Fathers Don't Just Protect—They Prepare
My grandfather was born in 1882 in the small Ukrainian town of Zawale, which was part of the vast, multiethnic Austro-Hungarian empire. In 1914, this mega-state, like so many European nations, threw itself into a world war with frenzied enthusiasm. My grandfather later told my father how puzzled he had been to watch thousands of happy young men—really still just boys—boarding trains in Vienna, cheering as they went off to what was almost certainly their death. He did not volunteer, he avoided conscription, and he survived.
His son, my father, was born in Vienna in 1927. He was 6 years old when Adolf Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. Austria still had a few years of freedom left, and my grandfather used them well: Because an archive had burned down, several of his family documents had to be reissued. Through skillful manipulation, he managed to turn himself from a Jew into what the Nazis would later classify as a 'half Jew.' And as Germany's annexation of Austria became inevitable, he came up with an especially daring idea: In a court proceeding, he had his wife, my grandmother, declared the illegitimate daughter of the janitor in her parents' building. He bribed witnesses who testified that her mother had had an affair with that janitor. It worked: My grandmother was officially declared the daughter of an Aryan. And as a result, my family survived.
This Father's Day, I find myself reflecting not only on paternal love but on paternal foresight—the clarity and focus it takes to see what others might not, to act before the danger has a name. Raising children is always a challenge, but never more so than in times of deep insecurity about what the future will look like. To meet that challenge, it can help to look at the generations that came before.
Anne Applebaum: This is what Trump does when his revolution sputters
Despite my grandfather's efforts, life for my father quickly changed under the Nazis. In swimming school, two boys nearly drowned him while the lifeguard looked on, grinning. When my father finally emerged, gasping for breath, the lifeguard laughed and said, 'Can't swim, Jew?' Around the same time, the man who lived in the neighboring house began watching my father and his sister with dark, brooding looks. But only after Hitler's army had entered Austria did he begin shouting, each and every time they passed: 'Jewwws!'
My father would recount these events with amused detachment. He had already learned as a teenager to recognize the profound absurdity of Nazism—the deep, grotesque nonsense of what Charlie Chaplin and Ernst Lubitsch were turning into dark political comedies at the same time in Hollywood. A few months later, two men came to my grandparents and ordered them to leave their house with their children. They moved into a small apartment, and their home was 'bought'—at a tiny, symbolic price—by the 'Jewww'-shouting neighbor.
Corruption is the most corrosive force in a democracy, but in a dictatorship it can save you. Once a month, a Gestapo officer would appear at my grandparents' apartment and take something valuable—a piece of furniture, a porcelain plate, a painting. In return, the file on my grandparents would sink a little lower in the stack on his desk. At my father's school, the boys had to line up, and all those tall enough were asked—in fact, ordered—to volunteer for the SS. My father raised his hand and said, 'Requesting permission to report—I'm one-quarter Jewish!' To which the SS man shouted in disgust, 'Step back!' And so my father was spared from becoming a war criminal in Hitler's service. In almost every situation, having Jewish ancestry was a mortal danger. But in this one instance, it became his salvation.
In the final months of the war, my father was arrested after all and spent three months in a concentration camp close to Vienna, constantly at risk of death. But after the war had ended, there was still a striking atmosphere of leniency toward the perpetrators. When he went to the local police station to give a statement about his time in the camp, he was met with scornful dismissiveness. 'It wasn't really that bad, was it?' the officer asked. 'Aren't we exaggerating a little?' It was then that my father decided to move from Austria to Germany, paradoxically—because there, under pressure from the occupying powers, some reckoning with the past was taking place. Austria, meanwhile, had successfully cast itself as the war's first victim.
Timothy W. Ryback: Hitler used a bogus crisis of 'public order' to make himself dictator
I tell my son, who never met his grandfather (as I never met mine), that my father was obsessed throughout his life with the idea that what had happened once could happen again—not just to Jews, but to anyone. Of course, my son, raised in a seemingly stable world, feels profoundly safe. And that's a good thing. But we are currently living in the United States, a country that for my grandfather was a refuge impossible to reach, but that is currently in the throes of what some serious scholars now describe as an authoritarian power grab. And even in Germany, where we could easily return, a right-wing extremist party is now so strong that it might come in first in the next election. So I think about the responsibility of raising a child in a time when the future is impossible to predict. I think, more and more, of my grandfather, who in 1914 watched people plunge into war hysteria and decided to resist their excitement, and who would later take very unconventional steps—steps that would, after history took a turn for the worse, ensure his family's survival.
My grandfather understood the psychology of fanaticism very early; my father understood the stupidity and mediocrity of the people whom the dictatorship empowered, without mistaking them for harmless clowns. Now, as we watch society once again take a dangerous turn—as books are banned, people are sent to foreign prisons without even a court order, and soldiers are deployed against protesters—I wonder what stories my future grandchildren will one day need to remember. Memory is not a picture book; it's a tool. And fatherhood, especially in times like these, is not just about protection. It is about preparation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Vladimir Putin Issues Warning of New War
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ukraine risks renewed armed conflict in the future if it does not recognize the results of referenda ballots Moscow held in 2022 in four Ukrainian regions that Russia claims to have annexed, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with Sky News Arabia. The Russian president said Kyiv should recognize the referenda denounced as shams that Moscow said cemented its claim in the oblasts of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk. Putin, meanwhile, illegally annexed Crimea in 2014. Newsweek has contacted the Ukrainian foreign ministry for comment. Why It Matters In September 2022, Russia held a referenda on whether the regions Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts should be annexed by Russia after Moscow invaded Ukraine in February. Russia does not fully occupy the four regions and the ballots were condemned internationally as shams. Putin then signed a treaty on the accession to Russia of the regions. Ukraine is still fighting for these territories, but Putin's latest comments reiterate Moscow's red lines in any negotiations which because they are unacceptable to Kyiv, signal that a diplomatic solution to the war Moscow started remains distant. What To Know In an interview with Sky News Arabia, Putin warned Ukraine must recognize the 2022 referendum or face "opportunities for the resumption of armed conflict." He also said that Russia was allegedly close to reaching an agreement with Ukraine during talks in Istanbul in 2022 and he wanted the Ukrainian leadership "to be guided by national interests and not by the interests of third parties." Putin said long-term stability in the region required Ukraine to be neutral and refuse to join alliances and renouncing nuclear weapons. He also accused the West of using Ukraine as a "tool" against Russia and that the country "deserves a better fate than being a tool in the hands of external parties acting against Russia." His comments follow an address at this year's St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in which he said, "Ukraine is part of Russia," and that he considered Russians and Ukrainians to be "one people." In response to Putin's comment "where the foot of a Russian soldier steps, that is ours," Ukraine's foreign minister Andrii Sybiha posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday "wherever a Russian soldier sets foot, he brings along only death, destruction, and devastation." Putin's remarks cast doubt on the chances of peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv, especially with the Russian president saying he did not rule out taking control of the northeastern city of Sumy to create a border buffer zone. Putin's negotiator Vladimir Medinsky had warned Ukraine and Western allies earlier this month Russians will capture new territories if Ukraine did not agree to Moscow's conditions. As U.S. ceasefire proposals remain stalled, Yuriy Boyechko, CEO and founder of Hope for Ukraine, told Newsweek that the war can only stop if the Trump administration "finds enough courage to make Putin agree to at least 30 days ceasefire." Boyechko said as global attention focuses on the escalating Iran-Israel conflict, the war in Ukraine is entering a new phase. Following Monday night's assault by Russia on Ukraine—the deadliest in nearly a year, Boyechko said it Trump cannot rebuke the attacks and that the U.S. Senate should move forward with passing a bill sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, with veto-proof majority and approve additional sanctions against Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the 28th Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum SPIEF 2025 on June 20 in Saint Petersburg. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the 28th Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum SPIEF 2025 on June 20 in Saint Petersburg. Getty Images What People Are Saying Ukraine's foreign minister Andrii Sybiha wrote on X in part on Friday in response to Putin's speech at SPIEF: "Putin's cynical statements demonstrate complete disdain for U.S. peace efforts. While the United States and the rest of the world have called for an immediate end to the killing, Russia's top war criminal discusses plans to seize more Ukrainian territory and kill more Ukrainians." He added: "Putin does not care about Russian soldiers or their feet torn apart by Ukrainian drones. He is a mass murderer of his own people. He already disposed one million Russian soldiers in a senseless bloodbath in Ukraine without achieving a single strategic goal. One million soldiers. Two million feet." The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, wrote on Friday: "Putin claimed that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation and all of Ukraine is effectively Russian as part of efforts to justify his continued conquest of Ukraine." It added in its latest assessment: "Putin's commitment to this narrative underscores his ongoing commitment to destroying the Ukrainian state and subjugating the Ukrainian people." What Happens Next? As the war continues to grind on, Putin's latest comments put the prospect of negotiations with Ukraine further away. The ISW said that Putin's recent rhetoric shows he thinks his forces are able to win a war of attrition via gradual advances and high losses.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The US can end Iran conflict with one call, official from Iran's presidency says
Diplomacy with Iran can 'easily' be started again if US President Donald Trump orders Israel's leadership to stop its strikes on Iran, Majid Farahani, an official with the Iranian presidency told CNN on Friday. 'Iran believes in civilian dialogue,' he said. 'Directly or indirectly is not important.' 'President Trump can easily stop the war by only one telephone (call) to (the) Israelis,' he said, repeating the Iranian position that talks were impossible while Israeli bombs were striking Iran. Farahani said that Iran would not countenance halting nuclear enrichment – which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes - but added that concessions were possible. 'Maybe it can be lower but we don't stop it,' he said. In recent days, European powers have joined American and Israeli calls for a ban on enrichment, hardening their positions on the key issue, with France putting forward 'a clear position on zero enrichment,' France's foreign ministry spokesperson Christophe Lemoine told CNN Friday. Iran says it needs enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, while also manufacturing large quantities of near-weapons-grade material. Trump's decision to open a two-week negotiating window before deciding on striking Iran has offered a slim – if improbable – path to a peace deal between Iran and Israel. Talks took place in Geneva on Friday between the foreign ministers from Iran, Britain, France, and Germany, along with the European Union's foreign policy chief, the first confirmed face-to-face meeting of its kind since the conflict began. After days of increasingly aggressive messages from the Trump administration, it has opened the possibility that military action can be averted. Indeed, Trump's own camp appears to be starkly divided on whether to pursue direct strikes against Iran. 'If America gets involved in the war,' Farahani said, 'there are so many options and all (of) those options are on the table.' Pro-government protests Friday on the streets of Tehran saw an outpouring of anger at both Israel and the United States. A CNN team in Tehran witnessed massive crowds, with protesters waving Iranian, Hezbollah and Palestinian flags and burning US and Israeli flags. Chants of 'death to Israel, death to America' – a staple at such events – rang out, while Iranians spoke of their fury at the bombing campaign. 'Trump, you are threatening my leader,' one woman told CNN, 'Don't you know that my nation believes death is sweeter than honey?'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel presses ahead with strikes as Trump's 2-week deadline looms
Israeli officials insisted Friday that they will keep up their bombing campaign against Iran, even as President Donald Trump has given Tehran a two-week deadline to come to some sort of diplomatic deal that reins in its nuclear program. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, laid out his country's case at the U.N. Security Council, facing off Friday with Iranian representatives who urged the world to stop the Israeli strikes. 'We will not stop. Not until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled, not until its war machine is disarmed, not until our people and yours are safe,' Danon declared. The Israeli assertions highlight how Trump's statement that he'll decide 'in the next two weeks' whether to strike Iranian nuclear sites provides an opportunity to Israel as much as it puts pressure on Iran. For Iran, it's two weeks to come to some sort of diplomatic deal with the U.S. that constrains its nuclear, and possibly other, programs. For Israel, it's a focused timeframe to do as much damage as it can to Iran's nuclear and broader military infrastructure before the U.S. may pressure it to accept a diplomatic solution. The more damage Israel does, the more it could weaken an enemy and improve the odds that Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands in the diplomatic process. The strikes themselves couldthreaten the survival of Iran's Islamist regime. Trump told reporters on Friday that he wasn't about to push Israel to halt its assault in Iran while he weighs what the U.S. should do. 'It's very hard to make that request right now,' Trump said. 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak about the president's thinking, said 'everything is still on the table." "This is about giving this a little time and seeing if things look any different in a couple weeks," the official said. Trump's 'two-week' window was delivered Thursday by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said, quoting Trump, that his delay in determining whether to join Israel's attack on Iran was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Trump often says he'll make decisions in two weeks, only to extend his deadline again or never follow through. Still, Israel and Iran appear to believe the next two weeks will be a crucial phase. Iranian officials showed up for nuclear talks with European officials on Friday in Geneva; Israel pressed ahead with its bombing campaign against Iran, which is responding with missiles. Iranian officials met Friday with European envoys in Geneva in an attempt to revitalize the diplomatic process. The talks ended on an ambiguous note. Iranian officials have said their participation in future talks would hinge on Israel stopping its attacks. Some European representatives said talks should continue regardless, even as they urged both sides to avoid escalation. "We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for," French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. For Israel, the most critical, but perhaps toughest, official objective is eliminating Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo. That facility is buried deep underground, and Israel has been hoping Trump will enter the fight and use special, massive U.S. bombs to destroy it. There are concerns, however, including among Republicans, that Iran could retaliate against U.S. assets if America enters the conflict on any level, dragging America into another Middle Eastern war. Trump campaigned on avoiding such wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israel has means to destroy Fordo on its own. It's not clear what those methods could involve, but Israel has significant intelligence operations inside Iran and it has often surprised even Washington with its capabilities. Either way, current and former Israeli officials said they saw no reason for Israel to back off its strikes now, despite calls for deescalation from some world capitals. The more Israel degrades Iran's capabilities, the less able Tehran will be to mount retaliatory attacks on Israel or the United States, should the latter choose to enter the war. From the beginning, 'the Israeli planning was based on the assumption that we have to do it alone,' said a former Israeli diplomat familiar with the situation. The person, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss highly sensitive issues. It's unclear whether there is any deal with Iran that Israel would deem strong enough. There is tremendous distrust of Iran's Islamist regime within Israel's security establishment, leading to a sense that Iran would cheat on any deal. Another unsettled question is whether a deal with Iran will cover only its nuclear program or also curb its ballistic missile initiative and support for proxy militias in the region. Some analysts have argued that Netanyahu decided to begin attacking Iran last week because he was worried earlier nuclear talks between Iran and the Trump administration would yield too weak a deal. If new efforts at diplomacy yield fruit, Trump could pressure Netanyahu to accept whatever deal emerges, potentially even by threatening to withhold weapons and other equipment Israel needs to defend itself against Iran. The war is costly for Israel, which has been fighting on multiple fronts — in particular against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip — since October 2023. As one Israeli official said, Iranian missile attacks feel like 'Russian roulette' to Israeli citizens. CORRECTION: The caption on an earlier version of this article incorrectly located a U.N. Security Council meeting.
