Purely Commentary
James P. Warburg is one of the very distinguished men
of our generation. His fame is the result of his own
making, not the inheritance of a valuable name from one
of the most prominent Jewish families in the world.
He had given up a career in international finance to
become an author of widely acclaimed books, to turn to
writing musicals which became Broadway hits, but his
special fame was earned as an adviser to Presidents
Roosevelt and Kennedy.
The story of this man of distinction, his elaboration
on his Jewish attitudes, his account of the history of the
Warburg family, is incorporated in "The Long Road
Home: The Autobiography of a Maverick," which is being
issued today by Doubleday.
He was and apparently remains a maverick and his
story is certain to create much interest, it will surely
arouse controversy in Jewish ranks, and it should provide
cause for discussion regarding national matters but more
especially around the issue involving assimilation.
By devoting a chapter of his book to a self-analysis
under the title "What Is a Jew? Why Is He 'Different'?"
and by recalling the experience of his having stopped
contributing to the United Jewish Appeal because of his
objections in November 1959 (prior to the hearings that
were subsequently instituted by Senator Fulbright) to
the allocation of subsidies to Zionist political parties,
Warburg has himself introduced the Jewish issue and is
causing a new fact- and ideology-searching by Jews re-
garding their religious obligations, their separatism from
other faiths, and allied matters that seem to have be-
come problems that beckon for solution.
Let it be said at the outset about "The Long Road
Home" that it is typically Warburgian — in excellent lit-
erary style, marked by clarity and sincerity, frank in its
handling of all issues. It is an illuminating work and
the story speaks about all the Warbugs, tracing their his-
tory to the period of the Thirty Year War and even before.
The history of the Warburgs in Germany, the rise
of the family of financiers to notable heights and to lead-
ership in Jewish life, makes fascinating reading. The
Nazis put an end to the investment house in Germany,
and while it continued its functions in the United States,
the author of this volume. as indicated, abandoned the
family banking tradition and turned to writing and to
politics.
James P. Warbug's father, Paul, was one of the
founders of the Federal Reserve System. Immigrants—
James also was born in Germany—they soon integrated
marvelously into American life and became the leaders in
many spheres.
From his famous father, James had heard this story
and resorted to it as his guide all his life:
"A little frog fell into a glass of milk and swam
about frantically trying in vain to get a foothold on the
slippery sides of the glass. More and more exhausted,
he was about to give up and let himself drown but de-
cided to give one last big kick. As he did so, the milk
turned into butter and the little frog stood on dry land."
The life story of this eminent American tells about
his career in the theater, as author of "Can This Be
Love?", "Fine and Dandy," "Can't We Be Friends." It
is an account of his role as a double piano player with
George Gershwin as well as his participation in the New
Deal Brain Trust.
James P. Warburg was 36 when he was assigned by
Franklin D. Roosevelt to membership on the U. S. del-
egation to the London World Economic Conference in
1933. Later, differing with FDR on monetary policies,
Warburg assailed the President in his "Hell Bent for
Election." During the last war he again offered his serv-
ices to Roosevelt and became associated with the Office
of War Information. More recently he was an adviser
to President Kennedy. He is an intimate friend of Adlai
Stevenson and still boosts him as one of America's great
hopefuls.
A reviewer could go on, unceasingly, drawing upon
the Warburg experiences for an evaluation of the history
of American politics and our relationships with other na-
tions—as well as the domestic developments—from the
Warburg account. For the Jewish reader there is special
significance in the numerous Jewish references in "The
Long Road Home."
The family history is that of a Jewish dynasty. That's
what it was in the lives of most of the Warburgs. (James'
father Paul had three well-known brothers: the eminent
Felix, the great philanthropist whose .son Edward follows
in his father's footsteps and is chairman of the Jewish
Joint Distribution Committee: Max and Aby).
What is happening to this dynasty? Where are all
the sons and daughters of this great family whose fathers
had been so active in philanthropy and in education?
There are Warburgs in eminent roles. Edward M. M.
Warburg is to this day one of the great figures in Jewish
life. There have been musicians in their ranks. James'
name will go clown in American history as a noble par-
ticipant in the developing foreign policies.
For those who desire to assure the survival of the
Jewish people, there arises the inevitable question:
where are the children of this and many other families
(the Schiffs, the Marshalls, and many others)? is it
inevitable that the third generation should vanish and
that there won't even be a fourth generation of Jews
who will retain their identity as Jews?
Since James P. Warbug has seen fit to raise the
question of "What Is a Jew?" and to discuss the differ-
ence, he must face the challenge in reviews. He may not
view it as a challenge. Yet, he must recognize the valid-
ity of an American multi-faceted culture which does not
deny the Jew the right to remain one, just as adherents
of other faiths may insist upon the retention of a herit-
age that is sacred to them.
James Warburg's children may or not be brought
up as Christians. His second wife (non-Jewish like his
first), to whom he is so happily married, certainly is
not sending their children to a Hebrew school. But the
James P. Warburg's Autobiography
Raises Practical Issues Relating to
American Jewry's Ability to Survive
maverickian autobiographer comes by his attitudes hon-
estly and naturally. He refers to his parents as having
been "twice-a-year Jews." His mother read Psalms and
Biblical stories to him, he liked the music of the Psalms,
"but was interested in the Bible chiefly because I hoped
to learn something about the carefully guarded mysteries
of sex and procreation."
How else does an offspring whose "father seemed
to have rejected the traditional Warburg orthodoxy"
react? Writes James P.:
"I felt warmly about Grandfather Warburg's Friday
evenings and loved the sound of Hebrew. On the other
hand, I was repelled by the proselytizing religiosity of
my New York uncle. Jacob Schiff."
One could make much of the "repelling" element in
this attitude, but there really were many occasions when
James P. spoke up and acted with great dignity on the
score of his heritage. But there were other aspects to
his thinking. For instance, here is how he got to his
middle initial P:
"At school in New York, I soon discovered and was
hurt by the fact that to be a Jew evidently meant being
considered 'different" and an outsider. A slightly older
boy whom I rather liked used to insert an E between
the letters J W with which I initialed my school paper
until I put a stop to it by signing myself JPW. Appar-
ently, the word 'Jew' could be a word of opprobrium;
and apparently there were some, or perhaps even many
people who disliked Jews and looked down upon them.
My mother confirmed that such was indeed the case.
She said that because of this, a Jewish boy should
always be very careful not to push himself forward.
This puzzled me. It seemed like accepting some sort
of second-class status."
In spite of their assimilatory attitudes, his parents
impressed it upon him that "to be a Jew was something
of which to be proud." But, referring on this score to
his parents: "Neither of them could or would explain
just what remained of this heritage if the Jewish religion
were shucked off. It seemed to me that nothing more
remained than a disbelief in the divinity of Jesus Christ."
This is a frank evaluation by a man who was "bar
mitzvah in the traditional manner," who at 10, to the
surprise of his parents, wanted to be "a real Jew" like
Grandfather Warburg and who dreamt of becoming a
rabbi; who was influenced by Judah L. Magnes, "the
rabbi to whom I was sent for training," but who later
had another influence under the headmaster of the
Middlesex School in Concord, Mass. — the Unitarian
Robert Winsor. It was under the influence of that school
that "the atmosphere of friendliness seemed to say: 'We
don't care who you are! it's what you are that matters.' "
In his discussion of being a Jew and being "differ-
ent "he informs us: "Out of this experience grew a
feeling of skepticism with regard to Christian funda-
mentalism very similar to my rejection of Mosaic myth-
ology and Jewish orthodoxy. On the other hand, I liked
the hymns (at compulsory Sunday chapel) much as I
enjoyed the chanting of the Hebrew cantor."
There isn't much here to guide us towards an un-
derstanding of "What Is a Jew", but for those who seek
a way to avoid disintegration in Jewish ranks there is
a challenge in the concluding sentiments in this chapter
in the JPW book:
"From a theological point of view, I might at this
point have chosen Unitarianism as easily as Judaism,
if I had felt the need for any church affiliation. From
a secular standpoint, however, I had strong pro-Jewish
feelings. If the Jewish people had constituted the
majority group in the American society, I would have
seen little reason to stand up and be counted as a Jew.
But so long as the Jews constituted an underdog minor-
ity, it seemed to me that to desert them would be con-
temptible. If, in the existing circumstances, I were to
reject my heritage I would be nothing more than a
renegade seeking social advantage, unless my renun-
ciation of Judaism were motivated—as it would not
be—by sincere conversion to an affirmative belief in
Christianity.
"As I look back, I am astonished that, as a boy,
I apparently thought of Jews as being united only by
a religion and by minority status, so that, if the religion
were rejected, only the minority status would remain
as a bond. Had I understood that the Jewish cultural
heritage is perhaps more of a bond than Judaism, I
would have better understood my half-conscious, quasi-
tribal feelings of loyalty."
He didn't lack in pride. When he was elected to a
club while at Cambridge he informed the upperclassmen
at Harvard that he would be delighted to join "if my
election signified that the club had abandoned its religious
discrimination, but that I would be unwilling to be
singled out as an exception to a continuing anti-Semitic
policy." He was told that he wasn't "like other Jews,"
and it developed that "they had known scarcely any," and
JPW declined the invitation to join.
A bit later, he received a telegram from his uncle
Jacob Schiff who expressed concern that he should have
married "out of the faith in view of its probable effect
upon my own progeny."
"Now," writes the maverick in reviewing his life's
experiences, "I can chuckle over this message. At the
time, it infuriated me."
How grateful we should be to JPW for such frank-
ness: in studying the problem relating to survival, Jews
who are concerned over our people's future certainly
have basic reasons for study of the attitude of one who
comes from an important. Jewish background but who
chuckles over objections to disappearance through mixed
marriages and for other reasons provided by him so
truthfully!
The Detroit Jewish News—May 35, 1964
By Philip
Slomovitz
There is much that calls for review and further
study in James P. Warburg's autobiography, but especial-
ly relevant are his references to Israel and to Zionism.
In reference to the emergence of Israel, he states:
"Before the end of 1947, the focus of world events
shifted to the Levant, where, under almost incredible
British mismanagement, the Arab-Jewish question was
coming to a head. On November 30, the British Govern-
ment, under considerable pressure from Washington, sur-
rendered its mandate over Palestine. Under American
leadership, with the Soviet Union concurring, the United
Nations voted to partition Palestine into separate Arab(
and Jewish states.
"While I appreciated the need for constructive action
and the warmhearted sympathy that had prompted Pres-
ident Truman's sponsorship of the creation of a Jewish
state, I had certain misgivings about the probable effect
of this decision. I would have preferred the creation of
a bi-national Arab-Jewish state, affording equal rights to
Jews and Arabs—a solution originally advocated by n
teacher, Judah Magnes, . and by other farseeing leaders
of the Ichud group. Dr. Magnes had become president of
the Hebrew University in Palestine. He opposed the
ardent Zionists under the leadership of Chaim Weizmann
and asserted that the creation of a separate Jewish state
would lead to conflict, whereas a' bi-national state might
restore the centuries-old friendly symbiosis between Jews
and Arabs in the Near East.
"Apart from this, I felt that Truman's sponsorship
of a separate Jewish nation would involve him in a con-
flict with his own desire to win the Arabs as allies in
containment policy. I had little hope that the President
would resolve this dilemma by abandoning the idea of
building a barrier against communism in the Middle
East. It seemed far more probable that the sponsorship
of Israel would involve the United States in the pursuit
of two mutually exclusive aims."
Then comes Warburg's explanation of the episode
that created a stir nationally—when he stopped giving
to the United Jewish Appeal and made the announce-
ment at a public meeting. Let JPW tell his own story
about the step he took at that time:
"In November 1959, I ventured somewhat naively into the
emotion-charged and highly controversial field of political
activity on behalf of Israel on the part of American Jews. In so
doing, I stirred up a hornet's nest. My study of the Middle East
and my interest in peace in that troubled area, rather than
concern with American Jewish affairs, led me into a time-con-
suming controversy.
"Like most American Jews, I had for years contributed to
local Jewish charities and to the agencies that provided relief to
oppressed Jewish minorities in other parts of the world. After
the creation of Israel, I repeatedly urged the United Jewish
Appeal to segregate funds raised for charitable purposes from
those raised for the support of the Israeli Government or of
political parties in Israel. When the UJA management refused to
do this, I discontinued my contribution.
"In a speech to the Congregation Mishkan Israel at New
Haven, I brought this matter into the open, urging that con-
tributors to UJA insist upon a segregation of charitable from
political funds. There was no reason, I said, why someone who
wished to contribute to charitable enterprises should be forced
to contribute to political parties in Israel or to the support of
the state. Each individual member of the American Jewish
community had a right to make up his mind whether and to
what extent he might wish to make any political contributions.
He should not be coerced or browbeaten into supporting parties
or policies on the ground that all Jews everywhere had a duty
to support the Israeli state. Each individual should be free to
decide whether support given to a foreign state would be in the
interest of the United States and in the interest of the cause of
world peace. Personally, I felt that some Israeli policies, such as
the state's catering to a bigoted theocracy, should not be sup-
ported. Nor was I willing to have any part of my contribution
diverted to the support of the ultra-nationalist Herut party, or
to the maintenance of a chauvinistic Zionist lobby in Washington.
"This attack upon the Zionist-dominated UJA management
aroused a furious controversy and was misinterpreted in some
Jewish quarters as an attack upon Israel. Actually. I had merely
raised certain questions about Israeli policy that, I contended,
should be thoughtfully considered by each individual friend of
Israel—questions that, as matters stood, were being arbitrarily
settled for all contributors to the UJA by a management engaged
in political action under the guise of charity.
"The charge of using some of the funds for political purposes
was at first indignantly denied and then tacitly admitted by a
'partial reorganization of the UJA. What had really got under the
management's skin had been my raising the question of whether
it was proper for contributors to 1.34A to deduct as tax-exempt
charitable contributions funds partially used for political
There is a natural cause for concern. Mr. Warburg
continues to abstain from aid to Israel. He has severed
all connections with tJJA, the fund that provides aid
not only for escapees from Arab countries and from
behind the Iron Curtain who are settling in Israel, but
for the unfortunates also who are settling elsewhere.
A truly great man has been misled. Whose fault t
it? Even those in the State Department who are un,
friendly, who have been charged with missionary influ="---
ences against Zionism, who are pro-Arab, now concede
that the Fulbright inquiry has ended that function of
UJA which gave a bit of aid to Zionist organizations for
what could have been interpreted as political purposes.
But there remain the humanitarian needs. There are
aspects involving elementary needs for justice. Israel
bends backwards. is willing to go full length to make
peace, wishes to participate in all world affairs with thb
Arabs. But even in a matter involving a bridge game
there is a boycott.
There is a boycott against more than two million
Jews whose existence is in peril. Aren't they entitled to
some sort of protection? Apparently JPW still thinks in
terms of a struggle between two guys fighting it out in
the Middle East, and while the United States is in-
volved in everything and could be seriously affected by
what can be perpetrated by Nasser. But JPW doesn't
seem to be sufficiently informed ! One must ask again
and again: where lies the fault?
Because he had "at last found peace," James P.
Warburg chose to call his book "The Long Road Home."
Why couldn't it conclude with a return to some Jewish in-
terests—which he certainly did not abandon completely,
judging by his nostalgic comments; and why wasn't there
a resumption of interests in his family's great devotion
to philanthropy and overseas relief via UJA? There isn't
the complete return on our score, and that leaves us
with a deep void upon reading with immense interest
his important book.