The Third Reich and JW

by Earnest 2 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  I have recently purchased a small book entitled "The Third Reich and the Christian Churches" which is "a documentary account of Christian resistance and complicity during the Nazi era". Interesting reading.

  One extract is taken from the book "Kirchenkampf in Deutschland 1933-1945" (Friedrich Zipfel, Berlin, 1965, pp.527-533) which records the trial of fourteen JWs before the Berlin Supreme Court in November 1944:

  The writing, 'Look the Facts in the Face' [probably 'Face the Facts', printed in 1938], has the impertinence to launch vicious attacks on the leadership of the National Socialist state. It argues, inter alia, thus:

  Moreover, we have to face the further, undeniable fact, which stands in direct contradiction to the righteous rule of God, that there has of late appeared upon the earth a hideous monster, which - in complete disregard of the inalienable rights of man - is engaged in the rapid seizure of power and dominion over the world, in reducing men to mindless obedience and slavery. People are terrified of the monster and submit to it in craven fear....

  All nations on earth have to face the same situation. Hence none of them should be prejudiced against another because of preconceptions and partisanship, because of race, nationality, or colour. God has made all nations which dwell upon the earth of one blood, and everyone has the right to the same impartial treatment.What, then, is this hideous monster? It is the totalitarian government or dictatorship, which makes the state supreme, reduces all men to mindless obedience, rules over them by arbitrary despots and forces everyone to render them unconditional obedience. This monster is, therefore, a deceitful aping of God's righteous rule...

  Now I realise I have left the thread wide open for comments on how the WTS are themselves that monster but my interest goes beyond that. We would probably agree with the booklet's description of National Socialism and applaud the JWs who would have no share of it. And the publicity given to the situation in Germany doubtless informed many in the US and Europe who were ignorant of the true nature of Nazism at that time. But I do wonder if there was not also an intention to stir further persecution in Germany which could only strengthen the entire brotherhood. If one reads what "The Finished Mystery" said about war when it was published in 1917 it is no surprise that Rutherford et al. were imprisoned for sedition. But this being so he must surely have been aware that Hitler would react by intensifying persecution (which, indeed, he did).

  Was this a courageous exposure of the threat of Nazism, or was it intended to provoke a reaction and create martyrs for the faith. What do you think?

  Earnest
• 

  TheOldHippie

  It was no wish to create martyrs; I don't think that has ever been among the aims of the Witness community. I will take South Africa as an example; during the days of Apartheid, there were separated dining rooms and dwelling facilities at Bethel, and conventions were segregated. Congregations, because of the neighbourhoods in which they were, were also in this way segregated. If one had wished to create martyrs, would one not have had mixed congregations and conventions, refused to separate the workers at Bethel both at work and meals and at night? I guess things were to a certain extent the same in the racist Deep South of the US.

  Was it a courageous exposure of the dangers of Nazism? Yes, but also to a certain extent No, because we are here not speaking about a group who were / are opposed to Nazism as such, but opposed to the fact that Nazism refused them their right to worship as they wanted to, and persecuted them - and others - for the sake of their religion. If Nazism hypothetically speaking had not persecuted the Witnesses or Jews or Communists or Sinti and Roma etc and had made provisions for alternatives to military service, I guess there would have been no protests from the Witnesses. But that of course is very hypothetically, as the questions arises, Would it then have been Nazism, What would Nazism have been without persection of the Jews, dictatorship etc. But I only try to tell they in my eyes were not freedom fighters as such, but fighters for their right to serve their God as they wanted to. Again South Africa as an example, they did not go to the newspapers or other media to expose the dangers of Apartheid, and they did not join ranks with Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. to march in Atlanta and Mississippi. They did not protest against the fascist attrocities committed by Pinochet in Chile, but they said Yes when they were called upon to fill the vacancies after Communists and Socialists and Union men had been imprisoned and murdered by the Chile fascists. This is told in the Yearbook.

  So they fill a space between protest and martyrdom.
• 

  Earnest

  Thanks for your thoughts, Old Hippie. I certainly agree that most Witnesses have no desire to be martyrs. I am not so certain about Rutherford who stirred persecution in the United States by blitzing towns where JWs had been arrested. The book "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" recalls the strategy:

  *** jv 692 30 'Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News' ***

  Although the individual congregations of Jehovahs Witnesses were usually rather small during the 1930s, there was a strong bond among them. When there was serious trouble in any location, Witnesses from surrounding areas were eager to help. In 1933 in the United States, for example, 12,600 Witnesses were organized into 78 divisions. When there were persistent arrests in an area, or when opposers succeeded in pressuring radio stations to cancel contracts for broadcasting programs prepared by Jehovahs Witnesses, the Societys office in Brooklyn was notified. Within a week, reinforcements were dispatched to that area to give a concentrated witness.

  Depending on the need, from 50 to 1,000 Witnesses would rendezvous at an appointed time, usually in the countryside near the area to be worked. They were all volunteers; some came as much as 200 miles [320 km]. Individual groups were given territory that could be covered in perhaps 30 minutes or possibly as much as two hours. As each car group began to work in its assigned section, a committee of brothers called on the police to notify them of the work being done and to provide a list of all the Witnesses who were working in the community that morning. Realizing that their own forces were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Witnesses, the officials in most places permitted the work to go on without hindrance. In some localities they filled their jail but then could do no more. For any that were arrested, the Witnesses had attorneys on hand with bail. The effect was like that of the symbolic swarm of locusts referred to in the Scriptures at Joel 2:7-11 and Revelation 9:1-11. In this way it was possible to continue preaching the good news even in the face of intense opposition.

  I may well be wrong. It is true that JWs have maintained their neutrality to political ideology in South Africa and elsewhere. However, on a technical note I should clarify that there were not separate dining rooms at Bethel during the days of Apartheid - both white and black ate at the same tables. The law did not forbid eating together in private but the Group Areas Act did not allow for dwelling together. So, the black brothers who worked at Bethel (mainly as translators) had to travel in and out of Soweto (the black townships near Bethel) every day. This law also effectively segregated the congregations and conventions as black and white lived in different areas. But I take your point that they could have been provocative and were not. As it happens their neutrality did produce martyrs during the riots of 1976 and after when the black brothers in particular were between a rock (the Nationalist government) and a hard place (the various freedom movements). Neutrality was seen by both sides as support (of the enemy) by omission.

  Earnest