12 Friday, April 19, 1985 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS PURELY COMMENTARY 1111111111111111111111 111 Reagan Addendum • Continued from Page 2 added, "I was informed by David Niles, F.D.R.'s chief secretary and a Jew, that Roosevelt would not make a speech or issue a statement denouncing the Hitler extermina- tion of the Jews." It has taken forty years to un- ravel and uncover the truth that President Roosevelt deliberately ignored making any statement against the brutal murder of the European Jews — six million men, women and children and the two million slaughtered by Stalin in the Soviet Union and in the Captive Nations. I admit the failure of Roosevelt and his foreign office to support my resolution, which would have exposed to the whole world, including Germany, Au- stria, Italy and Hungary, the exist- ence of the terrible Extermination death of the Jews in Europe as the final and definite policy of Hitler. It is about time the American people and the rest of the civilized world knew the truth that President Franklin D. Roosevelt refused to lift his finger to stop this savage bloodthirsty extermination of over half the Jews in the world. It seems very strange to me as its been on my conscience for all these years, that our New York State Governor Cuomo should attack President Reagan on the Holocaust issue who is doing ev- erything in his power at the pre- sent time to bring about peace in the world and to provide against a holocaust of nuclear weapons from the godless Communists. It seems very stange that a Demo- cratic Governor from the state of New York should make an unfair and partisan attack on a President who has often referred to the hor- rors of the Jewish Holocaust 40 years ago. But (Governor Cuomo) remains silent in ignoring the fact that his great idol, F.D.R., refused to open his mouth or to utter one word to prevent the death of six million Jews under Hitler's final Extermination Policy. Hamilton Fish merits being heard. With Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, he co-authored the Palestine Reso- lution supporting Zionism, which was signed by President Warren Gamliel Hard- ing. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that what is involved in the Reagan- Dachau matter is a basic principle. Adher- ence to the obligation to keep remembering and therefore constantly emphasizing un- interrupted of condemnation of what had occurred as represented in the Holocaust is in evidence in Germany. Officially, at least, the West German government keeps adhering to the Never Forget and Keep Remembering attitudes. Even if President Reagan does now alter his original decision on Dachau, the criticism of it can not be ignored and some of the explanatory statements must be judged seriously. Among them is an edito- rial in the Christian Century (April 10) editorial, signed by James M. Wall, which reviewed the President's March 21 press conference and which contained the follow- ing: In response to a question about why he had turned down an invitation to visit a Nazi concentra- tion camp site when he visits Ger- many in May, a trip designed to commemorate V-E Day, Reagan initially gave what was probably his planned answer, albeit in gar- bled form. Instead of reawakening the memories and passions of the time, he said he wanted to observe "this day as the day when, 40 years ago peace began and friendship, be- cause we now find ourselves allied and friends of the countries that we once fought against, and that we — it'd be almost a celebration of the end of an era and the coming into what has now been some 40 years of peace for us." This was the White House posi- tion, developed no doubt after dip- lomatic discussions with West German officials. As far as it went, the response ignored the harsh criticism Reagan has received from Jewish leaders,_ along with many others, who feel strongly that one way to avoid a future Holocaust is publicly to remember what happened at places like Dachau. The Anti-Defamation League is one of the organizations that have urged the president to transcend diplomatic niceties and focus world attention on the Holocaust. But as his rehearsed response indicated, Mr. Reagan had decided against the visit. So far, so good, his advisers must have felt. But the President didn't stop with his skill- ful evasion. He added this histori- cal review: "And I felt that, since the Ger- man people have very few alive that remember even the war, and certainly none of them who were adults and participating in any way, ... they have a feeling and a guilt feeling that's been imposed upon them. And I just think it's un- necessary." When I read that quotation to a friend who works with a Jewish agency in New York, she was agh- ast. "I'm going to vomit," she said. "Very few alive" adults who re- member the war? Is there no one alive in Germany today over the age of 45? Unnecessary guilt im- posed? I spent ten days in West Be- rlin recently. Berliners were attending a film retrospective ti- tled "Forty Years Later," and many of the films explored the burden of guilt felt — not exter- nally imposed on them — by Ger- mans of both East and West. Did the press question Reagan's revised version of his- tory? The follow-up query won- dered if the West German govern- ment had influenced his decision. That softball was followed by a question about Republican poli- tics. One shudders to consider how such an observation on the post- war situation and the "imposition" of guilt about the Holocaust would have been handled in the parlia- ments of Great Britain, Canada or Israel. But under the glare of tele- vision cameras, media questioners eager for their brief moment in the spotlight allowed the distortion to go unchallenged. And the next day? Reagan's comments on West Germany were buried in stories in both the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. The lead item for those distinguished publications? Why, the President's "high time" remark, of course. There is a rebuke here of Reagan's tendency to "rewrite history." Christian Century editorial writer James M. Wall maintained in his comments on the President's press conference that: "The re- porting of that press conference was a low point in recent American journalism. I feel a sense of guilt for my own profession. It is a guilt that is earned, not imposed from outside." Will there be a followup admission of sinning on the Dachau question? Such judgments, and especially Menachem Rosensaft's, will not be read lightly. Whether Reagan now visits a con- centration camp or not, the error of his judgment remains inerasable. Augury About Women As Cultural Giants .. . Rejecting Mediocrity Prof. Harry Orlinsky, the admired Bible scholar, author, meritorious lec- turer, had an interesting comment on the emergence of brilliant Jewish students from the ranks of the younger generation. Asked by this commentator whether there was hope for true scholarship from the in- coming generation, he replied with an em- phatic 'Yes." But he was _especially con- vincing with an additional augury: he pre- dicted that before the end of another de- cade noteworthy leadership in Jewish scholarly ranks will be among women. He said they are already showing marked de- votion, with a promise of becoming the leaders in Jewish cultural endeavors. Orlinsky's was an assurance that mediocrity will not be tolerated. What he said applied especially to the exposing of anyone who dares pose as an authority on the Talmud without proof of his genuineness. This has been in evidence by the rejection of mediocrity by the late Prof. Saul Lieberman, and currently by Prof. Morton Smith of Columbia Univer- sity, and by others who insist on truth in research, etcetera. This leads to a consideration of the current debate over women occupying Jewish pulpits, and incidentally to women in journalism. Anne Hammerman, who until recently edited the Dayton Jewish Chronicle, in a column she conducts under the title "Hammered Out," discussed the "women-as-rabbis" issue, and she entitled it - "My Daughter, the Rabbi." Her corn- ments are interesting, and the special point to be viewed seriously is her warning of the menace of mediocrity. Here briefly is a portion of her comments: Although the vote was in af- firmation of women, not only are there some professors who are against it, but male rabbinic stu- dents as well. One such student who is 36 years old, father of two and married to a lawyer, says he stands against female ordination in part because he values the tradi- tional distinctions between male and female tasks in Judaism, espe- cially embodied in the central place given to home and family He further said, "We desperately need to work out the role of women in religious Jewish life, but women as women, not women as men." This same student said about his female colleagues: "On the left and right sides of their brains, they are powerful people," some of the "brightest students in the rabbini- cal programs. I question what they are doing, but I love studying with them." Admittedly, women are good students; those committed to their choice of profession will undoub- tedly try a little harder than their male counterparts — they will not accept mediocrity and therefore it may possibly be that the Jewish people may find new inspiration from the new breed of women rab - Ms. So, Dad, what would you say? Harry Orlinsky surely would consider Anne Hammerman as evidence of women's accomplishments in Jewish cultural ranks. She has earned a respected place in Jewish journalism. She has always re- jected mediocrity. That's the essence of the quotation from her column. Blessings to all who conduct the battle against mediocrity in Jewish identifications. The "Reprint Collection" and the "Guide to America-Holy Land Studies, 1620-1948" were presented to the White House last month. At the presentation were, from left, Bernard Wax, American Jewish Historical Society; Daniel Ross, Institute of Contemporary Jewry; Moshe Davis, project director; Presidential assistant Marshal Breger; Tom. Moore, U.S. Department of Education; and John Agresto, National Endowment for the Humanities.