The prohibitive order of 24 June 1933 against Jehovah's Witnesses came as a result of an error on the part of the authorities - an error about which Jehovah's Witnesses should feel painfully embarrassed today, an error that proves that they were quite ready to compromise their principles.
Up to now the policies of Jehovah's Witnesses have generally been depicted as reflecting credit on their history. The truth - as in many cases respecting them - is quite different. It amounts to a damning indictment of the leaders of that religion which claims to be 'God's representative on earth', in effect the only 'channel of communication' between God and man.
The basis for the Nazis' prohibitive order of 24 June 1933, was - as already indicated - an error on the part of the authorities. These are the facts: In May 1933 the Gestapo searched the house of Ewald Vorsteher. They found writings that unsparingly denounced the anti-semitic and inhuman objectives of the Hitler regime. Those writings said that the Nazis made use of the most vicious lies ever told by a political party and that Hitler, Göring, and Frick were Nazi ministers baying with bloodthirst; they were Nero-like monsters, whose intention was to slaughter their opponents. The suffering of different groups of people was revealed unsparingly and was clearly condemned in those writings.
Ewald Vorsteher is a hero, and his memory should be honored. That is why the documentation presented here on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Hitler regime is dedicated to him.
He is a hero of the Christian faith who fought for human dignity and was willing to swim against the tide of the Hitler regime and that of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In 1921 and 1922, Ewald Vorsteher from Wuppertal-Barmen was a fellow worker at the branch office of the Watch Tower Society in Barmen. In 1923, he was disfellowshipped or excommunicated for having conscientiously refused to follow the religious and political dictates of Judge J. F. Rutherford, the Watch Tower's American president. Others gathered around him, calling themselves 'Friends of Truth'. The Nazis held Jehovah's Witnesses responsible for Ewald Vorsteher's activities. This was an error on their part, but it gave them a substantial basis for outlawing the Witness movement.
Jehovah's Witnesses were embarrassed by Vorsteher's activities. Instead of agreeing with his quite justified attacks on the Hitler regime, they dissociated themselves from him and damned him in the harshest terms. In a letter of 28 January 1935, to the Nazi Home Office, one of the Watch Tower Society's official representatives, Hans Dollinger, made clear that they were not willing to have anything to do with Vorsteher's activities.
It reads:
'The cause of the proscription [of Jehovah's Witnesses by the German government] of 24 June 1933, and the only specific incident affecting that proscription was the report given by the chief of police in Wuppertal on 31 May 1933, Ref.-Nr. I Ad 60001. This report was given erroneously, as the police headquarters in Wuppertal concedes. The report to the police headquarters in Wuppertal was given on the assumption that the incident in question related to the Bible Students Association [Jehovah's Witnesses]. This was subsequently recognized as an error.'
If Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to raise their voices in protest against the Nazis, as they claim they did in the 22 August 1995 issue of Awake!, this would have been their best opportunity to speak out boldly in this connection. Yet, instead of agreeing with the denunciation of the Hitler regime by Vorsteher, they dissociated themselves completely from him and his activities.
The Dollinger letter quoted immediately above goes on to state:
'The incident reported by the police headquarters, which subsequently lead to the prohibitive order against the society, consisted of spiteful charges against the Chancellor of the Reich made by a certain Ewald Vorsteher from Barmen on 31 May 1933, who was arrested immediately . . . . After 1923, he no longer maintained any contact with the Bible Students Association, the society, on its part, having disfellowshipped him officially (1923).'
Jehovah's Witnesses held it against Vorsteher that he had directed 'spiteful charges against the Chancellor of the Reich'. Was it not that the attacks were justified - attacks against the belittling of human dignity by the Hitler regime? Were those 'spiteful charges' not also indirect attacks on those Witnesses who took a compromising, anti-semitic and pro-Hitler stance? They did not raise their voices in defense of Ewald Vorsteher, nor did they denounce the injustice of Hitler and the Nazis at the time as they want to make the general public everywhere believe today. The Dollinger letter concludes with the following words:
'This [Vorsteher] incident proves to be the only specific "material" leading to the prohibitive order.'
Today, hardly any Jehovah's Witnesses or neutral members of the general public know that, according to the Watch Tower Society's representative, this was the 'only specific "material" leading to the prohibitive order'. If this is so, it certainly does not reflect any credit on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Hitler and the Nazis remained unimpressed by the Witnesses compromising behavior. The prohibitive order was not altered as a result of Dollinger's letter. A subsequent letter from him to the Reich's senior civil servant on 19 January 1935, reads:
'Dear Sir:
. . . From that copy [of the report of the chief of police in Wuppertal] I became painfully aware of the outrageousness of what this man named Vorsteher has done. I can certainly understand that the National Socialist state will not put up with such a thing.'
The Watch Tower representative emphasized the 'outrageousness of Vorsteher's behavior; and - as the letter reads - the National Socialist state would, reasonably, not put up with such a thing.
Yet as for the 'outrageousness' of Vorsteher's behavior, did he not do what Jehovah's Witnesses claim today that they themselves did, namely, face up to the Hitler regime heroically from the very beginning.
If there is any one person who could rightly have claimed to have done that, it was Ewald Vorsteher. We can only imagine what his fate must have been at the hands of the Nazis.
In his letter, Hans Dollinger was candid to the point of bluntness. It reads:
'I feel deep pain that this act of madness by a crazy man, who seems to have arbitrarily sent his "products" to any address he could obtain, had to serve as the basis of a prohibitive order against a truly religiously minded Christian denomination, the Bible Students Association.'
The courageous behavior of Vorsteher is depicted as an 'act of madness by a crazy man'. Should we not rightly call the behavior of Jehovah's Witnesses towards the Hitler regime at that time an 'an act of cowardice and compromise'?
Dollinger continues with his argument as to why his society should not be lumped together with Vorsteher:
'I am convinced that on the part of the authorities there was no sufficient insight into the fact that the Friends of Truth have no connection whatsoever with the Bible Students Association, and that this is the only cause the prohibitive order against the Bible Students Association can be traced back to. Never during all the years that National Socialism has fought for Germany has the Bible Students Association tried to impair that fight. . . . We must clearly refuse to be held responsible for what this Vorsteher has done.'
That does not sound as though Jehovah's Witnesses raised their voices against Hitler; instead, they compromised their integrity out of fear and opportunism.
Regarding the Bible Students Association
The cause of the prohibitive order of 24 June 1933, and the only specific incident affecting that order:
The report given by the chief of police in Wuppertal on 31 May 1933, Ref.-Nr. I Ad 60001.
This report was given erroneously, as the police headquarters in Wuppertal concedes.
The report of the police headquarters in Wuppertal was given on the assumption that the incident in question applied to the Bible Students Association. This was subsequently recognized as an error.
I
The signatory [Dollinger] and the American citizen M. C. Harbeck, Brooklyn, approached the police headquarters in Wuppertal on 10 February 1933; the meeting took place while drawing upon the files at the director of the Political Department (Mr. Beine). It was stated:
II
The incident reported by the police headquarters, which subsequently lead to the prohibitive order against the association, consisted of spiteful charges against the Chancellor of the Reich made by a certain Ewald Vorsteher from Barmen on 31 May 1933, who immediately came under arrest. Until 1923, Vorsteher had been a Bible Student; in 1923 he left the association and established a separate movement called Society of the Friends of Truth, the principal task of which was to fight against the Bible Students Association. His magazine, published for the first time in 1923, had ceased publication by 1925 or 1926 owing to a lack of readers. After 1923, he no longer maintained any contact with the Bible Students Association, the association on its part having disfellowshipped him officially (1923).
III
At Dusseldorf, Vorsteher was sent to prison for having libeled the government (Ref.Nr. 16 b KM 45/33 St.A. Dusseldorf). The court record should add to our explanation.
IV
The police headquarters in Wuppertal knows that the report given then is wrong. On the occasion of the visit on 10 January 1933 mentioned above, this was explicitly confirmed by the director of the Political Department (Mr. Beine) to my question. The last-named said to us that he knew that Vorsteher is no Bible Student, but a Friend of Truth. My question as to whether he knew that the Friends of Truth are neither identical to the Bible Students Association, nor keep up contact with them, was positively confirmed. At my request as to whether he could report the incident to the Prussian Home Office, that official suggested that we ask the Home Office to request a report which he would give them. Literally he said: 'You have to see to it that the Home Office asks for a report in this case; then we will correct the matter according to the facts stated in the mean time.'
V
The case was presented to the Prussian Home Office on 10 May 1933 (to Fischer, the Head of the Ministry Department). A request was made to ask for the report from Wuppertal.
VI
This incident proves to be the only specific 'material' leading to the prohibitive order.
To the senior civil servant of the Prussian Home Office
Dear Sir,
I am honored to pass the enclosed copy of the report of the chief of police in Wuppertal as promised. From that copy I became painfully aware of the outrageousness of what this man named Vorsteher has done. I can certainly understand that the National Socialist state will not put up with such a thing. No state on earth would put up with it.
I feel deep pain that this act of madness by a crazy man who seems to have arbitrarily sent his 'products' to any address he could get hold of, had to serve as the basis of a prohibitive order against a truly religiously minded Christian denomination, the Bible Students Association.
I am convinced that there was no sufficient insight on the part of the authorities to the fact that the Friends of Truth have no connection whatsoever with the Bible Students Association, and that this is the only cause the prohibitive order against the Bible Students Association can be traced back to.
Never during all the years that National Socialism fought for Germany has the Bible Students Association tried to impair that fight.
Neither in any talk given, nor in written form, nor in its overall policies has the association made any negative statement against National Socialism. This applies to [the Bible Students Association in] Germany and its many hundreds of thousands of co-believers [therein] as well as to [those in] foreign countries in general.
We must clearly refuse to be held responsible for what this Vorsteher has done.
Vorsteher is a loner who was disfellowshipped by us in 1922 or 1923 since he was not willing to keep to the rules that are followed by the association and that are in accordance with the law.
It should be a point in favor of the association that under no circumstances did it tolerate persons acting independently with respect to matters of conformity to the law. The fact that the association always dealt strictly with such matters is a warranty given to the authorities that no dubious elements of any kind were tolerated and no individuals acting independently were permitted to use the association as a springboard and platform.
Throughout the years, we have attached utmost importance to this position, and there is no case in which followers of the association either got into conflict with the law themselves or dragged the association into such a conflict.
So we can only describe as tragic the fact that in a case in which the association has proved its intention to be strictly law-abiding, we are undone because of circumstances we cannot be held responsible for.
I hope and request you that you examine these matters in future, and that we may be given the opportunity to account to you - for in that manner the immense spiritual pain of my fellow believers will be brought to an end by a complete rehabilitation [of our association] on order of the authorities.
Mit deutschem Gruß [a mild form of 'Heil Hitler'.]