Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner

From The Jewish Observer, October 1977

“Holocaust” – A Study Of The Term, And The Epoch It Is Meant To Describe, from a discourse by Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner Shlit”a, translated by Chaim Feuerman and Yaakov Feitman

1. Is the term שואה Shoah (lit., “Holocaust”) acceptable in describing the חורבן -the destruction of European Jewry during World War II?
2. Should the “Holocaust” be taught separately as many schools are now doing or planning to do, or incorporated into the regular courses on Jewish History and taught as part of the studies on this particular time period?
3. If the latter, where indeed does the Holocaust “fit in” with the rest of Jewish history?

Yeshiva and dayschool principals from across the nation posed the questions to RABBI YITZCHOK HUTNER שליטא, Rosh HaYeshiva of Mesivta Rabbi Chaim Berlin-Kolel Gur Aryeh, and a member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages) of Agudath Israel of America. In response, the Rosh HaYeshiva delivered a discouse to a gathering of approximately 100 Menahelim assembled at the Yeshiva. In it, he focused on significant aspects of the Churban that were hitherto either little known or studiously avoided. The Jewish Observer takes pride in publishing this major statement by a leading Torah thinker and teacher of our time.

Rabbi Hutner delivered this discourse on 12 Sivan 5736 (June 10, ’76). This English rendition was prepared by RABBI CHAIM FEUERMAN, dean of The Jewish Foundation School (Staten Island, N.Y.), and RABBI YAAKOV FEITMAN, princpal of Yeshiva Rabbi Jacob Joseph (also, Staten Island).

Answer:         In order to determine the appropriateness of any term, one must first thoroughly understand what one is trying to define. Clarity of expression depends upon clarity of perception. Therefore, before we attempt to designate a name for the shattering events of 1939-1945, we must examine the significance of those events in their historical context. For our present purpose of identification only, we shall refer to the term “Holocaust” when we discuss the Nazi destruction of European Jewry during World War II. As we shall see, this in no way signifies the acceptability of this term.         It should be made clear at the outset that we shall not merely discuss history this evening. Our orientation toward Jewish history must reflect an attitude toward kedusha — approaching that which is most holy and sacred. This sanctity stems from the fact that ישראל ואורייתא חד הוא — “the Jewish people and the Torah are one” (Zohar, Acharei Mos, 73), thus intimately relating the proper study of Jewish history with the study of Torah. Yet, unfortunately, just as in the study of Torah itself we are familiar with the phenomenon of מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה — those who distort and misinterpret the meaning of the Torah (see Avos 3:11), so is there an even more subtle danger from those who distort the meaning of Jewish history. It will be our task this evening to untangle the web of distortions about recent Jewish history, which has already been woven, and uncover the Torah perspective which has been hidden from us.         To be sure, it will not be easy to regain this perspective. The thoughts which we will explore this evening will be difficult to digest because of our long subsistence upon the forced diet of public opinion. The creators of the powerful force of public opinion are beyond the realm of our control and the mind-numbing results of their influence are largely out of our hands. In order to achieve any hold upon the truth, we will first have to free ourselves from the iron-clad grip of their puissance and open our minds and hearts to the sometimes bitter pill of truth.         

The Origins of the Term        

As in all quests for the truth, we must return to origins. The term Shoah was coined by the founders of Yad V’Shem in Jerusalem, since they were convinced that the tragedy of European Jewry was so unique in its proportions and dimensions that no previous phrase could encompass its meaning. Undoubtedly, to a certain degree they were correct, for indeed the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Jewish communities was unique in its proportions and dimensions. Yet, by singling out the quantitative differences of this particular churban, those who sought a new terminology for these events missed the essence of their uniqueness. It is not just the proportions and dimensions of the Holocaust which define its quintessence, but its establishment of a new and significant pattern in Jewish history. Yet at the same time it must be stressed that this pattern, far from coincidental, is intricately related to the basic pattern of Jewish history itself and profoundly affects our entire vision of recent history and indeed current events.         By placing the Holocaust in its historical perspective, we shall uncover two new directions in recent Jewish history with reference to the gentile persecution of Jews. Whereas our entire history has been replete with various instances of persecution by different civilization, empires and nation — varying only in intensity, means and ferocity — recent history has shifted dramatically in two new areas.        

The Era of Disappointment        

The first of these epochal changes involves the shift from generations of gentile mistreatment of Jews, which, if unwelcome, was nevertheless expected and indeed announced by our oppressors — to an era where promises of equality were made and then broken, rights were granted and then revoked, benevolence was anticipated, only to be crushed by cruel malevolence.         This change in our historical pattern, although it has hitherto gone largely unnoticed, is nevertheless a seminal movement in our progress toward אחרית הימים — the inevitable culmination of history in absolute redemption.         The recent examples of these disappointments may be readily brought to mind, and indeed some are yet fresh with the pain of unfulfilled anticipation.         The French Revolution, in that first 18th century burst of dedication to equality and freedom, had granted equal rights to Jews as citizens, although nothing to Jews as Jews. The Treaty of Versailles had gone even further and granted rights to minorities as minorities, including Jews as Jews. Of course, these promises were later nullified or retracted, and heard from no more.         In Russia, too, Lenin had signed in 1917 the Soviet Minority Rights Law, granting a kind of Jewish self-government in the form of a Jewish soviet. This, too, was soon abolished in the 1920’s by Stalin, dashing those bright hopes that had been kindled.         England, too, entered the 20th century by revoking a promise made to Jews in the form of the Balfour Declaration. In November, 1917, Jews danced in the streets because Britain had declared that “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The declaration was accepted at the Conference of San Remo in 1920; yet, by June, 1922, Winston Churchill, then British colonial secretary, was qualifying that the declaration did not mean the “imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish  community.” Of course, a long and bitter period followed where a British hand held the gun of the age-old  oppressor of Israel.

Thus it becomes clear that the trend of anti-Jewish phenomena of the first half of the twentieth century was characterized, not so much by persecutions and pogroms as in the past, but by the legalized retraction of existing laws granting sundry privileges. Although these reversals are dramatic and telling enough of themselves, they pale in the face of the retractions and total turnabouts made by the Germans in the 1920’s and 30’s. 

On March 11, 1812, Prince Karl August von Hardenberg had issued his famous edict emancipating Prussian Jews, but by 1919, as a supplement to the German translation of the so-called Protocols of the  Elders of Zion, Gottfried Zur Beek (Ludwig Miller) used Hardenberg’s definition of a Jew in drafting  proposals for anti-Jewish legislation. These proposals culminated in 1935 in the so-called “Nuremberg Laws” which legitimized antisemitism and legalized anti Jewish bigotry. These Rassengesetze, which forbade marriage between Germans and Jews and disenfranchised non-Aryans, exactly paralleled earlier rights and privileges legally granted to Jews. Thus the cycle was diabolically complete. What had been given legally was equally as legally taken away, leaving the Jewish people with a growing and ultimately inexorable disillusionment with the promises and even legal enactments of the gentile world. 

(Of course many works have been devoted solely to the German anti-Jewish legislation which preceded and legalized the murder which was to follow. An idea of the vastness of the literature may be gotten from the fact that Die Gesetzgebung Adolf Hitlers (Hitler’s Legislation) takes up 33 volumes (ed. Werner Hoche, 1933-39). As early as May 27, 1924, the Nazis introduced a motion to “place all members of the Jewish race under special legislation (soriderrechf).”  And from then on, every bit of terror perpetrated against the Jews was, with German thoroughness, preceded by meticulously worded legislation. It is perhaps significant that where anti-Jewish violence  broke out in German streets before laws had been enacted to that effect, Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior and Reichsbank Presi dent Hjalmar Schacht condemned and ordered a stop to the “illegal  actions” (see Lucy S. Dawidowicz’s The War Against the Jews, New York: Bantam Books edition, 1976, p.83).) 

Let us restate clearly the pattern we have discovered in recent Jewish history. Jews have always been beaten by gentiles; only the means and instruments of torment have varied. The innovation of recent times has been that for long periods, Jews were deluded into trust in the gentiles by a series of laws and regulations in their behalf, only to have that trust shattered by the rescission of those very laws. This historical period culminated in the Holocaust, the largest scale annihilation of a people in history, yet resulting not from lawless hordes but flowing directly from legalized and formal governmental edicts. The end-result of this period for the Jewish psyche was a significant – indeed, crucial – one. From trust in the gentile world, the Jewish nation was cruelly brought to a repudiation of that trust. In a relatively short historical period, disappointment in the non Jewish world was deeply imprinted upon the Jewish soul. 

Torah Source for the New Era 

As we delve more deeply into the Torah view of these awesome events, we shall find that they certainly are not coincidental, but reflect the greater cosmic plan of the Creator of the universe. If we find in world history an era where Jews move from the expectation of persecution by gentiles to a period of disappointment in those very people, this change must be reflected in the Torah. As we said earlier, since the Jewish people and the Torah are one, what happens in one must have a counterpart in the other. Therefore, let us study together the passage where this monumental turn of events is reflected: 

“And Hashem said to Moshe: Behold you will soon  pass on and this nation will arise and fall prey to the  lure of strange nations and trust in them … And I will  hide My face from them and they will become as food  for their enemies and great evils and troubles will come  upon them. Then shall they declare: it is because my G-d has not been in my midst that these evils have befallen me” (Devarim 31:1-17). 

We must first establish what is meant by the phrase אלהי נכר הארץ. It should be noted that we translated it as “the lure of strange nations and trust in them,” and  not as the “worship of strange gods.” This interpretation follows Unkelos, who translates טעות עממיא, literally “the temptation of the nations.” This translation, rather than the more obvious one of “idol worship” reflects the sense of the passage, for we know (Yuma 69b) that the yeitzer hara – the evil inclination – for idolatry has long been eliminated by the Anshei Knesses Hagadola – the Men of the Great Assembly.  We can only appreciate the gravity of the sin of straying after “the lure of strange nations” when we realize that only here does the Torah mention the terrifying punishment of becoming consumed by our enemies.  Even the two tochachos – the portions of the Torah where G-d rebukes His nation for its sins and warns of the terrible consequences of evil – do not allude to such a dire punishment. The “great evils and troubles” which are the direct result of trusting and relying upon  the gentile world signify the impetus for the next immediate stage in Jewish history, a unique point in the  teshuva-repentance process: Then shall they declare: it is because my G-d has not been in my midst that these evils have befallen me.   

It has oft been noted that teshuva seems to ”be in the air” . . . . This climate is the result of the disappointment in gentiles which demolished the first stumbling-block to teshuva, and forced the recognition that ”it is because my G-d has not been in my midst” that the awesome events of recent times have occurred.

        When we now carefully study the Torah passages quoted, we will be struck by the Jews’ response to the great ”evils and troubles” which befall them. We know that the viduy — enumeration of sins — associated with true repentance necessitates the declaration that ”I have sinned” in addition to the specifics of the transgression. Here, there seems to be teshuva (repentance); yet, no real admission of wrongdoing has been made. In effect, what we encounter in this passage, unique in the Torah, is a kind of teshuva/non-teshuva, a leaning toward teshuva, yet not quite reaching the point of teshuva gemura — the complete penitence required by the Torah.         The Ramban, in his explication of this passage, grants us the key to this paradox. He explains that it reflects the very first stirrings of teshuva in its nascency. The lowest rung of evil is the disavowal of wrongdoing. Thus, as Ramban quotes, ”Behold I do judgment with you for saying ‘I have not sinned”’ (Yirmiyah 2:35) because this is the total rejection of guilt. We know that the essence of teshuva is viduy — admission of wrongdoing and enumeration of sins. Yet, the prophet proclaims that punishment will not come because one has not said ”I have sinned,” but because — infinitely worse — one has declared ”I have not sinned.” Once the repudiation of innocence has been accomplished, the teshuva process has begun. Even if one has not yet arrived at the positive point of viduy, the implicit significance of no longer claiming innocence is that the road to repentance has been cleared and one is ready for formal acceptance of guilt and positive commitment of the future. This, then, is a stage of teshuva, a kind of teshuva-readiness that Knesses Yisroel will reach in future days before it achieves total repentance.         This stage of teshuva will come about as a direct result of the ”great evils and troubles” which — as we interpreted according to Unkelos — come upon them because of their trust in the nations. The effect of the great calamities of those days, far from merely being a punishment for wrongdoing, will be to correct the previously misplaced trust and prepare the way for true teshuva. As we have seen, the ”great evils and troubles” did indeed come upon us from those very gentile nations who had gained our confidence and trust.

Thus, there is revealed to us both the chronology and the impetus for the teshuva of Acharis HaYamim (the End of Days). The very first step will be reached by Klal Yisroel through their repudiation of their earlier infatuations with gentile ways. In our terms, this is when the Jewish people moves toward repentance because of disappointment in the gentiles. This can only come about through promises rescinded, rights revoked, and anticipations aborted. The pain and anguish at the time of these shattered illusions is all too real and tragic; yet the events themselves serve to bring us to the recognition that ”it is because my G-d has not been in my midst that these evils have befallen me.” This the Ramban sees as the necessary prerequisite to the final step of teshuva when ”they will add to their earlier regret the complete confession and total penitence.”        

Our new understanding of the essence of our era allows us some comprehension of the phenomenon of our ”age of baalei-teshuva.” It has oft been noted that teshuva seems to ”be in the air,” and indeed the many movements currently succeeding to an unprecedented degree in bringing Jews closer to Judaism are but a reflection of the fact that the very climate is permeated with a kind of teshuva-readiness. This climate is the result of the disappointment in gentiles which demolished the first stumbling-block to teshuva, and forced the recognition that ”it is because my G-d has not been in my midst” that the awesome events of recent times have occurred. Of course, this is not to say that each individual baal teshuva has experienced a personal disappointment in gentiles. There are characteristics and trends common to an entire epoch which eventually affect each individual in his own way.        

I had occasion to elaborate on this point, when by a combination of circumstances I found myself in Eretz Yisroel, in the company of a group of extreme leftists on Ben Gurion’s yahrzeit. I was asked to say a few words in honor of the day and felt it worthwhile to relate the following to them:         Ben Gurion often used to tell people that now was not the proper time to resolve the controversy between the religious and the anti-religious. When opportunities arose for resolving such issues, he made sure they were tabled until a future time. Undoubtedly, his reasoning — conscious or subconscious — was that time was on the side of the secularists. The experience of Ben Gurion’s generation was that the number of observant Jews was steadily decreasing, and a Judaism empty of Torah seemed on the ascent. 

In so calculating, Ben Gurion made a grave error. In that group of leftists, there were representatives of many pre-war cities from various types of Jewish com munities all over Europe. I asked each of the assembled in turn, “Do you recall a mechalel Shabbos – a non observant Jew – in your city who had a son who became Shomer Shabbos?” Each of them answered with the same emphatic “No.” Yet, I pointed out to them, today there are thousands of baalei teshuva whose parents knew virtually nothing of their faith.  Ben Gurion in his time seemed to be correct, but he could only calculate chronological time and knew nothing of the eschatological movement of generations.  The era of disappointment tore a generation from the clutches of the טעות עממיא (Targum for אלהי נכר הארץ) and prepared the way for an era of true teshuva. 

So much for the first new direction in Jewish history in relation to gentile persecutions. 

Public Opinion vs. Truth 

Before we explore the second of the new directions in detail, it is important to establish a clear distinction between any common approach to world events and  daas Torah – a Torah view of the world. “Public opinion” and any but the Torah approach is by definition colored by outside forces, subjective considerations and the falsehood of secular perspective. 

An example of how public opinion can be molded – indeed, warped – at the whim of powerful individuals can be taken from a study of Russian history textbooks published during the respective reigns of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. During each period, the textbooks hail the then-current leader to the exclusion of all his predecessors as the savior of Russia and hero of his people. Undoubtedly, “public opinion” during each period, once children’s minds had been suitably molded, reflected the thinking and wishes of the state.  While more subtle in form, this ability to direct public opinion exists in democratic countries as well. Thus, we already pointed out at the beginning that we must make every effort to free ourselves from the powerful grip of public opinion, and must be ever on our guard that our opinions of the true nature of world events be shaped only by Torah views seen through Torah eyes. 

Sadly, even in our own circles, the mold for shaping public opinion lies in the hands of the State of Israel.  An appropriate example of this dangerous process of selectively “rewriting” history may be found in the extraordinary purging from the public record of all  evidence of the culpability of the forerunners of the  State in the tragedy of European Jewry, and the substitution in its place of factors inconsequential to the calamity which ultimately occurred. 

To cover its own contribution to the final catastrophic events, those of the State in a position to influence public opinion circulated the notorious canard that Gedolei Yisroel were responsible for the destruction of many communities because they did not urge immigration. This charge is, of course, a gross distortion of the truth, and need not be granted more dignity than it deserves by issuing a formal refutation.  However, at the same time as the State made certain to  include this charge as historical fact in every account of  the war years, it successfully sought to omit any mention of its own contribution to the impending tragedy.  What the State omitted in its own version of history is  the second of the above-mentioned new directions in  recent Jewish history. It is that phenomenon which we must now examine. 

East and West Meet 

For centuries, indeed millennia, gentile persecution of Jews took one of two forms, but the two never worked simultaneously. Either Jewry had to contend with the “Yishmael” nations of the East or was persecuted and expelled by the nations of the West.  Never in our history did the nations of the Occident join forces with those of the East for the purpose of destroying Jews. 

With World War II, this long epoch was brought to a crude and malevolent close. In 1923 Hitler wrote Mein Kampf spelling out his belief that the Jewish people should, Rachamana Litzlan, be wiped out. This was read by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who found  one of the most significant alliances of modern times. There is ample documentation that not only did the Mufti visit Hitler and his top aides on a number of occasions, but indeed with Adolph Eichmann, he visited the Auschwitz gas chamber incognito to check on its efficiency. ((Detailed documentation of the Mufti’s activities may be found in Simon Wiesenthal’s Grand Mufti — Agent Extraordinary of the Axis (who relates that Haj Amin also visited Majdanek); Maurice Pearlman’s Mufti of Jerusalem and, most recently (1965), Joseph B. Schechterman’s The Mufti and the Fuehrer (translator’s note, Y.F.)        

The extent of the Mufti’s influence upon the Nazi forces may be seen in a crucial decision made by Hitler at the height of the war. Railroad trains were much in demand by the Axis, and Hitler’s troops badly needed reinforcements in Russia. Yet, soon after he landed in Berlin in November 1941, the Mufti demanded that all available resources be used to annihilate Jews. The choice: Juden nach Auschwitz or Soldaten nach Stalingrad was to be resolved his way . . . Two months later (January 20, 1942 . . .) at the Wannsee Conference, the formal decision was made to annihilate all Jews who had survived the ghettos, forced labor, starvation, and disease.         Of course, the Mufti was serving his own perverted fears, which were the influx of millions of Jews into Palestine and the destruction of the Mufti’s personal empire. Yet, there can be no doubt that through their symbiotic relationship, Hitler and the Mufti each helped the other accomplish his own evil goal. Eichmann simply wanted to kill Jews; the Mufti wanted to make sure they never reached Palestine. In the end, the “final solution” was the same. . . . At one point, Eichmann even seemed to blame the Mufti for the entire extermination plan, when he declared, “I am a personal friend of the Grand Mufti. We have promised that no European Jew would enter Palestine anymore.” (Quoted by Pearlman, pp. 71-72 and Schechtman, p. 158)

         The Mufti’s trip to Berlin was the first ominous step in the joining of the anti-Jews of the East with those of the West to accomplish their diabolic design. This se- cond of the new directions in Jewish history reached a climax of sorts last year (1975) when Yassir Arafat, avowed destroyer of the State of Israel, stood before the United Nations, and received a standing ovation by nations of East and West alike.         From the purely secular historical viewpoint, there is no connection between the two directions we have discussed. The Moslem world never granted privileges which it later retracted, and thus never disappointed the Jews in its midst. What, then, joins the two trends which seem to have coincided so significantly in our generation? A passage from the Torah can give us the answer:         וילך עשו אל ישמעאל ויקח את מחלת בת ישמעאל בן אברהם אחות נביות על נשיו לו לאשה (בראשית כ״ח, ט)                 

“And Eisav went unto Yishmael and took Machlas the daughter of Yishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nevayos, in addition to his other wives, for a wife” (Bereishis 28:9).         Since the actions of the Patriarchs are a sign of what would happen later to the children and every action in Chumash is eternally significant, we may learn from this passage that it was inevitable for the forces of Eisav and Yishmael to combine. We are now living in the midst of that pivotal moment in Jewish history.        

It should be manifest, however, that until the great public pressures for the establishment of a Jewish State, the Mufti had no interest in the Jews of Warsaw, Budapest, or Vilna. Once the Jews of Europe became a threat to the Mufti because of their imminent influx into the Holy Land, the Mufti in turn became for them the מלאך המות — the incarnation of the Angel of Death. Years ago, it was still easy to find old residents of Yerushalayim who remembered the cordial relations they had maintained with the Mufti in the years before the impending creation of a Jewish State. Once the looming reality of the State of Israel was before him, the Mufti spared no effort at influencing Hitler to murder as many Jews as possible in the shortest amount of time. This shameful episode, where the founders and early leaders of the State were clearly a factor in the destruction of many Jews, has been completely suppressed and expunged from the record.

Thus it is that our children who study the history of that turbulent era are taught that Gedolei Yisroel share responsibility for the destruction of European Jewry and learn nothing of the guilt of others who are now enshrined as heroes.        

Coming to Terms        

We may now return to the original questions. “Is the term Shoah acceptable?” The answer is CLEARLY NOT. The word Shoah in Hebrew, like “Holocaust” in English, implies an isolated catastrophe, unrelated to anything before or after it, such as an earthquake or tidal wave. As we have seen, this approach is far from the Torah view of Jewish history. The churban of European Jewry is an integral part of our history and we dare not isolate and deprive it of the monumental significance it has for us.         In truth, the isolation of one part of Jewish history from another, the separation of one part of the Torah from another, has caused much of the inability to deal with events such as Churban Europe. Much of our education has been permeated with the “sunny side of Judaism,” resulting from a cowardice and failure of will to deal with the misfortunes of Klal Yisroel. Yet, here is one of the sources of our uniqueness. We are happy to teach our children of our “chosen-ness” in mitzvos and our closeness to G-d. Yet, at our peril, we ignore the fact that there are three different portions of תוכחה — rebuke and promise of punishment in the Torah (Bechukosai, Ki Savo, and Nitzavim-Vayeilech). We must learn these parts of the Torah with our children as well as the “sunnier” portions. These portions must become as much a part of the Jewish psyche as the mitzvoswe strain so hard to imbue. Thus, when a Jewish child – or indeed, adult- hears for the first time of Yiddishe tzaros – the sufferings of Jewish people – he will not be shocked by a contradiction to what he has learned, but will see the living proof of the Torah he has absorbed. 

Thus we have exposed graphically the mistake of the founders of Yad V’Shem who felt compelled to find a new term for the destruction of European Jewry because of its proportions and dimensions. Ironically,  the artificially contrived term they finally applied empties the churban of its profound meaning and  significance. In appropriating a term which signifies  isolation and detachment from history, they did not  realize that the significance of the “Holocaust” is  precisely in its intricate relationship with what will  come after. The pattern of Jewish history throughout the ages is Destruction – Exile – Redemption, and no event requires new categories or definitions. The answers to questions 2 and 3 are therefore obvious and need no further elaboration. 

Tochacha vs. Specific Guilt 

It should be needless to say at this point that since the  churban of European Jewry was a tochacha  phenomenon, an enactment of the admonishment and  rebuke which Kial Yisroel carries upon its shoulders as an integral part of being the Am Hanivchar – G-d’s  chosen ones – we have no right to interpret these  events as any kind of specific punishment for specific sins. The tochacha is a built-in aspect of the character of Kial Yisroel until Moshiach comes and is visited  upon Kial Yisroel at the Creator’s will and for reasons  known and comprehensible only to Him. One would  have to be a K’~l or r<in (a prophet or a Talmudic sage),  to claim knowledge of the specific reasons for what  befell us; anyone on a lesser plane claiming to do so  tramples in vain upon the bodies of the kedoshim who died Al Kiddush Hashem and misuses the power to interpret and  understand Jewish history. 

For other reasons, too, one must be careful of sudden and popular “awakenings” to different aspects of Jewish history, such as “Holocaust studies.” Nachum Goldmann, head of the only international secular Jewish organization not directly subservient to the Jewish State, has stated that the weakening of sympathy for the State was the result of a lengthy period of time after the Holocaust having passed and the resultant forgetting by the world at large. Undoubtedly, the  State, taking advantage of the arbitrary figure of thirty years, sought to reawaken interest in what it now  termed the Shoah to regain some of that lost sympathy of the late 40’s and so’s. 

This aspect of the current wide-spread interest in the World War II years should only serve to alert us once  more to the often duplicitous sources of public opinion.  Of course, this in no way impugns the motives of those who have genuinely dedicated themselves to study of that epochal time – especially the She’aris Hapleita  who feel the scars on their own bodies and who cry out  in pain to the world not to forget. It does, however, give us an idea of the tremendous pitfalls on the road to a clear understanding of the true patterns of Jewish history. Only through a rededication to sole use of the Torah as guide through the byways of history will we  be sure to arrive at the truth we all seek.