JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

This article is a review of Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Third Reich. Sectarian Politics under Persecution, by M. James Penton and published in 2004 by University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Of the many controversies that surround the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS), the umbrella organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, its leadership’s initial stance toward German Nazism is subject to heated debates. On the one hand, according to the movement’s historiography, the Witnesses have, from the beginning, stood solidly against Nazism which resulted in ruthless persecution. On the other hand, some observers assert that the WBTS was considerably less opposed to Nazism as claimed, and internally divided on the continuation of its religious practices.

Historian and former Jehovah’s Witness and James Penton belongs to the latter category. According to him, the WBTS presents a highly sanitized version of this period. To demythologize the account advertised by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their organization, he repeats assertions made in earlier - though hardly accessible – publications from the late 1980s: in order to prevent a total ban by the Hitler regime in 1933, the WBTS has attempted to compromise with the Nazis and used anti-Semitic language to obtain that goal.

In this book Penton adds that Rutherford, the then WBTS leader, could have
softened the intensity of the persecution. Rather than to urge his membership to openly provoke the regime with a worldview that ran counter Nazist ideology, he should have ruled his following to operate more discreetly. Further, the creation by the WBTS of a martyrography of its Holocaust victims is self-serving, in the sense that the movement exploited the misery that befell its membership as a propagandistic strategy against increasing opposition to the Witnesses in Europe during the 1990s. The author presents more material that appears to undermine the official version of the WBTS, such as the allegedly covering up of treason by high ranking officials. A 140-pages appendix which contains a treasure of relevant data, should document these findings.

Space does not allow to extensively discuss these conclusions. In summary, statements made by the WBTS in 1933 reveal that the WBTS, for the sake of mere survival, has attempted to temporarily adapt to the Hitler administration by expressing approval to and emphasizing commonalities with certain viewpoints of the Nazi state, in the course of which Jewish negative stereotypes were not eschewed. As I argued elsewhere, occasional anti-Judaic rhetoric in the movement’s literature may reflect origins of Christian anti-Jewish sentiments, while the innuendo to the allegedly powerful economic position of the Jews was not uncommon in early 20th century
American fundamentalism. However, to conclude from this and scattered anecdotal evidence, as Penton does, that both Rutherford and his following were anti-Semitic, while virtually ignoring socio-historical context is demagogical rather than the result of solid analysis. This example is illustrative of a main problem of this book.

Though the author makes clear that certain aspects of WBTS’ version of its war history are inconsistent with historical facts and warrant for serious debate, his presentation suffers from his aversion against his former religious community. To blame Rutherford for the fierceness of the persecution is an interesting hypothesis; however, the lack of thorough argumentation renders this assertion void. Leading authors on this field, such as German historian Detlef Garbe, have expressed their uneasiness on WBTS’ protean behaviour regarding its political stance (2). Labelling them “naive apologists” (p. 48,203) or worse (p.234) because they did not outright condemn the movement is hardly constructive. Moreover, the author commits the same fallacy as the
object of his dislike which tends to view writers who express too much criticism as apostates or opponents. If Penton would have been able to transform his seemingly personal vendetta into a detached analysis, this study would have rendered considerable surplus value.

As it is now, the author has scored an own goal since the WBTS will undoubtedly see the result as a reconfirmation of apostate digression while the scientific community will frown upon his lack of objectivity. Once again, the reader is confronted by the ideological charge of this controversy where revisionists and adversaries battle for historical accuracy while staying entrenched in their unshakeable positions. This chapter from the Holocaust still awaits serious scholarship.

(Originally published in Journal of Church and State, Vol 47, #3, 2005, pp 626-627)

See also Postscript