Jewish Emigration from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule (Part A)
The Emigration of Jewish Academics and Professionals from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule
Source: D. Niederland, 'The Emigration of Jewish Academics and Professionals from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule', Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook , 1988, pp. 285 - 300
The rise of the Nazis to power on the 30th of January 1933 brought in its wake substantial Jewish emigration from Germany.* However these emigrants did not leave en masse , simultaneously. What then, were the factors which determined who would emigrate, why, when and where to? This question has not been systematically considered in the historiography of the period. The usual explanations for the emigration of German Jews in the 1930s focus on the psychological shock caused by the Nazi rise to power; the loss of equal civil rights previously enjoyed by German Jews; their unwillingness to live under totalitarian rule; the racist legislation; political and physical persecution etc. German Jews were depicted as refugees who were under compulsion to leave the land of their birth, but were prevented by difficulties arising from both Nazi policy, and the immigration policy of the Western states and the Jewish organisations dealing with immigration. In contrast to this view 1 , which stresses the political and organisational aspects of the emigration of German Jews, and their status as refugees rather than emigrants, this paper will discuss some economic motives and considerations, at the level of the group and of the individual. It will be argued that, at least until the autumn of 1935 (the Nuremberg Laws) and perhaps even up till the pogrom in November 1938, the Kristallnacht , most German Jews could still weigh up the decision whether to stay or go, despite the new and difficult conditions created for them by Hitler's rise to power. The importance of tracing their economic considerations is therefore obvious. An examination of the factors leading to emigration, its timing and destination will therefore play a central role in the discussion and will be conducted by outlining the emigration patterns of Jews belonging to that occupational sector known as 'academic and professional'.
This group in particular was chosen as the subject of discussion since it formed a dominant element of the total number of Jewish emigrants, especially in the first year after Hitler's rise to power. This can be proved by comparing the relative proportion of Jewish professionals among all Jewish bread-winners in Germany to their relative proportion in the Jewish emigration of 1933. Less than 13% of all Jewish bread-winners in Germany (before 1933) belonged to the professions, whereas their relative proportion among the emigrant Jewish bread-winners of 1933 was about 20% 2 . Furthermore, as will be seen below, the emigration of Jewish academics and members of the professions was particularly striking during the first half of 1933. It was therefore considered at the time one of the important and pressing problems connected with Jewish emigration from Germany.
The central significance of the emigration of Jewish academics and other professionals from Germany in 1933 is also evidenced by the intensive organisational activity on the international and national level during this period, which aimed at finding a professional place for these emigrants in their host countries. The reports of James McDonald, the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, show that this international body, which was designed to co-ordinate relief efforts to dealing with the academics and professionals amongst them. McDonald justified this not only because 'these groups constitute an important part of the total emigration.' He also claimed that they represented the intellectual elite of the emigrants and as such created specials problems, which differed from those of other emigrants 3 . Furthermore he believed:
Less than for any other group is a general solution possible for these categories. If their contribution to learning and science is to be preserved, they have to be slowly and individually absorbed in new places of work on lines of their training.' 4
In order to cope successfully with the special problems connected with the organisation of the emigration of academics and other professional Jews from Germany and their absorption in other potential host countries, many Jewish organisations dealing specifically with this problem were founded, especially in the West. These organisation generally specialised in one of the three subgroups included in this wider definition of academics and professional people, i.e. academics (professors, lecturers etc.), those in the liberal professions (doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, writers, etc.) and students 5 . Among these were the Academic Assistance Council (A.A.C.) in London, and the Emergency Council for Displaced German Scholars, New York, which led the way in organising the emigration of holders of university positions, mainly to Britain and the U.S.; the International Student Service, Geneva, which carried out most of the organisation of the emigration and absorption of students, and the Comite de Placement pour les Refugies Intellectuels , which specialised in the emigration of members of the professions, first and foremost to France, which in 1933 was the main destination of Jews leaving Germany 6 .
After discussing the quantitative and qualitative importance of the emigration of Jewish academics and professional people from Germany, and the organisational activity connected with it, we will consider the question of the periodisation of this emigration and the character of the emigrants in each period.
During the first two months after Hitler came to power (February/March 1933) the tendency to emigrate obviously increased among the Jews of Germany. However, at this period there was not yet a phenomenon of mass emigration. The reports of both the Jewish and the German emigration bureaux show that most of the applicants in those months requested information on the possibilities of emigration to various countries, but had not yet commenced the emigration process 7 .
Parallel to the rise in the number of 'inquiries' and 'requests' for information in February/March, a particular kind of actual emigrant can be noted during these months, mostly academic or professional. These were the Jewish intellectuals (writers, artists, journalists, etc.), who had previously been active in the two main Left-wing parties, e.g. the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD), and who had become, as a result of their activity or of Pacifist principles, enemies of the new regime. These people, who were in fact political refugees, were threatened at this period (especially after the Reichstag fire at the end of February) with death or imprisonment in a concentration camp. They therefore escaped secretly across the border to Western European countries close to Germany (France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.), leaving behind them their jobs, their property and generally their families as well 8 .
This flight by Jews, endangered, like Gentile political refugees, by their political affiliation, was completely different from the Jewish emigration of April onwards. An anonymous report on emigration from Germany to Belgium in 1933-1938 illustrates the significant differences between them. It states that:
At the outset most of them were political refugees opposed to the Nazi regime and trying to escape the measures taken against them. [Their] number was rather small... But after the anti-Semitic trend of the German government, a new afflux arrived at the Belgian frontier. Now whole families arrived and not only men.' 9
Indeed, April 1933 brought about a major turning point in the extent of Jewish emigration from Germany and in its character, as reported in both German and Jewish sources. An anonymous report on the activities of the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden in Berlin during 1933 states that
Der erste gross Andrang waram 29. Maerz. Taeglich kamen dreihundert und manchmal mehr Petenten zu uns. Schon in den ersten Apriltagen zeigte es sich, dass wir mit unserem staendigen Beamtenapparat (11 Personen) die staendig wachsende Arbeit nicht zu bewaeltigen in der Lage sein wuerden.' 10
The Jewish Press in Germany also reports mass emigration during the last few days of March and the first days in April. On 7th of April 1933 the Juedische Rundschau reported that during the previous week about two thousand Jews from Germany had arrived in Holland, half of them in Amsterdam. On 13th April 1933, the same newspaper reported an announcement from the management of HICEM in Paris that hundreds of German Jews had approached their office in the past few days. Lawyers, doctors, engineers and architects were especially prominent among them 11 .
Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen , which handled emigration on behalf of the German authorities, described a similar situation. A report from the central office of the Bureau in Berlin states 12 :
Der Auswanderungsdrang der Juden setzte schlagartig im April ein und hat im Mai und Juni an Staerke noch zugenommen.'
The writers of the report continued to illustrate the turning-point of April by comparing the number of people expressing interest in emigration to Palestine in the first quarter of 1933 with the number in the second.
Ihre Zahl hatte im 1. Kalendervierteljahr 417 betragen, sie stieg im April auf 830, und im Mai und Juni auf 1074 bzw. 1062, so dass in der Berichtszeit insgesamt 2926 Auskuenfte ueber Palaestina erteilt [wurden]...' 13
The report gave the following details of the occupation and the last place of residence of Jewish emigrants.
Ganz besonders stark trat die Judenauswanderung in Berlin, Frankfurt a.M., Breslau und Koeln in Erscheinung... 14 Unter den juedischen Rechtsanwaelten, Aerzten, Beamten und Gelehrten, die bisher keine grossen Existenzsorgen hatten, herrscht gross Rat- und Ziellosigkeit.' 15
The report added that the emigration of Jewish professionals and doctors drastically increased the representation of this occupational sector among the emigrants 16 . Another report by the district bureau for emigration affairs in Cologne provides more specific information on the link between the type of emigrant and the exact timing of emigration. According to the report, the first to emigrate were Zionist Jews who wanted to go to Palestine. Afterwards came lawyers, doctors, officials, whereas now (the report was apparently written in July/August) business people were coming. The writers of the report add that in May there was a particularly strong impetus towards emigration among Jewish lawyers, doctors and medical students 17 . In view of the data presented up to that point, it may be asked why Jewish academics and professionals chose to emigrate en masse during the spring months of 1933, and especially during May. The answer to this question may be found in the national day of boycott held on 1st April, and in the anti-Semitic legislation of the same month, directed against Jews in the academic and other professions, and especially those of them working in the public sector. In the instructions of the Nazi Party (printed in the Nazi Party organ, on 29th March 1933) for the organisation of the 1st of April boycott it was stated 18 that action committees were to be set up immediately in order to plan and carry out the boycott of Jewish-owned shops, Jewish doctors and lawyers. Similarly, the committees were ordered to demand quotas in the employment of Jews in all the professions, according to their relative numerical strength in the population. In order to increase the force of the campaign, it was stated that the demand should be limited temporarily to three fields: attendance at secondary schools and higher education institutions; the medical profession; the legal profession.
These instructions illustrate the central importance placed on the attack on academics and professional people in the framework of the 1st of April boycott. The members of the SA who carried it out fulfilled their instructions, displaying signs with the slogan Meidet juedische Aerzte und Rechtsanwaelte' 19 . The economic and psychological effects of the boycott on Jewish academics and professionals were aggravated during April and the following months by a series of anti-Semitic laws and regulations which expressed the Nazi desire to reduce Jewish employment in these occupations, especially in the public sector, and led to the dismissal of thousands of Jews.
The Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (law for the restoration of the professional civil service) of 7th April 1933 (paragraph 3) declared that:
Government officials who are non-Aryans will be retired. Officials who already held their positions 1st August 1914, or who fought at the front for the German Reich during the Great War or whose fathers and sons fell in the war are exempt from this provision.' 20
Similar regulations, containing the same exceptions were published on 22nd April 1933 and on 2nd June 1933 relating to doctors and dentists working in public hospitals and for sickness benefit schemes 21 .
In order to strike at Jews hoping to engage in these professions in the future, a numerus clausus law was passed on 25th April 1933 limiting the numbers of new non-Aryan pupils and students permitted to study in schools and universities according to the relative proportion of non-Aryans in the population (1.5%) 22 .
All these laws and regulations undermined the livelihood of thousands of Jews and served as a major factor encouraging and hastening their emigration. According to one contemporary observer, the fact that they were generally not property owners also influenced the tendency of Jewish academics and professional people adversely affected by the anti-Semitic legislation to emigrate, sometimes at extremely short notice. He claimed that the professional person is generally mobile, needing to take with him or her only the knowledge and skill he or she has acquired. On the other hand, the trader of craftsman had to sell shops, stock and tools, generally at a loss, before emigration 23 . However, it emerges that the effects of the legislation were not uniform. A differential examination of some of the occupations included in the definition 'academic and other professionals' shows that emigration patterns varied from occupation to occupation.
The data given in the reports of the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany 24 shows that the Nazi legislation of spring 1933 brought about the dismissal of about 1,200 Jews holding academic posts in German universities. Of these, about 550, i.e. about 45%, left Germany during 1933; the other 650 remained in Germany. The relatively high percentage of emigrants (nearly 50%) among dismissed academics can be explained by the absence of real possibilities of alternative employment: a Jewish professor or lecturer dismissed from the university, who wanted to stay in Germany, had to undergo some form of retraining, which inevitably led to a major drop in status, social standing and wages. In most cases, he was unable to continue working in his profession in the private sector or among Jews, as could some of his professional colleagues, for example. As a result, he preferred to emigrate. A further major factor, which made it very easy for Jewish academics to decide on emigration, and which has been referred to earlier, was the intensive organisational activity around their settlement in Western countries. The reports collected by the A.A.C., which dealt with the activities of all organisations engaged in settling Jewish academics from Germany, show 25 that about 380 of these – about 70 % of all Jewish academics leaving Germany – found permanent or temporary posts abroad (between April 1933-April 1934). The A.A.C. alone helped directly or indirectly to settle 173 Jewish academics and place them in posts in Britain. As to finances, the organisations succeeded in raising $ 1,232,000 for the settlement of academics up to the beginning of 1935 26 . The successful organisational activity on behalf of the ÉmigrÉ academics arose also, of course, from the fact that among them were many famous scientists, even several Nobel Prize winners. The Western states, headed by Britain and the U.S.A., viewed this addition of scientific manpower favourably, and it is therefore not surprising that, unlike other professional people, who were scattered among many countries, including developing countries, academics tended to emigrate to developed Western countries, especially Britain and the U.S.A.
A similar pattern to that of the dismissed academics is found among Jewish chemists and engineers. At the beginning of 1933 there were about 1,000-1,200 Jewish chemists and engineers in Germany, to whom about 200 'non-Aryan' chemists and engineers should be added. About 400-500 of them, i.e. about 40%, emigrated during 1933 and the first half of 1934. The explanation for the high percentage of emigrants among chemists and engineers is apparently to be found in the great demand for these professions in the host countries. In this respect the chemical and engineering professions were in sharp contrast to the other professions for which there was only a limited demand in countries of refuge. The Jewish chemists and engineers dismissed from their jobs in Germany could easily find a new job abroad, and this fact made the decision to emigrate easier 27 .
At the opposite end of the continuum with regard to emigration patterns was the teaching profession 28 . At the time of Hitler's rise to power, there were about 1,200 Jewish teachers in Germany, some 600 of them in Jewish schools. The Nazi legislation of Spring 1933 thus affected only half of the Jewish teachers, i.e. those who worked in the general schools. Furthermore, one of the typical reactions of the German Jews, after the Nazis came to power and the first anti-Jewish legislation was enacted, was to extend the economic, cultural and educational activity within the Jewish community 29 . As part of this process, the network of Jewish schools was expanded and absorbed within a short time, 300 teachers expelled from the general school system. The dismissed Jewish teachers thus found an acceptable employment alternative, with no fall in status and social standing, within the expanding internal Jewish educational system. As a result, most of them tended to stay in Germany and the percentage of emigrants among them was low, almost negligible 30 . On the other hand, the situation of the 500 Christian 'non-Aryan' teachers who had lost their source of income was extremely difficult. Unlike their Jewish colleagues, they could not be absorbed in the Jewish educational system, and it is not surprising that some 40% of them (200 out of 500) were forced to emigrate 31 .
Between the two extreme patterns described above can be found the rest of the professions. Members of these professions (e.g. doctors, dentists, lawyers, artists, writers, journalists) had, at least in part, possibilities of satisfactory alternative employment in the private and/or Jewish sectors. At the same time, their settlement in the countries of refuge was certainly not as sure. These two factors operated together in the direction of a limited tendency to emigrate, expressed numerically at about 20-30% of all those engaged in these professions and affected by the Nazi legislation 32 .
Two professions, medicine and law, will be discussed individually in view of the special problems arising from their importance. The relative proportion of Jews among German medical doctors and lawyers was far higher than their proportion in the German population as a whole. Jewish doctors and lawyers formed a very high proportion of all Jewish professionals.
At the beginning of 1933 some 5,000 Jewish and 'non-Aryan' lawyers and notaries were active in Germany 33 . About a third of them (1,650) were dismissed as a result of the anti-Semitic legislation of April 1933. Among the latter about 300 (a little less than 20%) left Germany during 1933 and the first half of 1934. However, the position of those who were not dismissed was also extremely difficult: about 55% of them (1,850 out of 3,350) earned less than the minimum required to support their families. This situation arose out of the drop in the number of both criminal and civil cases during 1933, by about 60% in comparison to 1932, as a result of the rise in power of the totalitarian Nazi regime. In addition, about 50% of the remaining cases were included in the category of cases where the state paid the lawyer's fees. Naturally Jewish lawyers were excluded from dealing with these cases. If these two figures are added it will be seen that, in comparison to 1932, only about 20% of the legal cases in Germany were open to Jewish lawyers. Moreover, as a result of the Nazi rise to power, Jewish also lost private clients (companies, corporations and private individuals) who preferred, for obvious reasons, 'Aryan' lawyers. The employment situation of Jewish lawyers was thus very hard, and it is easy to understand why the ranks of the 300 lawyers who emigrated on being dismissed were swelled by another 300 who also decided to leave Germany. In all, about 600 Jewish lawyers emigrated during the period between April 1933 and June 1934. However, it should be emphasised that despite the severity of employment conditions for the Jewish lawyers in Germany, the number of emigrating was not high. The explanation may be found in the difficulty of settling in the host countries. Unlike the doctor, the lawyer needed not only a perfect grasp of the language but also of the local legal system, which could not be quickly acquired. As a result many lawyers were forced to change their profession in the countries where they settled, a factor which deterred them from emigration on a large scale 34 .
References:
* This article is part of a wider research project (Ph.D. dissertation) entitled Emigration Patterns of German Jews 1918ΓÇô1938 , which attempts to determine a typology of the emigrant at the group and individual level. Motives for emigration or remaining in Germany will also be traced in order to reach conclusions about the decision to emigrate, its timing and the choice of host country.
1. The basic post-war research on the problem of German-Jewish emigration is Werner Rosenstock, 'Exodus 1933ΓÇô1939. A Survey of Jewish Emigration from Germany', in LBI Year Book I (1956), pp. 373ΓÇô390. This pioneering research presents a quantitative analysis of the scope of emigration, its chronological course and direction. Along with Rosenstock's analysis, there are works on emigration from the political and organisational point of view. Two representative works are: Shalom Adler-Rudel, Juedische Selbsthilfe unter dem Naziregime 1933ΓÇô1939. Im Spiegel der Berichte der Reichsvertretung der Juden in Deutschland , Tuebingen 1974 (Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts 29), pp. 72ΓÇô120; Abraham Margaliot, 'The Problem of the Rescue of German Jewry during the Years 1933ΓÇô1939. The Reasons for the Delay in their Emigration from the Third Reich', in Yisrael Gutman and Efraim Zwolff (eds.), Rescue Attempts During the Holocaust , Jerusalem 1977, pp. 247ΓÇô266. Both authors deal with the activity of the Jewish Organisation in Germany and abroad in regard to the Jewish emigration from Germany, and the Nazi attitude and policy towards it. The most comprehensive and updated contributions to this subject are Herbert A. Strauss's two detailed articles: 'Jewish Emigration from Germany. Nazi Policies and Jewish Responses', Part I, in LBI Year Book XXV (1980), pp. 313ΓÇô363; Part II, in LBI Year Book XXVI (1981), pp. 343ΓÇô411. This large-scale synthesis covers the spectrum of all organisational and political aspects of the problem. Although Strauss touches also on the economic factors in the first part of his article (pp. 338ΓÇô346), it cannot serve as a systematic analysis, and this paper answers the call for such an analysis. This research is novel also in the choice of sources. In contrast to the previous works, depending on Jewish source material, the present author uses in this paper also German and other, non-Jewish sources.
2. Data on the occupational distribution of the Jewish bread-winners in Germany can be found in the tables appearing in Esra Bennathan, 'Die demographische und wirtschaftliche Struktur der Juden', in Entscheidungsjahr 1932. Zur Judenfrage in der Endphase der Weimarer Republik . Ein Sammelband herausgegeben von Werner E. Mosse unter Mitwirkung von Arnold Paucker, Tuebingen 21966 (Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts 13), pp. 105ΓÇô106. It should be noted that among the 13% given by Bennathan are included 'those engaged in public and private services'. Most, but not all of these are included in the category 'academics and professionals'. This means that the proportion of the latter was almost certainly even lower. The data on the relative proportion of academics and professionals among all Jewish emigrant bread-winners from Germany in 1933 are found in Statement of J. G. McDonald, High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, made at the Opening Session of the Governing Body', Lausanne (5th December 1933), p. 4, Leo Baeck Institute Archives, New York (LBA, N.Y.), ARΓÇô7162. An identical figure (20%) also appears in the anonymous report 'The Effects of the German National Socialist Policy', p. 1, YIVO Archives, New York, RG 348, Box 6, File 130.
3. See, for example, High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany: 'Report of the Representative of the High Commissioner, on Activities during the Period May to July 1934' (4th to 5th July 1934), p. 1, LBA, N.Y., ARΓÇô7162, Box 7; 'Report on Activities of the Organisations Dealing with Academic, Professional and Student Emigrants' (April 1934), p. 1, LBA, N.Y., ARΓÇô7162, Box 6. Ibid. , pp. 1ΓÇô2.
4. High Commission for Refugees Coming from Germany, 'Report on the Present Position of the Refugees' (not dated), p. 11, LBA, N.Y., ARΓÇô7162, Box 8.
5. The detailed lists of all Jewish organisations active outside Germany on behalf of academic, professional and students emigrants can be found in High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, 'Report of the Representative...(4th to 5th July 1934)', loc. cit. , pp. 1ΓÇô8.
6. Ibid. The censuses and reports produced by these organisations provide much data, both quantitative and qualitative, on the migration patterns of emigrants according to their occupations. These data will be presented and analysed below.
7. On the phenomenon of people 'making inquiries' during the first months of Nazi rule, see report of the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden (untitled), p. 1, YIVO Archives, New York, RG 116, Folder 4; Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Muenchen, Vierteljahresbericht, Januar-Maerz 1933, p. 2, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Ministerium des Innern (BAYHSTA, MInn) 74182; Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin ΓÇô Stand der Auswanderungsbewegung im 1. Kalendervierteljahr 1933, p. 2, BAYHSTA, MInn 74165.
8. For two typical examples of such political refugees see: A letter from William Pickens to Dr. Hyman concerning Dr. Arnold Kalisch (30th April 1935), Joint-German Case Files, ARΓÇô7196, Box 10, Folder 7, LBA, N.Y., and the memoirs of Rudolph Sachs, A German-Jewish Refugee', LBA, N.Y., Memoirs Collection, p. 11.
9. A report (untitled and undated) concerning the immigration to Belgium 1933ΓÇô1939, YIVO Archives, New York, RG 116, Folder 5, p. 1.
10.Report of the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden from 1933 (see note 7), p. 1.
11. Juedische Rundschau , Nos. 28/29 (7th April 1933), Juedische Rundschau , Nos. 30/31 (13th April 1933).
12.Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin ΓÇô Stand der Auswanderung im 2. Kalendervierteljahr 1933, BAYHSTA, MInn 74165, p. 1.
13. Ibid.
14.Ibid. , p. 3.
15. Ibid., p. 2.
16. Ibid. , p. 7.
17.Taetigkeitsbericht fuer April, Mai, Juni 1933 der oeffentlichen Auswanderungsberatungsstelle, Koeln, Hauptstaatsarchiv Duesseldorf, Reg. Aachen, 18467, pp. 7ΓÇô8.
18. Voelkischer Beobachter (Sueddeutsche Ausgabe), Nr. 88 (29th March 1933).
19.Martin Broszat, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Helmut Krausnick, Anatomie des S.S.-Staates , Band II, Freiburg 1965, p. 313.
20. Reichsgesetzblatt , I, 1933, p. 175. A translation from the Hebrew version appearing in Yitzhak Arad, Yisrael Gutman, Abraham Margaliot (eds.), Ha'Shoah Be'Teud , Jerusalem 1979, p. 44.
21. Reichsgesetzblatt , I, pp. 222, 350.
22. Reichsgesetzblatt , I, p. 225. The summary of the law is taken from Joseph Walk (Hrsg.), Das Sonderrecht fuer die Juden im NS-Staat , Heidelberg-Karlsruhe 1981, pp. 17ΓÇô18.
23.Georg Flatow, 'Zur Lage der Juden in den Kleinstaedten', Juedische Wohlfahrtspflege und Sozialpolitik , 4 (1933/1934), pp. 237ΓÇô245.
24.'Report of the Representative of the High Commissioner', loc. cit. (July 1934), p. 3; Report on Activities of the Organisations..., loc. cit. (April 1934), pp. 1, 3.
25. Ibid. , p. 3.
26.High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany: Report on Present Position of the Refugees (undated, circa 1935/1936) LBA, N.Y., ARΓÇô7162, Box 8, p. 12.
27.'Report of the Representative...(4th to 5th July 1934)', loc. cit. , p. 7.
28. Ibid. , p. 6.
29.On this matter see Abraham Margaliot, 'Megamot veDrachim Be'Ma'avaka HaKalkali Shel Yahadut Germania Be'Tekufat Ha'Redifot Ha'Naziot', Uma Ve'Toldoteha , Part 2, The Modern Period, Shmuel Ettinger, (ed.), Jerusalem 1985, pp. 339ΓÇô357.
30.'Report of the Representative...', loc. cit. (July 1934), pp. 6ΓÇô7.
31. Ibid.
32.Ibid. , pp. 5ΓÇô7.
33. Ibid. , p. 5. This report gives the data on lawyers brought below.
34.Taetigkeitsbericht fuer April, Mai, Juni 1933... loc. cit. , p. 7; Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin, loc. cit. , p. 2.
