Americans Elected a Trusted General and the Appeal of Solid Leadership

The Presidential Election of 1956

Michael Streich

First published 2009 in Suite 101

The state of the world was very different in 1956, eleven years after the end of World War II. The Soviet Union and the United States had emerged as the new global superpowers, each attempting to influence the many under-developed nations where the forces of Democracy and Communism were contending to win the hearts and minds of the people. Dwight Eisenhower’s landslide victory in the election of 1956 demonstrated that although Americans elected a Democrat dominated Congress, they were unwilling to change presidents in the face of global conflicts that had the potential to turn into a nuclear war.

 

The Image of a Trusted General in a Time of Crisis

 

On paper, Eisenhower was not the best candidate. At 66 in 1956, he was still recovering from an earlier heart attack. Both houses of Congress were led by the Democrats who would have enacted many of the social reforms promoted by “Ike’s” opponent, Adali E. Stevenson. The only significant legislation associated with his first administration was passage of the Interstate Highway Act.

 

But President Eisenhower presided over a budget surplus and led the nation during a period of widespread prosperity and increased consumerism. Major businesses were growing, often through lucrative federal contracts. Above all, Eisenhower conveyed security and trust. Eisenhower had led Allied forces to victory in Europe, had served as the Supreme Commander of the newly formed NATO alliance, and had traveled to Korea to end that conflict.

 

Foreign Crises Challenge Eisenhower in 1956

 

Prior to the November election, two foreign crises tested the Eisenhower administration. In Egypt, President Nasser seized the Suez Canal, precipitating a crisis that included British and French military intervention as well as a simultaneous attack by the young state of Israel. Soviet Russia and the United States responded aggressively to the Suez Crisis, speaking with one voice. The belligerent parties were forced to withdraw from Egypt.

 

The Suez Crisis resulted in a weakened alliance with Britain and France, something Adali Stevenson criticized. But both Eisenhower and Stalin were realists in the complicated game of global chess and knew that European actions were driven more by colonial interests than egalitarian concerns. The Middle East, with its rich oil reserves, would become the primary battleground between the superpowers for alliances and commercial treaties. In this, supporting the sovereignty of Egypt was highly favored.

 

At the same time an uprising in Hungary against Soviet domination led to the false assumption that the Eisenhower administration’s talk of “liberation” would somehow guarantee Hungarian freedom. Eisenhower was not willing to risk war over Hungary as the brutal Soviet response resulted in many deaths. Americans understood this. But they also supported Eisenhower’s strong response to the Suez Crisis.

 

The Landslide Election of 1956

 

It had been obvious for many months that Eisenhower would easily win reelection. His campaigning was scaled back as Vice President Nixon took to the road to speak to the crowds. In the end, Eisenhower won reelection with 57.4% of the vote. Voters, however, differentiated between the trusted general and the Republican Party; Democrats continued to control the Congress.

 

Sources:

 

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)

William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents From George Washington to George W. Bush (New York: Gramercy Books, 2001)

*Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting this article in any form must be granted permission in writing by the author.

 Scopes Trial Opened On-Going Debate Between Evangelicals and Post Modern Thinkers

Historical Study Must Lead to Cultural Self-Examination

Michael Streich

First published in Suite101 2011

Over ninety years ago the Scopes “Monkey” trial in Dayton, Tennessee lifted the debate between those that favored creationism and those supporting evolution to new heights. Defying a Tennessee law that forbade the teaching of evolution, John Thomas Scopes, a twenty-four year old biology teacher at Dayton’s Central High School, taught evolution, hoping to initiate a judicial test case of the Tennessee statute. The debate has been an important issue for Evangelicals ever since, and is witnessing a resurgence within the contemporary political climate infused by the growing Tea Party movement.

 

How Fundamentalists View the Biblical Story of Creation

 

During the 1925 Scopes trial, chief prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan took the witness stand at the request of Clarence Darrow, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. Bryan affirmed under oath that the creation of the earth occurred in 4004 BC.

 

Bryan was a staunch evangelical, whose life had been spent in public service. As Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson, he eliminated the use of alcohol at any official governmental function.

 

The view that God created man at a definitive moment in cosmic history is part of the Genesis creation story. Other ancient civilizations had similar stories, such as the Egyptian creation myth. Even the native peoples of the Americas passed down creation myths that, in many ways, parallel the Genesis account.

 

Modernist Views Conflict with Literal Interpretations of Creationism

 

Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, published in November 1859, helped to open the door to a more scientific and rational view of the development of life and more specifically, the origins of mankind.

 

Christian theologians fought this perceived attack on biblical inerrancy. By 1921, they were identified as “Fundamentalists,” and creationism was a cornerstone belief that needed to be defended.

 

Over time, evangelical Christians began to modify their views. Professor John W. Klotz of Concordia Senior College, writing about changes in the historical patterns of life, states that, “…all of this change, insofar as the organic world is concerned, has taken place within limits fixed by the Creator when He fashioned the different ‘kinds’ in the beginning.” Even the Catholic Church, in February 2009, declared that evolution is compatible with Christianity (Telegraph, February 11, 2009). Many mainline contemporary Christians accept a view of gradual creationism.

 

Extreme and Avant Garde Alternatives to Creationism

 

In 1970, Erich Von Daniken’s book Chariots of the Gods? was first published. Von Daniken postulated that human life was tied to alien visitations to the planet. After recounting numerous Old Testament stories of man’s interaction with angels and God, he asks, “Does not this seriously pose the question whether the human race is not an act of deliberate ‘breeding’ by unknown beings from outer space?”

 

Evangelical Christians were swift to respond. Clifford Wilson’s Crash Go the Chariots (1973) refuted all of Von Daniken’s supporting examples. But even if the alien connection is too far-fetched for readers, many Christians take the middle ground that highlights a gradual evolution with God at the center of the origin.

 

The Contemporary View of Creationism in American Politics and Education

 

Creationism has become a litmus test for politicians whose constituencies tend to be conservative. In the 2010 midterm election, Senate candidates like Sharron Angle of Nevada and Christine O’Donnell of Delaware publically supported the teaching of creationism in American schools.

 

In the case of O’Donnell, her positions were decisively rejected by voters. Both were supported by the Tea Party movement, many of whose members support the teaching of creationism in the public schools.

 

Fundamentalists claim that evolution is a baseless theory and cannot be proven. But neither can creationism. The Genesis story is a matter of faith. Ancient history is defined by myths passed down through oral tradition in order to explain the origins and on-going functions of everyday life.

 

The 1925 Scopes trial endures as a reminder of the still on-going controversy between the advocates of science and rational thought and the Fundamentalists that cling to beliefs that defy anthropology, zoology, paleontology, and history.

 

Sources:

 

Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s (Harper & Row, 1931)

Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (The Paternoster Press, 1966)

Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods? (Putnam, 1970)

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, 1955)

 

Why Conservative Christians Support the State of Israel

Oct 16, 2010 Michael Streich

Evangelical Prophecy Literature Focuses on Israel - Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary Book

Evangelical Christians in America support Israel on the basis of Bible prophecy regarding the return of Christ as well as guilt over the Holocaust.

On March 4, 2002, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), gave a speech on the floor of the US Senate outlining why he believed Israel had a right to all of the land in Palestine. During the speech, he referred to Genesis 13 in which God directed Abraham to move to Hebron. According to Inhofe, “This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.” These sentiments express the thinking of many evangelical Christians. Others cite the historical right of Israel to occupy the disputed lands while some Christians point to the Holocaust, supporting the Jewish homeland as part of their Christian atonement for silence during the World War II genocide.

Israel’s Role in Evangelical Prophecy Interpretation

Israel’s independence in 1948 fueled evangelical hopes that the new state was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The Christian church, since the earliest generation of Christians in the first century CE, has been awaiting the return of Christ to purge the world of evil and establish his kingdom on earth.

When Christian prophetic literature began to make significant impacts on American readers with such books as Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth (Zondervan, 1970), evangelicals pointed to Matthew 24: 34 in which Jesus told his disciples that, “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Jesus was referring to the signs of the end in Matthew 24.

Many evangelicals at the time equated a “generation” with the established Old Testament generation of forty years. Thus, if Israel became a state in 1948, the end would come in 1988. Furthering the cause of Israel became a priority for evangelicals often branded as “Christian Zionists.”

Christian Atonement for the Silence of the Church over the Holocaust

In 2001, the German-based Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary hosted a repentance service in Jerusalem on Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. The Protestant religious community was founded in Darmstadt, Germany after World War II by Mother Basilea after the realities of German complicity in the century’s worst genocide was made public.

The Sisters of Mary opened their community to witnesses testifying at the Nuremberg Trials against the facilitators of the Holocaust, offering hospitality and hope. Today, the community still focuses on atonement for these national sins. The 2001 theme was “Changing the Future by Confronting the Past.” These annual repentance services continue every year.

The Historical Argument and the Doctrine of Propinquity

Jews were scattered from their homeland in the early centuries of the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus during the reign of Vespasian in 70 CE. But by the mid to late 19th-Century, Jews were returning to Palestine, largely due to the Zionist movement in Europe.

After World War I, more Jews emigrated and as fascism gained acceptance in Europe, these numbers increased. Raoul Wallenberg, who saved thousands of Jews in Hungary in the final days of the war, had traveled to Jerusalem and after hearing of the stories of persecution from European transplants, was deeply moved.

According to apologists for the state of Israel, the Jews that returned to Palestine took a barren, unproductive land and turned it into the land of “milk and honey.” This is the doctrine of propinquity. It was used by 19th-Century Americans to justify the taking of Native American lands during the period of Manifest Destiny. Senator Inhofe referred to this when he said, "Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture."

Conservative American Christians Support Israel for Several Reasons

Whether based on biblical reasons, humanitarian concerns, or the fact that Israel has been a strong ally in the Middle East, conservative Christians are more apt to support Israel over its Muslim neighbors. It was through the Jews that Christianity was born. Evangelicals often refer to the Jewish people as the “apple of God’s eye;” the Jews continue to be the “chosen people.”

With the exception of Saudi Arabia, none of the existing Middle East nations existed before World War I. Israel is only the latest. For evangelical Christians, the presence of Israel is a prophetic guarantee that Christ’s return is imminent. The next “sign” they look for is the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple, but this would mean the destruction of one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.

Sources:

• “Changing the Future by Confronting the Past,” video, Mother Basilea Films, Phoenix, AZ, 2001
• Senator Jim Inhofe, “Israel’s Right to the Land,” March 4, 2002
• Alan Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (Barnes & Noble, 1994)
• Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Controversy of Zion: Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1996)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Transcendentalism in 19th Century America

Emerson's Focus on Individualism and Thoreau's Focus on Nature

Dec 26, 2009 Michael Streich

Transcendentalism represented a religion, philosophy, and way of life equated with Americanism and geared toward the perfectibility of society through reform.

Early 19th Century Transcendentalism represented the “religion” of the intelligentsia. Popular particularly among young men and women, Transcendentalism was a fusion of Enlightenment ideals, Gnosticism, and universalism. Often understood as a literary tradition focused on nature and individualism, it was also independently theological and Utopian in terms of social reforms, rejecting traditional orthodoxies and forging a link between a uniquely secularized society and its Protestant foundations. Ralph Waldo Emerson became the apostle of this new faith in individualism while Henry David Thoreau is often cited for his “primitive intimacy with nature.”

Rejection of Traditional Christian Ideology

Transcendentalists believe in the attainment of social perfectibility. Taking a cue from Deism, Transcendentalists like Emerson rejected the view of God found in traditional beliefs, notably Congregationalism and Methodism. They rejected the total depravity of man and preached man’s goodness as evidence within nature that God was imminent within his creation. According to Emerson, the world was a “living poem.”

The freeing of the soul meant embracing the “spirit,” experiencing and knowing the goodness of God in all things. Perhaps reflecting neo-Platonic idealism, Emerson wrote, “All men have sublime thoughts…all men love the few real hours of life…” Emerson ended his oration, The American Scholar, declaring that “A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men.”

Transcendentalism and Social Justice

In the pursuit of perfection, Transcendentalists envisioned a society built upon justice and virtue. Such Utopianism fit into the overall reform attitudes that were tied to the Second Great Awakening. Many Transcendentalists opposed American slavery. Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail for refusing to pay a tax funding the Mexican-American War; Thoreau opposed the expansion of slavery. Emerson, whose abolitionist views came late, championed John Brown in 1859 after the Harpers Ferry raid.

Although not the only ones to support equitable treatment for women – Quakers and the Shakers believed in gender equality, Transcendentalists called for the reappraisal of gender roles as well as ending prostitution. They opposed alcohol consumption and some of their number took on the cause of industrial workers. These Transcendentalists are often accused of fostering a form of Christian socialism before Karl Marx urged the workers of the world to unite in 1848.

Transcendentalists also warned that the ultimate perfectibility of a homogeneous American society might have to confront its own demons in the form of slavery, Native American injustices, and unbridled capitalism. This paralleled similar views by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom’s Cabin as well as Abraham Lincoln’s assessment of the horrors of the Civil War in his Second Inaugural Address. The “jeremiad,” so much a part of American theological rooting, became a more secular warning that without reform, tribulation would follow.

Triumph of Individualism

Perhaps it was inevitable that an expanding nation with a strong westward movement would develop a keen sense of individualism and self-reliance. In the next century, men like Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover credited “rugged individualism” with American greatness, manifested through Turner’s frontier thesis. In Self-Reliance, Emerson stated, “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”

This was the essence of the self-made man, so enshrined in the mythologies of Americanism that dangle the American Dream before every immigrant. In all things – whether religion, career, or other life choices, man was free to accept or reject. Predestination was dead. Social perfection rested on the notion that God was in man, God was in Nature, and in all things the goodness of God would triumph.

Sources:

• Brian J. L. Berry, America’s Utopian Experiments: Communal Havens From Long-Wave Crises (University Press of New England, Dartmouth College: 1992)
• Walter Blair, Theodore Hornberger, Randall Stewart, The Literature of the United States, Volume One (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1953)
• Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprinting of this article online or in print must be granted by written permission from the author.

 Father Charles Coughlin and the New Deal

Anti-Semitism From the Golden Hour of the Little Flower

Michael Streich

April 27, 2009 Suite101

In the 1930s, Father Charles E. Coughlin would emerge as one of the most power radio personalities in an industry that was only slowing coming into its own. Coughlin’s Sunday “Hour of Power” broadcasts mixed religious themes with political issues, eventually used to convey such virulently anti-Semitic sermons that Coughlin has been called the “father of hate radio.” At his height, both Catholics and Protestants comprised over forty million weekly listeners.

 

Radio League of the Little Flower

 

Coughlin’s “golden hour of the Little Flower,” named for St. Therese of Lisieux who had recently been canonized, helped to finance the construction of a national shrine in Royal Oak, Michigan. Yet even before the pivotal election of 1932, Coughlin’s sermons had begun to incorporate political and social messages. Stoking fears of Communism, Coughlin skillfully wove anti-Semitic messages into his sermons, equating Communism with the Jews.

 

University of Texas historian Robert Abzug writes that Coughlin “was one of the principal disseminators of anti-Semitic propaganda in mainstream American culture.” Throughout Hitler’s rise to power, Coughlin defended Nazism ostensibly as a deterrent against Soviet Russia and Communism. He excused Kristallnacht and used propaganda speeches by Dr. Josef Goebbels without checking sources.

 

Couglin’s “Christian Front,” established in 1938, referred to the “synagogue of Satan” and published the Christian Index, a guide to non-Jewish merchants in New York City. Members of the Front were urged to “buy Christian.” Address Jews in a December 11, 1938 radio address, Father Coughlin stated, “…You are a minority – a small but powerful minority. We are a majority – an easy-going, patient majority – but a majority always conscious of our latent power.”

 

Coughlin Attacked the New Deal and FDR

 

From the very beginnings of Roosevelt’s New Deal, Coughlin attacked programs he disagreed with. Additionally, he attacked Jews in high government positions as well as bankers and financiers, referring to them as “modern shylocks.” At first supporting FDR, Coughlin began to criticize the President, forming his National Union for Social Justice in 1934 that advocated nationalization of utilities and banks.

 

When Congress considered increasing the amount of silver in order to create more currency – at 25% above world prices, Coughlin maneuvered to get the bill passed although FDR opposed it. Eventually, it was disclosed that Coughlin’s Radio League owned one half million ounces of silver.

 

By 1936, Coughlin was comparing the New Deal to, “…the red mud of Soviet Communism and…the stinking cesspool of pagan autocracy.” His newly formed Union Party ran North Dakota Representative William Lemke as a presidential candidate. Coughlin believed in an international conspiracy led by Jewish bankers and other power brokers. It was these men, according to Coughlin, that had financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

 

Although Coughlin was an irritant, and President Roosevelt wisely chose not to confront the priest head-on, it was the incessant anti-Semitism coming out of his sermons and from the pages of magazine Social Justice that may have done the most harm. Historians note that the US failures to ease immigration restrictions for Jews fleeing Europe in the pre-war years may be linked to the constant message of fear and hate.

 

National Shrine of the Little Flower

 

Father Coughlin’s biography, appearing on the website of the National Shine, says nothing of his anti-Semitism nor does it allude to the depth of political involvement, silenced by the church hierarchy by 1941. According to the website, “the priest’s sermons clarified the principles of Christianity and answered thousands of questions concerning faith and morals.”

 

Sources:

 

Robert H. Abzug, America Views the Holocaust 1933-1945: a Brief Documentary History (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999)

Albert Fried, FDR and his Enemies (Palgrave/St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999)

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, 1959)

Donald Warren, Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin, the Father of Hate Radio (Free Press, 1996)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to reprint online or in print must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Robin Hood in Historical Context

The romanticized story of Robin Hood may correspond to contemporary social evils, but the historical record disputes the popular version of a common hero.

Michael Streich

The image of Robin Hood, who “took from the rich and gave to the poor,” is legendary, made more so by many re-tellings of his supposed exploits in books, poetry, and film. Robin Hood as the archetypical “good” bandit fighting injustice on behalf of powerless people has had a powerful impact on readers and audiences while challenging populist sentiments, especially during times of social distress. The historical Robin Hood, reinterpreted over the centuries, may have been less glamorous, however, than people are led to believe.

Robin Hood, King John, and the Black Knight

The most recognizable portrait of Robin Hood probably stems from the Romanticist novel Ivanhoe, written by Sir Walter Scott and published in 1819. In the story, Robin and his men assist both Ivanhoe and the Black Knight, who is actually King Richard the Lionhearted, returned from a Crusade. The story focuses on the conflict between Saxons and the Norman conquerors, dating to AD 1066 when William the Conqueror crossed the channel and defeated the Saxons at Hastings.

Scholar Gilbert Sykes Blakely, writing in 1911, comments that criticism of the chronology as set for by Scott may be unfounded and although the protagonists “seem to belong to a former generation,” the antipathy between Saxons and Normans was still evident in the late 12th Century. He also refers to Robin Hood as an historical character.

Historian Joseph Dahmus places the “legendary outlaw” in the Late Middle Ages, citing folk ballads treating him as a hero. Dahmus also states that, “his name probably [belonged] originally to a mythical elf of the forest.” This would be Robin Goodfellow, a name traced to the 1530s. E. J. Hobsbawm, in his study of 19th and 20th Century social movements involving rebels, writes that Robin Hoodism “is most likely to become a major phenomenon when their [peasant or poor classes] traditional equilibrium is upset…”.

Robin Hood as a Symbol of Justice

Robin Hood fought against injustice on behalf of the powerless. He is often seen as a “yeoman,” which is a free man, identified with the land, and decidedly non-gentry. Yeomen were commoners. The legendary Robin Hood was known for his prowess as an archer and a swordsman. Friar Tuck notwithstanding, Robin Hood liberally relieved unwary clerics of their purses. This aspect of the Sherwood Forest bandit may highlight popular scorn with the established church.

Heretical movements that achieved following were very popular in pre-Reformation England. The writings and beliefs of John Wycliffe and the Lollards, for example, spread to Bohemia and influenced Jan Huss. Robin Hood’s victims were always enemies of the powerless peasants, and the wealthy church was no exception.

According to the literary legends, however, King John’s nemesis was the outlaw Robin Hood. Blakely writes that John was “handsome, able, and fortunate” but was, “nevertheless tactless vain, and treacherous.” Historians Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, however, give a different picture: “John was an efficient monarch who strove to increase his power and revenue. As this increase was bound to be at the expense of his barons, his policy was deeply resented.”

Incorrect Historical Depictions from Movies and Novels

It is doubtful that the individual who inspired the Robin Hood character ever interacted with King John. But his legend, and the stories of his exploits, made him a “Utopian” figure determined to end oppression. E. J. Hobsbawm, who sees the Robin Hood character in terms of a rural legend, likens him to other bandits in history with similar goals. These men were, “not expected to make a world of equality.”

Hobsbawm sees Robin Hood as “essentially a peasant rebelling against landlords, usurers, and other representatives of what Thomas More called the ‘conspiracy of the rich.’” The classic 1938 Hollywood film, “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” which starred the swashbuckling actor Errol Flynn, came at the height of the Great Depression when popular sentiment blamed the rich for the nation’s travails.

Robin Hood will always be an inspiration during times of distress. Mikhail Bakunin, the founder of Anarchism, wrote that, “The bandit is always a hero, the defender, the avenger of the people, the irreconcilable enemy of every state…” The legend and the retelling, however, changes with each adaption to contemporary issues.

Sources:

Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe, Gilbert Sykes Blakely, editor and write of the Introduction (NY: Charles E. Merrill Company, 1911)

• Joseph Dahmus, Dictionary of Medieval Civilization (NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984)
• E. J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels (W. W. Norton & Company, 1959)
• Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, 5th Ed. (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)
• Written by Michael Streich 7/3/2011. Any republishing required written permission as this article is still under copyright.

 

Raoul Wallenberg Stops Genocide

The Nazis Attempt to Exterminate Jews Halted by a Courageous Hero

• Oct 28, 2008
• Michael Streich

Raoul Wallenberg Saves Hungarian Jews - Swedish Government Photo Image

The last community of European Jews was rescued from death in the final days of World War II by a singular man whose passion serves as a role model for every generation.

As the Second World War drew to a close, an enigmatic Swede fought against time to save the last large Jewish community from the Nazi death camps. Eclipsing Oskar Schindler, whose similar efforts were immortalized by Steven Spielberg, Raoul Wallenberg rescued more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Wallenberg disappeared when Budapest fell to the Soviet Army in January 1945. Despite inquiries at the highest diplomatic levels, his disappearance has never been adequately explained.

Raoul Wallenberg's Call to Sacrifice in Budapest, Hungary

Raoul Wallenberg was born into a prominent Swedish family. Well educated, Wallenberg graduated from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, returning to Sweden to be groomed for a banking career by his diplomat grandfather. Even before the outbreak of war in 1939, Wallenberg was told of the growing persecution of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. These impressions led to his determination to play a part in stopping the madness. He resolved to confront evil face to face and save as many Jews as possible. In July, 1944, he traveled to Budapest.

Sweden was a neutral nation during the war. Working at the Swedish legation, Wallenberg began issuing schutzpasses, official documents, to desperate Jews. The passes effectively put their bearers under Swedish protection. Wallenberg personally visited Admiral Horthy, the Nazi puppet ruler, pressing him to stop deportations. Finally, he enlisted the support of the other neutral legations in Budapest. Wallenberg purchased empty buildings in Budapest to use as safe houses and established an intricate intelligence network within the Jewish community.

Confronting the Face of Evil in Nazi Occupied Hungary

As the Soviet Army drew closer to Budapest, the Nazis increased their efforts to exterminate the Jews, using their local surrogate force, the Arrow Cross, to do much of the killing. Agnes Mandl, whose description of events is listed with the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, credits Wallenberg with saving many lives. Her account details the Arrow Cross leading bound Jews to the Danube River, shooting one and then dumping the group into the cold December waters to drown. She, along with Wallenberg and others, rescued fifty people by jumping into the waters to save the drowning people.

Raoul Wallenberg Meets Adolph Eichmann

Wallenberg eventually confronted Adolph Eichmann, who had returned to Budapest to complete the Final Solution in Hungary. Wallenberg was unsuccessful in his attempt to reason with the man responsible for the Third Reich’s railroad network devoted to transporting hundreds of thousands to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and other extermination camps. Eichmann was tried for war crimes in Israel in 1961-62 and executed for what historian Hannah Arendt called, “the banality of evil” in her 1962 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem.

Final Days in Budapest as Wallenberg Saves Thousands of Jews from Nazi Genocide.

Two days before the Soviets liberated Nazi death camps, Wallenberg threatened to have SS General August Schmidthuber tried for war crimes once the war ended if the planned massacre of the remaining Jews in Budapest was not stopped. The pogrom was cancelled at the last minute, although Schmidthuber was eventually executed for atrocities committed in Yugoslavia.

Raoul Wallenberg, in an attempt to make contact with the Russian commander, was taken by the Soviets and never seen again. Budapest was “liberated” by the Red Army. The Budapest Jews would not be exterminated. But the great hero whose passion was to confront and stop evil, disappeared. No adequate explanation has ever been offered by the Soviet government despite reports of sighting Wallenberg in the Russian Gulag. It is one of modern history’s mysteries.

Sources

http://www.ushmm.org (National Holocaust Museum)

Linnea, Sharon. Raoul Wallenberg: The Man Who Stopped Death (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1993).

Terror House Museum, Budapest (visited by author, December 2006)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

 

Progressivism and the Rise of the Mass Media

Newspapers and Magazines Helped Shape American Public Opinion

• Aug 13, 2009
• Michael Streich

Muckraker Ida M. Tarbell - Library of Congress: Public Domain Image

Industrialization enabled newspapers and magazines to reach millions of Americans, affecting public opinion regarding war with Spain, social concerns, & political issues.

The late 19th century saw many changes affecting American social, cultural, and political life. Industrial expansion, improvements in transportation and communication, and growing consumerism helped to shape middle class values and, most importantly, how Americans thought. In this, the role of the emerging mass media cannot be understated. For good and for ill, newspapers and magazines helped drive Americans to war, demand safer urban environments, and give teeth to the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century.

The Changing Role of Newspapers

Newspapers had always existed, beginning in the Colonial period. The Peter Zenger case was perhaps the first victory for freedom of the press. But even in early years, newspapers figured prominently to incite readers, whether it was a distorted story of the Boston Massacre, outright lies defaming Andrew Jackson, political cartoons that helped to bring down “Boss Tweed,” or scurrilous stories discrediting Samuel Tilden in the 1876 election.

The value of newspapers wasn’t lost on Abraham Lincoln, who purchased German newspaper publishers in order to sway an important voting immigrant block in the 1860 election. By 1870, 459 daily newspapers were in circulation, subscribed to by 2.6 million readers. By 1900, however, newspaper circulation had risen to 1,967 dailies with 15 million subscriptions.

Industrialization had made printing more efficient, allowing papers to reach more people at a much lower production cost. This competition, however, led to changes in newspaper writing as well as issue focus. By the last decade of the 19th century, several prominent papers, like the New York World, were engaging in “yellow journalism.” The yellow press featured highly sensational stories designed to attract large public readership.

Yellow Journalism and the Spanish-American War

The treatment of Cubans following the 1895 uprising was brutal. American newspapers, however, under the leadership of men like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, grossly exaggerated the Spanish response, in some cases writing inflammatory stories that had no basis in fact. Yet the constant barrage of newspaper accounts changed American public opinion. When Congress declared war, the “Splendid Little War” became the most popular conflict in American history.

Magazines and Muckrakers

The 1879 Postal Act, creating a separate, “second class” postage fee that, in 1885, was amended to one cent per pound, enabled magazines to reach American homes. Low production costs, again a product of industrial innovation, allowed publishers to slash cover prices.

Magazines, responding to the emerging Progressive Movement, began to publish serialized articles by muckrakers like Ida M. Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, and Ray Stannard Baker. The term muckraker came from John Bunyan’s 1678 book, Pilgrim’s Progress, and was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt to describe the investigative journalism of these writers.

Tarbell exposed the oil empire of John D. Rockefeller, describing in lurid detail the plutocrat’s business history that led to the monopoly called Standard Oil. Steffens’ Shame of the Cities exposed urban political corruption. Yet it was Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, first serialized in a California pro-social newspaper, which prompted Congress to pass meaningful legislation regulating meat packing in the Pure Food and Drug Act.

The Media Changes with the Culture

Hundreds of copy-cat muckrakers eventually turned the public against the seemingly unending stories of corruption and social ills. World War I saw the mass media kidnapped by President Wilson’s extensive pro-war propaganda campaign. Once the war was over, newspapers and magazines were addressing the Roaring Twenties. Bruce Blevin, writing in The New Republic on September 9, 1925, tells his readers about the lifestyle of flappers in his interview with “Flapper Jane.” Investigative journalism was dead, at least for the time of the twenties.

Sources:

• Joseph E. Gould, Challenge and Change: Guided Readings in American History (New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich, Inc., 1969)
• Richard Hofstadter, The Progressive Movement 1900-1915 Prentice Hall, 1963)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies