Letters to the Editor

New York, May 8, 1933.

To the Editor of the Jewish Daily Bulletin:

When Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, head of the German Reichsbank, landed in New York recently, he addressed the American people in part as follows:

Many people are trying to convince you that the present economic crisis is based on economic reasons. Don’t you believe them. Our crisis is a moral one. Economic well-being will only return if a fair chance is given to every one. Instead, all forces are used to keep down the defeated. He is asked to pay but not allowed to earn.

This is truly a noble sentiment and well worth the attention of every government in these tangled times. But as one reads this statement again and ponders a bit on its source, one is inclined to ask several questions. And these questions will have to be answered clearly and without qualification before we can be expected to believe that only a sincere desire to be helpful to all, prompted the worthy doctor to utter these weighty phrases.

Does Dr. Schacht mean, for example, that even the defeated Jews, Socialists and Communists in Germany will be given an equal chance to earn a living according to their natural bent and abilities? Or are they beyond the pale in this respect? Or do they not count in Germany’s great scheme of rejuvenation? Or what?

Again, if the crisis was caused by moral issues alone, why did Germany aggravate the already unsettled morality of the world by her unmoral reign of terror during March and April of this year? And why was it that the outraged moral sense of the rest of the world was the only force that induced Hitler and his crowd of inquisitors to put a soft pedal on their activities, even though by no means abandoning them? Or was the whole world not morally shocked? Or what was it, anyway?

Furthermore, does the wholesale dismissal of many of the world’s most brilliant educators, depriving professionals of their means of existence, the restriction of non-Nazi business men in every direction, the exclusion of “non-Aryans” from higher education, the instigation of race hatred and the use of brutal force to reduce a helpless minority to abject terror—does all this come within the realm of action to “keep down the defeated” and expecting them to “pay without being allowed to earn”? Or does it not? And how does it work out in Germany?

And there is still another question. Does the sentiment before quoted apply only to Germany’s international affairs—to her relations with her conquerors—or does it apply with equal force to her internal behavior? Or could it be that Germany has developed one set of morals for domestic use and an entirely different set of moral standards for “export” or international purposes? And what constitute the German moral standards?

It must be said, in all frankness, that Dr. Schacht’s fine speech is as yet merely a collection of words well strung together and uttered with an almost convincing fervor—almost, but not quite.

Perhaps Dr. Schacht will develop his theme for the benefit of those who have had grave doubts about Germany’s intentions and aims and who still have, regardless of all the denials, protestations and peeved yammering that has been streaming out of Berlin for several weeks.

We hope—nay, we strongly urge the doctor to explain, because try as we may we cannot “coordinate” his speech in any least particular with Hitler’s past, present and even contemplated actions and utterances.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) E. F. Pinner.

May 10, 1933.

To the Editor of the

Jewish Daily Bulletin:

In last Sunday’s issue you published a letter from Morris M. Wolff of Montgomery, Ala., expressing his opinions on Samuel Leibowitz in particular and the Negro question in general.

I do not doubt that Mr. Wolff sympathizes with the afflicted Jews of Germany, however. But is there any reason why injustice in Munich should be condemned and injustice in Montgomery should be condoned? Those seven black boys standing in the shadow of the electric chair, the victims of mob hysteria and perjured testimony, should challenge our sympathy and enlist our aid to the same degree as the victims of the Brown Terror.

Mr. Wolff blames Samuel Leibowitz for arousing anti-Jewish prejudice, but he overlooks the part Rabbi Goldstein of his own city of Montgomery has played by presiding at protest meetings and championing the cause of the Scottsboro boys in various other ways. As a result, Rabbi Goldstein has lost his pulpit. But after all, it is a small thing to sacrifice a rabbi and to dishonor the Bibical ideals of justice and humanity, if only the Jews of Montgomery can convince their Gentile friends and customers that they are regular fellows and not “nigger lovers”.

Sincerely yours,

Abram Vossen Goodman.

Cumberland, Md.