance towards Judaism during the 1930s.  Preceded by the charge that the Jews persecuted Jesus Christ and still reject him, the statement included the following:

"The greatest and most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire.  By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part.  It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American Empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations.  This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business.  This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills." [19]

The text went on to assert that the WBTS and the Nazis both reject these "Big Business oppressors" and it stressed their common aversion for the then League of Nations "that laid upon the shoulders of the German people the great unjust and unbearable burdens."  In the accompanying letter, addressed to Hitler personally, the movement not only made clear that " . . . in the United States  . . . commercialistic Jews" were among "the most eager persecutors of our Society's work" [during the First World War], but in addition:

"[T]he purely religious and apolitical goals and objectives of the Bible Students [the previous name of the JWs]  . . . are in complete harmony with the similar goals of the National Government of the German Reich."

"The Bible Student-Watch Tower organization stands for the maintenance of order and the security of the state as well as for the enhancement of the  . . . religiously related high ideals of the National Government." [20]

Many JWs at that time had the opinion that the petition renounced the Nazi regime only too weakly and refused to support it. [21]   The movement's historiography does not indicate if the Judaic references were additional factors that underlay these objections.  Initially, the organization attributed the toothless content of the resolution to the German translation produced by the branch manager in Magdeburg.  Reportedly, he had diluted the original text written by Rutherford, the then president of the WBTS, so as to avoid problems with the regime.  The WBTS retracted this assertion in 1998. [22]

According to the WBTS, the Declaration merely intended to inform the regime that the JWs had nothing but purely religious and apolitical goals.  However, by emphasizing certain similarities with the "high ideals" of the Nazis and resorting to negative stereotyping of the Jews, opponents and many outsiders consider these assertions a manifestation of willingness to accommodate to the regime in order to defuse the conflict. (260) [23]   Others accuse the movement of selective historiography-see the papers of Hellmund and Lemhöfer (respectively Protestant pastor and Roman Catholic theologian)-since the WBTS video production is silent about this sensitive issue.  Recent historical evidence appears to refute some of these charges-such as the singing by the JWs of the patriotic hymn "Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles" and the decoration of the Berlin assembly hall with swastika flags during the convention where the Declaration was presented. [24]

Yet, the statements about the Jews, variously described as "a somewhat anti-Jewish style," (Garbe, 259) "not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish but rather anti-American," (Yonan, 340) and "anti-Semitic" (Hellmund, 349, n. 9) deserve more attention since many critical observers of the WBTS consider these utterances as clear evidence that the movement's theology, or at least the beliefs of its then leader Rutherford, contained anti-Semitic traits.  In 1998, probably because of increasing criticism from outsiders, questions from its membership, and the organization's attempt to improve its social reputation, the WBTS announced that "This statement clearly did not refer to the Jewish people in general, and it is regrettable if it has been misunderstood and has given cause for any offense."  Further, "By their literature and conduct during the Nazi era, the Witnesses rejected anti-Semitic views  . . . ." [25]

However, the stereotypical depiction of the Jews in the Declaration was not an isolated event.  Other fragments from WBTS publications from the 1920s through the 1940s also exhaled an anti-Judaic flavour.  Usually, they involved the allegedly powerful economic position of the Jews.  In 1927, for example, Rutherford stated:

"Be it known once and for all that those profiteering, conscienceless, selfish men who call themselves Jews, and who control the greater portion of the finances of the world and the business of the world, will never be the rulers in this new earth.  God would not risk such selfish men with such an important position." [26]

He also conceived of a conspiratorial alliance between the Jews and the Roman Catholic Church, the latter described as the "old harlot of Babylon," and considered as one of the movement's main adversaries: "Amongst her (the Roman Catholic Church, reviewer's note) instruments that she uses are ultraselfish men called 'Jews', who look only for personal gain, and who therefore readily yield to and join with the Hierarchy in any unrighteous schemes." [27]

In describing among other things the economic relationship between ancient Israel and the "heathen" Phoenician seaport Tyre, Rutherford made clear that:

" . . . doubtless from Tyre the Jews learned how to cheat their fellow man.  This may also picture how some of God's covenant people permit themselves to be choked by the weeds and thorns of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and who therefore resort to improper commercial schemes to gain such ends." [28]

This fragment applied particularly to the "selfish" Rothschild's bankers and other Jewish financial establishments who "conspired" with their "political allies" in the U.S. congress. [29]   Further:

"The Jews were evicted from Palestine  . . . because they rejected Christ Jesus.  To this day the Jews have not repented of this wrongful act committed by their forefathers.  Many of them have been returned to the land of Palestine, but they have been induced to go there because of selfishness and for sentimental reasons.  . . . .  In 1917 the Balfour Declaration, sponsored by the heathen governments of Satan's organization, came forth, recognized the Jews, and bestowed upon them great favors.  In this the seventh world power [i.e. the British Empire] took the lead.  Now Big Business and other wings of Satan's organization place the Jews alongside of and in the same category as the Gentiles.  Heretofore even God's people [i.e. the JWs] have overlooked the fact that the affairs of God's kingdom with reference to the things of the earth are of far greater importance then the rehabilitation of that little strip of land on the eastern side of the Mediterranean sea.  The Jews have received more attention at their hands than they have really deserved." [30]

The quotation illustrates a major doctrinal change because Rutherford's predecessor, Russell, was considered a philo-Semite and ardent advocate of the Zionist cause. [31]   It is clear that Rutherford wanted to deviate from this theological path and emphasize the chosen position of his followers rather than the Old Testament elect.  Essentially, according to Rutherford (and in accordance with the traditional Christian teaching), the Jews had themselves to blame:

"The facts and prophecies prove that the natural Jews will never again be a chosen, regathered people.  They have as a people flagrantly rejected the Messiah, his truth and his kingdom.  . . . .  Much of their suffering has been brought upon themselves by their commercial, rebellious course of action." [32]

The Golden Age, one of the predecessors of WBTS' magazine Awake!, printed several cartoons (see addendum) in which persons with stereotypical Jewish facial characteristics were depicted as a conspiracy of greedy capitalists and sinister medical researchers, jeopardizing the health of the world's population.  Critics, such as Morris Fishbein, then chief editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, were dealt with accordingly:

"The Journal of the American Medical Association is the vilest sheet that passes the United States mail  . . . .  Nothing new and useful in therapeutics escapes its unqualified condemnation.  Its attacks are generally ad hominem.  Its editorial columns are largely devoted to character assassination.  . . . .  Its editorial writers work in the seething ooze of corruption and write with a 'muck rake.'  . . . .  Its editor is of the type of Jew that crucified Jesus Christ." [33]

It is true that this occasional anti-Judaic innuendo was not a structural hallmark of the organization's theology.  The movement's main exegetic vehicle, The Watchtower, carried no doctrinal discussions in which similar stereotypical terminology was used.  The statements on the Jews were for the greater part published in The Golden Age, the twin magazine of less doctrinal stature.  They do not portray racial inferiority of the Jews nor reflect any outright hostility, comparable, for example, to the crude Protocols of the Sages of Zion or the virulent anti-Semitism developed by Nazi ideologists such as Rosenberg.  In fact, from the moment that Hitler started to persecute the Jews, the English-language magazines of the WBTS sharply disapproved of this terror:

"Probably there is nothing so indicative of primitive consciousness in the entire Nazi program as the anti-Jewish sentiment it so passionately advocates."

"The Jews in Germany and Austria are having a hard time, all the power of the Nazis being used against them in boycotts and otherwise." [34]

However, as far as we can gather, the German editions did not print these or similar criticism on the Nazi persecution of the Jews until after the Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht) in November 1938.  As a result of the first widespread boycott of Jewish business and the purge of the civil service, judiciary and universities in March 1933, a German edition of The Golden Age did mention these events, but the matter-of-fact wording and the absence of any comment did not demonstrate much compassion with the victims or aversion to these enactments. [35]   Instead, the Jewish fate was seen as inextricably linked with scriptural prediction.  According to Trost, the German edition of Consolation (successor of The Golden Age), of July 15, 1938: "The Jews clearly exemplify how terrible it is not to have Jehovah's blessing.  Being cut off from God's favor, also here [in Germany] they have no peace.  Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind!  How much longer?" (reviewer's translation).

As noted by Garbe, the attempts by the German management of the WBTS to de-escalate the conflict with the Nazis during the first six months of 1933 may have resulted in omitting any "offensive" notes that originated from the Brooklyn headquarters.  The Magdeburg leadership had even conveyed its discomfort to the U.S. State Department, pointing out that the New York editors did not take the new ideological situation in Germany into account. [36]

According to Penton, former JW and opponent of the WBTS, Rutherford "was a man with strong biases and deep prejudices.  . . . .  His outward sympathy towards Jews and blacks was often mixed with white, southern American bigotry towards those groups." [37]   In a later publication, Penton qualifies Rutherford's attitude as "a streak of deep-seated anti-Semitism." [38]   Irrespective of his personal ideas, Rutherford's referrals to the "chastisement of the chosen" and his unsophisticated prejudice against the economic impact of the secular Jews merely reflected a recurring theme in the American millennial subculture during the time of his presidency.

Historian Paul Boyer demonstrates that scores of American pre-1945 prophecy writers indulged in varying degrees of anti-Judaism.  He presents numerous examples of assertions similar to those expressed by Rutherford, uttered by a colourful parade of different religious authors. [39]   One of them, pondering the Jews' prophesied restoration, wondered "What will "little old New York" do then, with all its Jewish bankers and merchants missing, together with their silver and their gold?", a remark very much like Rutherford's reference in the Declaration to the economic position of the Jews. [40]   In many cases, though, particularly after the Second World War, this discourse contains ambivalence and paradox: by condemning the Nazi anti-Semitism, it reinforced old prejudices.

The WBTS published an example in one of its editions of Awake! that paid attention to the suffering of the Jews through the ages.  While anti-Semitism is condemned in every possible way, the article concludes: "The persecutions the Jews suffered bear grim testimony to the accuracy of the Biblical warning as to what the Jews could expect if they went contrary to their maker, Jehovah God." [41] . As late as the 1970s, this sentiment could be detected:

"To this day the natural circumcised Jews are suffering the sad consequences from the works of darkness that were done within their nation nineteen hundred years ago.  This illustrates what can happen to a whole nation that comes under the influence of that unseen superhuman intelligence, Satan the Devil." [42]

Boyer concludes that although premillennialism incorporates many philo-Semitic elements,

"[It] encourage[s] an obsessive preoccupation with the Jews as a people eternally set apart, about whom sweeping generalizations can be made with the sanction of biblical authority.  Premillennialism also incorporates a view of Jewish history that, while not condoning anti-Semitic outbreaks, sees them as foreordained and inevitable." [43]

Regrettably, with the exception of some scattered remarks, the book under review does not include a contribution that specifically focuses on this much debated issue.  We do not know, for example, if Rutherford's Jewish stereotypes were somehow the result of cross-fertilization by his contemporaries or to what extent his associates in the highest echelons of the WBTS or the membership in general supported his ideas.  According to Auschwitz commander Höss, "all (JW-prisoners) were convinced that it was only reasonable that the Jews had to suffer and die because, erewhile, their forefathers had betrayed Jehovah". [44]

The present officials of the movement attempt to refute or at least downplay the anti-Judaic matter.  In his paper-that unfortunately is plagued by a torrent of explanatory footnotes which, for that matter, appears to be a hallmark of the WBTS authors-Wrobel, the head of the history archive at the German branch, notes that the wording of the 1933 Declaration was "certainly not determined by political, but by legal calculations" (315): the movement wished its impounded property to be restored.  Wrobel may have a point-although it is dubious if the totalitarian Nazi state allowed for the assumed separation between the political and legal domain-but he does not elaborate on the relevance of the Judaic references with regard to these judicial considerations.  Concerning the Declaration's inclusion of the Jewish stereotypes, the author focuses on the anti-Semitism label in the sense of "hatred of the Jews," (316) thus justifiably refuting the charge.  He attributes the use of the expressions in the statement to the ardent wish of the WBTS to distance themselves from certain Jewish American and British financiers, as asserted by the Nazis. (318)  Allowing for these and other contextual aspects, more important, though, is the observation that the earlier published sentiments about the Jews in the movement's literature are totally ignored.  The same applies to the contributions of historians Garbe and Yonan.  The latter is pussyfooting around the issue by labelling the statements " . . . [not] anti-Jewish; rather they are anti-American, yet, basically anti-secular" (340) which no doubt carries weight although it does not account for the Judaic component.

To bluntly accuse the WBTS or its membership of anti-Semitism is out of all proportion.  First, the term's almost inextricable association with Nazism may convey a distorted image of the movement's teachings.  Secondly, as also noted by Wrobel, post-Holocaust social sensitivity concerning anti-Semitism when observers retroactively evaluate these pre-war utterances may render overstated qualifications; in that sense, some charges by opponents are not devoid of a certain amount of bon ton.  However, the issue should not be disregarded.  Rather than focussing on the remarks about the Jews in the Declaration as a single event, they should be considered a mere continuation of pre-existing points of view that, deliberately or not, found their way into a much-contested document.  For the WBTS to publicly distance itself from the controversial contents of the Declaration would be tantamount to questioning the authority of its leadership that they believe has been appointed by and is directed under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Unlike other religious movements, the WBTS has not evolved into a stage that actions of previous leaders are brought up for discussion.

Summary

Irrespective of the shortcomings mentioned above, this book fills a gap in descriptive contemporary history.  By its focus on a forgotten group of Holocaust victims it has succeeded to unveil an extremely traumatic period of their past.  It illuminates the tremendous suffering of a religious minority that refused to yield to an oppressor that could not allow an alternative authoritarian, allegedly Jewish-Bolshevik worldview within the boundaries of its totalitarian state.  Moreover, both systems promulgated competing ideologies of salvation, an anathematized constellation in the eyes of the Nazis that could only be solved by ruthlessly crushing the movement.  Yet, the regime never managed to paralyse the JWs completely, thus illustrating the effects of the mechanisms of millenarian commitment and the power of faith when the believer is besieged, his or her very existence threatened.  Therefore, seemingly paradoxically, for some this harrowing period still brings about an ambiguous nostalgia, like this elderly JW, who, while observing the easygoing conduct of the youthful generation of his fellow-believers during a recent WBTS convention in the Netherlands, sighed "it's about time for a war to break out."

Richard Singelenberg

Notes