[1.2. Catastrophic
situation in Eastern Europe with wars 1919-1922]
[Beginning 1920s: Victory
against horrors of war, pestilence and famine - Economic
Reconstruction Committee]
The 1920s was, generally speaking, a period of optimism - and
not only in the United States. Distaste for war and, in
America, a widespread feeling that the United States should
never again get itself involved in European quarrels were
accompanied by a fervent hope that the horrors of war,
pestilence, and famine would now finally be conquered. It is
therefore not surprising that JDC should have set up its
Economic Reconstruction Committee under Herbert H. Lehman and
endeavored to transform itself from a rescue and relief to a
rehabilitation agency.
[JDC credits for Jewish
masses mainly traders and artisans - cooperative loan kassas
(banks) - low interests]
At first, these efforts at reconstruction were directed
primarily at Jewish life in Eastern Europe. The Jewish masses
there were mainly composed of small traders and artisans, and
an effort was made to provide them with cheap credit so that
they would be able to compete with their non-Jewish neighbors.
Therefore, cooperative loan
kassas
(banks) were set up, which received credits from JDC and
others, collected share capital, invited savings deposits, and
handed out credits at an interest rate lower than that charged
by the banks.
Healthy business principles demanded that short-term deposits
not be accepted, that arrears in repayment of interest or
capital of the loan be dealt with very strictly, and that
credit be given only to credit-worthy people. Naturally,
American credits granted to these kassas were to be repaid
punctually and promptly.
[JDC tactics: Teaching
business principles for self-help]
Generally speaking, the idea was that, with a few exceptions,
East Europeans did not really understand business principles
but they could be taught; this would enable them to rebuild
their economy on a sound foundation.
There were certain principles which JDC carefully observed.
(p.23)
First of all, JDC was not a political organization. This meant
that it could not get involved in any political argument with
Jews or non-Jews and that it tried to be impartial to all
Jewish factions. With the complications of Jewish political
life, this was an ideal that was not easily attained, and
naturally JDC had its sympathies and antipathies - because, in
fact, JDC was Kahn and three or four people in New York.
[JDC tactics: Free of any
political involvement]
Nevertheless, despite these conditions JDC remained remarkably
free of any political involvement and remarkably impartial in
its operations, and it did manage to become recognized as
probably the only really nonpartisan organization in Jewish
life. This did not mean that JDC was nonpolitical in a
European sense - that is, unconnected with the government.
While there was no government intervention in its activities,
JDC was careful to obtain Washington's consent for certain
foreign programs. This was always given in a friendly but
noncommittal form.
[JDC tactics no. 1:
Coordination with US government - example Secretary of State
Frank B. Kellogg]
Thus, when JDC was about to embark on a drastic expansion of
its Russian work in early 1928, Louis Marshall wrote to
Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg, that "before we took any
steps in this direction we communicated our plans to the
Department of State and were assured that there was no reason
why we should not carry on this work."
Kellogg replied on May 9. "I may say, however, that the
Department sees no reason, from the point of view of national
policy, to interpose any objection to your participation in
the work of Jewish land settlement in Russia along the lines
set forth in your letter."
He added, however, that whatever JDC did in Russia was done at
its own risk.
(End note 1: AJ (Agro-Joint files) 36, 4/30/28)
[JDC tactics no. 2: Teaching
business principles for self-help]
Another JDC principle was its determination to help Jews to
help themselves. It had come into existence as a relief
agency, and despite hopes to the contrary, rescue and relief
were always part of its operation. But the aim was neither
relief nor rescue by themselves; the aim was to help Jews
rebuild their lives as self-respecting, upright, independent
human beings, who would neither rely on humiliating doles nor
have to seek them.
There was a definite feeling for the essential dignity of
human existence, and (p.24)
this is perhaps one of the finest values upheld by JDC in its
operations. Thus, Hyman wrote that "Dr. Kahn's policy has been
to reconstruct, rehabilitate and make self-supporting those
elements in the Jewish population which are physically and
mentally capable of establishing themselves on a permanent
self-supporting basis, in order that these people may
eventually help their local social problem and bring
assistance to the sick, deformed, defective, aged, etc."
(End note 2: File 1, 7/25/29 [25 July 1929])
At the same time, this was interpreted in a characteristic
way: strict business principles had to be adhered to, and
insistence on repayment of loans was emphasized in
circumstances where at least an argument could have been made
for a more lenient method of operation.
[JDC tactics no. 3: The right
for all Jews to live in their home country - no emigration]
A third principle JDC always adhered to was "that Jews have a
right to live in countries of their birth, or in a country of
their adoption."
(End note 3: Nathan Reich, JDC
Primer (1945), JDC Library)
This was thought of as representing the American point of view
of providing opportunity for all. Though undoubtedly
influenced by American ideological concepts, this was in fact
an old idea in Reform Judaism, brought over in 1848 by German
Jews.
This ideal was perhaps accepted at international conferences
and talked about by statesmen all over the world, but it was
strangely out of touch with the realities of Jewish existence.
Admittedly, for a short period in the 1920s it seemed as
though this concept might ultimately prevail, but later
developments made it look completely unrealistic. In effect,
it tended to cause JDC to view with some hesitation any
movement tending to advance emigration projects as a solution
to Jewish problems. Kahn "emphasized that the Jew must be
helped where he is; the Russian Jewish question must be solved
in Russia, the Palestine question in Palestine, the
German-Jewish problem in Germany, etc."
(End note 4: File 39, 11/18/31 [18 November 1931])
[Since 1930s: JDC tactics no.
3 changes: Emigration is supported]
In practice, this attitude was untenable, and as the 1930s
progressed and the rule of law and humanity regressed in
Europe, JDC was forced to support emigration of Jews as the
occasion demanded. The hope of the permanent settlement of the
Jewish question in the various countries of residence, the
basic dream of the permanence of Diaspora life in which Reform
Judaism believed (p.25)
with fervor, had to be modified, in practice if not in
principle. JDC showed a remarkable capacity to interpret its
own tenets elastically, even to the point of negating them - a
way of solving contradictions between theory and practice not
unknown to Jewish tradition.
[JDC tactics no. 4: Supervise
the administration of the help]
Finally, there was the assumption - not really clearly stated
anywhere, but implied everywhere - that the help given by JDC
entitled it to supervise closely the administration of such
aid.
[JDC tactics no. 5: Support
of other help organizations]
At the same time, JDC always worked through local agencies or
supported quasi-independent organizations to do specific jobs.
[JDC critic Louis Berg: JDC
gives money without vote]
A critic of JDC, Louis Berg, wrote in the Menorah Journal of
June 1929 that "the leaders of JDC have never hidden their
belief that the gigantic work of rehabilitating East European
Jewry cannot be undertaken by the masses, but can best be
performed by a few reliable and well-informed leaders, and a
disciplined organization, within which there are no dissenting
voices. Precisely as Mr. Louis Marshall said at this
conference [in May 1929]: 'The work was so conducted that we
would dispose of millions of dollars without a vote being
taken.' "
(End note 5: File 42)
While JDC was not a democratic mass organization, it did of
course operate within proper statutory requirements. But, as
with many organizations, the formal structure was carried by
informal ties such as friendships, personal contacts, and so
on, and formal decisions often merely finalized arrangements
that had been previously agreed to. Berg saw the negative side
of this procedure;
[JDC structure: Aristocratic
with "elasticity"]
but given the quasi-aristocratic character of JDC, there was
an elasticity and an efficiency in its operations that was
altogether admirable.
[JDC tactics no. 4: Supervise
the administration of the help - depends on the mentality]
The desire to supervise the administration of aid efficiently
without resorting to degrading methods of doles and relief
seemed to contradict the policy of supporting and developing
local agencies. In actual fact there was no hard-and-fast
line. With a strong and independent community - German Jewry,
for instance - supervision was minimal. In other places, JDC
officials for all practical purposes administered not only the
funds but the institutions supported by them, indirectly and
sometimes even directly. This was (p.26)
bound to create bad feelings on occasion, and the cases had to
be judged on their merits as they came up. However, JDC never
ran a bureaucratic apparatus interfering with practically
every aspect of Jewish life, such as other Jewish
organizations (like the Jewish Colonization Association (ICA)
in Argentina) were sometimes wont to do. Whatever the
deviation from stated principle, the idea of helping Jews to
help themselves, of authentic Jewish communal independence,
was always upheld in the end. This made JDC, despite a great
deal of criticism, an organization popular with the Jews all
over crumbling Jewish Europe.
