p.314, Translated by Alan Barlow and Anita Kurlender Barlow
We are now going to handle two episodes in the story of Haynt, both of which had a strong repercussion in Jewish public life in Poland. In both cases, Haynt confirmed its Jewish principle and risked material damage, but without compromising. We have in mind the circumstances that influenced Haynt to reject the collaboration of Zeev Jabotinski and Dr. Yehoshue Gotlib. It required a big measure of determination, belief in the rightfulness of reliance on one’s own moral principal and faithfulness of the entirety of the Zionistic movement, to let two important writers leave for a competing newspaper, rather than giving in to their demands, which the newspaper held were opposed to the Zionist ideals, the interest of the movement and the fight for citizenship of the Polish Jews. In praise of the readers we must stress, that they showed a high degree of healthy social sense and had understood Haynt’s motives. From both temptations, Haynt came out strengthened and consolidated.
Dr. Yehoshue-Heshel Gotlib was a writer with a big name in Poland. The Jewish establishment upbringing in Pinsk, where he was born, and the five years that he spent in Switzerland, where he studied jurisprudence and earned the doctoral title, prepared him well for the career of a newspaper-writer.
Dr. Gotlib was a man of complicated character. He was a talented sort of person although he lacked a backbone. By nature an unassuming man, always ready to give in, as long as people leave him alone, he was at the same time ambitious until, as is often the case, his ambitions far overtook the mental possibility. He dreamed to make a parliamentary career, but he wasn’t successful. He was one of the leading figures in Polish Zionism,
p.315
but he lacked the energy and endurance for the continuous, disciplined, organizational work, that was so needed to reach the top leadership. For this was he not a small egotist and not shown to find sympathy even in his friends from the “Time to Build” group.
Dr. Gotlib was a “Bahemeh”-man. He was able to sit for hours in the literary circle “Talamatzkah 13,” talking about politics, playing chess, and telling anecdotes. He hated serious meetings, in truth he lived amid writers and artists and smooth types from the “Bahemeh”-world. In 1935, he figured that it would be the opportune time to realize his old ambition to become a representative in parliament. But the political climate in Poland had changed in the meantime. The extermination-process against Jews had achieved unbearable proportions. Jews were put away for an unavoidable economic ruin, the racist government looked upon Hitler and had spoken openly about destroying the Jews. The regime had cut the parliament down to the role of its obedient tool, nothing more, and only the ones who were already confirmed in power in the government could figure in the election tickets and afterwards, only they alone could get elected. Because of the circumstances, the entire Polish Democratic wing decided to boycott the vote. The Zionist organization and the other democratic Jewish parties had also decided not to go to the polls. Haynt supported the boycott and called on Jews to boycott the vote (the reader can find more in Chapter Six about this and the difficult strife that Haynt had therefore withstood). In such a political atmosphere did Dr. Gotlib decide to put out his candidacy, that in practice meant, in any case in the coming term he would have to cover the anti-Semitic and racist regime.
Haynt was not able to allow a writer for the newspaper to break ranks with the entire independent Yiddish social/communal camp and allow him to deal in opposition to the stand of the newspaper. The thought that a member of the editorial board was ready to take a mandate from an anti-Semitic regime, was sickening for all in Haynt, especially, because as for anyone who had known Gotlib as we knew him in the editorial board, there was not a doubt, that his decision did not come because of principles and especially not because of ideological motives, but that he really believed that he would become the redeemer of the Jews in Poland.
p.316
In the editorial department we took into account that he would hold to his word and leave for Moment, if we in Haynt disturbed his plans. And that is how it happened. He went away. The overall opinion of the readership and the contributors was that the co-operative had no other choice.
Dr. Gotlib did not play any role as a Jewish representative because of this alone, that he did not know any Polish. In any case he was driven out only once, from a meeting of the budget committee, beginning January, 1937, when it was dealing with the loans that Poland had cautiously negotiated with France. (He read his speech from paper, a thing that is not usually practiced in the Polish parliament.) Anti-Semitism spread far in Poland where it had not been before; a wave of outrage and persecution had flooded the land, “Ovshem,” in the expulsion captivity his was a depending on a composition of program from the government. A day before Gotlib read his speech, a law came into effect that greatly limited the Kosher slaughter and led to the importation of Kosher meat. But he did not say one word about this. In an article in Haynt from January 14th entitled “He Has Spoken,” B. Justman wrote a bitter commentary that in such a critical time Dr. Gotlib did not have any other concerns except to speak about the loan.
When the war broke out Dr. Gotlib went away to Pinsk. In 1941, the Bolsheviks had him arrested as a former representative and he died in jail at the age of 59 years old. The journalist Menachem Flakser (1898 - ) told a story, that Dr. Gotlib left with a group of newspapermen who were running from the burning Warsaw. When Dr. Gotlib said goodbye to him at the train station in Brisk, where their paths were diverging, he said: “Never mind, Flakser, you go into the war with black hair, bet you will come out with white hair, but I go in with a bald head - with what shall I come out?”
As for the fall of Zeev Vladimir Jabotinski (1880 – 1940) he left when Haynt did not want to print any articles that would have undermined the authority of the Zionist executive and opposed his effort to take over the readership of the newspaper. Haynt was pleased to have him for a regular writer and from his side, Jabotinski was pleased to work in
p.317
Haynt, because it made it possible for him to speak to the broad Zionist masses. He knew that Haynt was read by the strata of people that he wanted to reach and with which he was most successful. But regardless of Jabotinski’s big popularity and regardless of the fact that Haynt had through all the years held him in high regard as a writer, orator and leader, the newspaper did not support his political aspirations.
Jabotinski had begun his collaboration in Haynt with printing memoirs from the Jewish legion; later he wrote feature articles, that flowed with original content and flashy wit often mixed with sophisticated humor. The situation ended when he began to attack the Zionist executive and in general the Zionist world-organization. Instead of the fine literary essays, he wrote political propaganda. As long as Jabotinski still respected the minimal organizational discipline, Haynt printed his articles, although the editor became more and more disturbed about the tone and contents of his writing. But in about 1932 it became clear that Jabotinski was thinking about a “Putsch,” that he would capture the Zionist readership. His writings became sharp and divisive, he had undermined the prestige of the world-executive and taken to urge diplomatic activity by his own hand contrary to the official Zionist politics and to the decision of congress. He wrote openly that his intention was to break the Zionist organization. Rumors circulated that he had established himself in connection with the Italian fascists, that Italy would take over the mandate of Eretz-Yisrael. Jabotinski went from being an important contribution to becoming a difficult burden for Haynt. It went so far that Haynt often found it not possible to print what he had written; they had to eliminate the more assaulting positions from his articles and it happened more than one time that they could not print Jabotinski articles at all. In the second volume of his biography of Jabotinski, Dr. Josef Schechtman, on page 163, put in doubt the argument of the author in the second volume, “From Near Past,” that Haynt had several times thrown out Jabotinski’s articles and removed portions from a number others, and here is the proof that Jabotinski had never thought, that Haynt had kept him from writing what he wanted. Dr. Schechtman had made a mistake, his articles were indeed rejected. Jabotinski’s assertion is correct on how
p.318
they behaved in the time before he started trying to break the Zionist world-organization. Then Haynt said “Basta [enough],” an expression that Jabotinski had himself often used. By the way, if there had been no conflict and they would have printed his articles the way he had written them, then he would not have had any reason to leave Haynt. We must add, that Jabotinski’s politics had brought out discontent by a significant part of his own friends. Meir Grossman (1888-1964) led with the opposition. He and Dr. Josef Schechtman (1891-1970) were Jabotinski’s closest party-collaborators, and both had articles printed in Haynt from time to time.
When Jabotinski saw that Haynt did not support his plans, he decided to take on the newspaper from the inside. He put out a demand to Dr. Schechtman, who had in counterbalance to Meir Grosman, supported him as precautions, that he should enter Haynt as their commissar, a supervisor to watch over the Revisionist party interests and in case not, he wired, he would go away to Moment. At a meeting of the editorial committee and the management of the cooperative Alt-Nay it was decided to throw out Jabotinski’s ultimatum. Over all the years, Haynt had strongly upheld the politics of fair treatment of the individual groupings in Zionism. To give in to Jabotinski would put an end to that tradition and nobody in the cooperative wanted that.
Jabotinski’s threats, that he would go away to Moment, came out a little strange. And it wasn’t really believed that, with his rebellious nature, he would get used to living in the opportunistic atmosphere that the editor in-chief of Moment, Zwi Prelutsky, had created in his newspaper. Many of his followers were worried and advised him against such a step, but he did not want to listen to anybody and even tried to put a “geselleshaftlechn” pressure on Haynt. One day the president of the Revisionist party in Poland, Miron Sheskin, telephoned that he would come speak with the boss of the publishing house about Jabotinski’s future employment.
Chaim Finkelstein took him in. Sheskin was informed that Haynt valued their high Jabotinski literary articles, but his attacks on the Zionist organization could not be tolerated in a Zionist organ and his demand to be on the editorial board could also not be tolerated. Dr. Schechtman agreed about having Jabotinski’s articles printed under the same conditions
p.319
as before, however he would not commit to a steady collaboration, and Jabotinski would not become any authority on the newspaper. Sheskin went away with what he came and Jabotinski went over to Moment. Neither had any big pleasure from the other. Jabotinski did not find any common language with the readers of Moment; the style and the subject matter of his articles did not find any resonance with them. He lost the broad Zionist masses of the Haynt readers and also didn’t reach the readers of “Moment,” the simple, middle-class Jews, whose perceptions year by year were formed according to the careful, careful, “impartial” tactic of “not bother a fly on the wall.”* This did indeed secure against reprisals on the part of the government, but Jabotinski could not get along with people like that.
Meanwhile, the Revisionists went off on Fascist paths. The members of their youth-organization Betar wore shirts of a brown color, not looking at the repugnant associations. They treated Jabotinski as a sort of dictator. The man, who had all the characteristics to become a leader of Jews, undertook for good the parades, in which the Revisionists used to receive him with military honors, and the Betar youth marched past with the whole paraphernalia of brown shirts, flags, military music – in the powerful style of the dictators in the thirties in Europe. The Jewish people pressed with the shoulders, not understanding, not wanting to have with any negotiations. At the same time the Revisionists used Moment for a campaign against the Zionistic world-organization, a campaign such as was not known on the Jewish street. Naturally, this did not help Moment. The people did not want to pick up
p.320
a newspaper that continued to print slander and lampoon against the recognized Zionist leaders.
Moreover, Jabotinski had begun to lead negotiations with the Polish government, for understanding and as the voice of the leaders of Polish Jews. Probably, since they had found a common language, the Revisionists became entirely intimate by the power. The cause of the friendship became clear, when Jabotinski announced his plan for a mass evacuation of the Jews of Poland in a period of ten years time. The Polish government had itself carried around with Jewish-expulsion and when the evacuation slogan came from the Jewish side, it became very convenient for them. The Jewish society had pulled away from the Revisionists; it went away so far, that Moment could no longer print its articles. Thus had ended Jabotinski’s personal career in said newspaper, but not the influence of the Revisionists.
The business of “Moment,” that had already for several years been going downhill, had at that time become critical. They had borrowed money on the right and left, and the high interest alone had swallowed colossal sums. The end was, that the creditors had gone to court and demanded the appointment of an overseer (syndicate) to assure their interests. This brought about results that no one would have been able to predict. The Polish people in power had sought after a path by which to gain an influence on Jewish public opinion, and the crisis in Moment had given a good opportunity to accomplish this.
For the overseer of Moment the court decided on a very young beginner, the attorney Marek Kagan. It turned out, that this was not a coincidence, and that it was not about the interests of the creditors. Kagan was a Revisionist, a loyal follower of Jabotinski. The Jabotinski project of a mass evacuation of the Jews from Poland offended the unanimous opposition of the Jewish press and, having handed over their authority in “The Moment”, the power gave the Revisionists a newspaper to lead their campaign.
Kagan did not have the creditors in mind and did not worry about the good of the newspaper. He made an alliance with Dr. Gotlib, nominating him for Editor in-chief with a large salary, and although the co-workers he reduced the customaries to the utmost and didn’t count accurately,
p.321
his Revisionist party agitators engaged to write lampoons against the Zionist movement, the Zionist leaders, the investments and their work in Eretz-Yisrael. The anti-Zionist half went away so far that the leader of “Mazrechi” in Poland, the Reb Yitzak Niesnboim (1868-1942), who used to regularly print articles in “Moment,” stopped all protests to write in the newspaper. The same was done by Dr. Igantzi Schwartzbard (1888-1961) a leader of “Time to Build,” who, like Dr. Gotlib, was among the leaders of the party. When alongside with the diversion-campaign against the Zionist world-movement, the Jewish persecutions in Poland really place second toward the breaking up of Moment. Many co-workers, who did not agree with the ways in which their newspaper went, looked for work in other newspapers. Of the other writers who were against the new course of “Moment,” maybe only Prelutski went over to “Our Express,” Ben-Zion Chilinavitz reminds me in Chapter 21.
They had thrown out Kagan, since he plotted against the professional unions, insulted older highly-paid co-workers and provoked unnecessary conflicts. And when he had once more reduced their petty salary, the co-workers on February 20th 1939 went on strike, but when they had went back to work they again got petty hunger-wages like before the strike. He didn’t count on the creditors, and they had him tied up in court, charging that he took large salaries for himself, that he had given loans from the till of Moment not for the purposes of the publishing house, and that he had taken on new unnecessary co-workers. But Kagan didn’t make a big deal out of it. He knew that behind him stood powerful protectors.
What a bitter irony from fate befell “Moment!” The newspaper that was “neutral,” “objective,” impartial, not dangerous, not protesting too strongly, did the newspaper when it was forced into partiality, fall into the hands of a small group in influence in the Jewish society, but with big esteem by the Fascist government. The events in Moment showed how easily the government can control a Jewish newspaper. The people of “Alt-Nay” saw in this a danger for Haynt and sought after a means to protect themselves. More information about this will come out in Chapter 21.
* Zwi Prelutsky had his collaborators that they should not assault anybody, write offensively, not bother even a fly on the wall, because a fly can also have a “Four” (4 pennies, the price of a newspaper for the Russian Times). Incidentally, the partners of Moment held that, from the same commercial point of view it is easier to keep quiet about the existence of Haynt and in any case did not remind him of the split from the newspaper. Haynt was in Moment called “A well-known newspaper.”