H. Freeden, The Jewish Press in the Third Reich, Providence & Oxford, 1993. pp. 21-28, 49-53, 57-59
To Stay or Leave?
Journalism has been called the 'interpretation of events.' 1 the problem of interpretation opens up numerous options for the journalist. There are cases in which he is at the veritable mercy of a kind of psychological 'gradient' molding his perceptions, manifested in the general direction taken by his efforts to make sense of the events of the day. This journalistic attitude stands in marked contrast with attempts to interpret events that involve a conscious effort on the part of the commentator to penetrate to the inner mechanisms and dynamics operative among the various events. In this sense, those who left a shaping imprint on the Jewish press in Nazi Germany were interpreters of the scene ΓÇô 'able to check the irresponsibility of those in power' 2 ΓÇô interpreters and admonishers, teachers and consolers. They stood torn between the poles of compulsion and conscience, constraint and knowledge, before the judgment chair of history and the butchers of the Gestapo.
There was a great deal more than mere semantic masquerade or opportunism behind the avowal of loyalty to Deutschtum ('Germanism,' German culture and mores) expressed by all shades of opinion in the Jewish press in 1933. The German Jews had strong psychological and intellectual bonds with Deutschtum , and felt they were an integral part of the German people 3 . As 'unpatriotic' and untrue as it may have been to deny those bonds in the first two years after 1933, such an avowal of allegiance was frowned upon and even viewed as dangerous during the course of 1935. Finally, in September of that year, the Nuremberg Laws made it a criminal offense 4 .
This problematic relationship with the German people and culture found greater expression in the pages of the Jewish press than in any other forum. It crystallized in the question: to stay or leave? The various options were discussed, ranging across a broad spectrum of stark hues and the finest nuances: the homeland vs. exile, Germany, Palestine or another country overseas, inner or external emigration. Deliberations were always based on the presupposition that economic survival was still possible.
The Nuremberg Laws brought this controversy to an abrupt end. German Jewry was stripped of its citizenship; the new direction, which until then had been open to differing interpretations, appeared clearly defined: the Nazis apparently now had a definite and set policy toward the Jews. The formerly bright palette of the Jewish press turned monochrome, and the constraints effected an internal Jewish accommodation with the new system.
The liquidation of the business enterprises of German Jews did not follow immediately on the heels of their removal from official positions and from political and cultural life. Rather, that process of gradual liquidation dragged on for some five years, punctuated occasionally by periods of 'economic upswing.' 5 If they sought a modus vivendi in Germany after the initial shock, Jews tended to follow the example of their co-religionists in two other areas, Italy and Eastern Europe. Italian Jews had been living already for more than a decade in a form of accommodation under fascism, and Jews occupied prominent positions in the fascist party 6 . Jews in Eastern Europe had accumulated experience over the decades in developing forms of coexistence with anti-Jewish regimes ΓÇô without coming to a conclusion that they should emigrate en masse. The fact that the Vatican had concluded a concordate with the new German government on July 20, 1933 was viewed as a sign that the highest levels of the Catholic church had moral confidence in Germany, even under Hitler. Moreover, it seemed unlikely that the Nazi regime would be anything more than a passing episode. Its ultimate fate depended on conflicts in its own internal camp 7 , as well as on the Western powers, Leo Baeck, who in 1933 had predicted an end to the thousand-year history of Jews in Germany, thought a year later that a military coup directed against Hitler was indeed a possibility 8 . From May 1933 until the summer of 1936, there were repeated expectations that the Western powers would introduce sanctions in response to Hitler's treaty violations; it is doubtful whether the Nazi government would have been able to survive such an eventuality 9 .
Under such circumstances, the question of Jewish emigration from Germany was less an expression of ideological outlook than the product of pragmatic considerations. It would be a gross simplification to maintain that the Juedische Rundschau , the official organ of the German Zionist Association, supported emigration to Palestine, and that the non-Zionist press at the time favored the idea of staying on in Germany, or later espoused the idea of emigration overseas and to other European countries. None of the papers excluded any of these options. Discussion about the primacy of emigrating to Palestine was only initiated after 1935. The Juedische Rundschau warned readers not to regard Palestine solely as a continuation of existence in the diaspora. 'Zionism is not a welfare office... it is an idea. ...For example, it would be mistaken to say that whoever has lost his job in Germany should go to Palestine... As paradoxical as it sounds, we have to advise many Jews nowadays not to go to Palestine, because there will necessarily be disappointments arising from such decisions. Palestine only gives to those who give to it.' 10
The papers differed in their analyses of the Jewish question. They agreed in the view that a return to Judaism was not identical with a return to the land of the Jews. Their common platform was: Judaism as an intellectual direction, a source of moral strength, a protection against defamation. 'Jews in the midst of... a world that rejects them are now beginning, intellectually and culturally, to strike out on an inward path.' 11 Or, in a formulation with strong religious overtones: 'What Germany's Jews need is for a burning wave of tshuva (repentance) to now sweep over them. Repentance and renunciation in all Jewish spheres.' 12
Zionists were no different from other Jewish groups in their deep attachment to Germany 13 . 'It is no easy task bearing the burden of the fate of an emigrant... We know that generations will remain true to what they have received from the German spirit.' 14 The Juedische Rundschau believed there ought to be possibilities for Jews also must find their place and be integrated into this state, and we hope it yet proves possible to find the form for this, one that is in harmony with the principles of this new state.' 15 What the author meant here was not a 'regaining' of rights by Jews, but rather a 'new restructuring' 16 of Jewish life: i.e., the Jews would have a possibility, after consolidation of the new state, to live there as Jews ΓÇô because the path of emigration was open "only to the few, and those who had especially high qualifications". 17 This standpoint was made even clearer: "Many a Zionist... may be linked by much stronger ties to the country of his birth than others who openly profess their loyalty." 18 No Jewish group, the paper emphasized, had raised the demand that Jews should forswear their allegiance to Deutschtum .
The Juedische Rundschau was also the first paper after the horrifying experiences of the national boycott of Jewish firms on April 1, 1933 to state in no uncertain language that the bonds linking German Jews with German culture and the German people could not be sundered - even as a result of such events. 19 However, the paper also called for preserving certain loyalties that could not be put on show and paraded before "those in power" - namely one's loyalty to Judaism. That was a form of faithfulness which demanded greater moral fiber than the repeatedly reiterated loyalty to Deutschtum. 20
The Juedische Rundschau rejected the notion of narrowly pigeonholing the Zionists, placing them, say, in the category of "specialists for migration to Palestine." After all, despite the difficult changes taking place in occupational life, the majority of German Jews, the paper believed, would have to stay on in Germany and succeed there in the struggle for survival. Thus, the Zionist task was to strengthen the backbone of Jews, to bring about a "transformation in the Jewish psyche." 21 Anyone who has a basic familiarity with the fate of many families... knows that the decision to emigrate or stay on is not prompted by considerations of ideology or principle; rather, it is questions of one's economic survival that play the crucial role." The paper was against drawing any conclusions about an individual's ideology and outlook from such a decision." 22
The journal Der Schild , the official organ of the Reichsbund juedischer Frontsoldaten, occupied the polar opposite end of the internal Jewish spectrum.23 It asserted that the will to cling steadfastly to every clod of German soil was more powerful than bloodless theory and brilliant literary subtleties.24 "Germany is not our second home by dint of choice; it is our [only] home and homeland... As Germans who risked their lives on the battlefield for Germany and then reaped this reward, we feel a sense of unspeakable shame." 25 The decision to save Deutschtum for German Jews insofar as they desired to be German was, the paper argued, a choice up to the Jews and lay squarely in their hand. 26 If the present-day generation were to inwardly bury their attachment to German culture and make concessions to the notion of encapsulating oneself off from the surrounding world, then German Jews would, by their own actions, be forfeiting the inner legitimacy for ever again demanding and acquiring full legal equality. 27 The German Zionists, if contended, were committing an error by trying to persuade this segment of German Jews to abandon their German outlook. 28 "This is where the great guilt of Zionism lies... By its struggle against emancipation, which it erroneously regards as a struggle against assimilation, it has endangered the very meaning of emancipation."29
The CV-Zeitung reached similar conclusions. 30 "The German Jews who are members of the CV differ from the Zionists living in Germany by the fact that, going beyond strict adherence to their duties as citizens, they follow what is taking place in Germany with great emotional interest." 31 In its overwhelming majority, German Jewry was, the paper asserted, determined to remain in its homeland for reasons of powerful inner psychological attachment, and not because of economic expediency; it was ready to serve the "ordered principle of the state". German Jewry did not want and solution that would dissolve its ties with Germany. 32 "The more and more the National Socialist state is strengthened and made a concrete reality as a result of its decisions, the more unthreatening for its expression and survival must the integration of a portion of the population be whose hearts have always beat strong with patriotic feeling for Germany... For us, Germany is our historical place." 33 Zionism, the paper went on, viewed the eventual separation of German Jewry from its German context - be it by emigration to Palestine or while staying on in Germany itself - as inevitable, regarding only the specific point in time as uncertain. The CV, in contrast, regarded a later reintegration as definite and only a matter of time, though its precise hour remained uncertain." 34
The Israelitisches Familienblatt was a unique case within the Jewish press in that it was the only one of the large Jewish papers unaffiliated with an institution r organization. An advertisement on its own behalf read: 'Today a Jewish paper has to have absolute editorial independence, and not be subservient to any party or large organization; it must take a clear and unequivocal stand on the issues and concerns of the day.' 54 Although its publisher M. Lessmann had tried hard to give the paper a nonpartisan flavor, the personal outlook of the four subsequent chief editors made itself felt in the paper's orientation 55 .
In 1933, young people finishing their school exams were advised by the paper to come to a realization 'that the Jewish craft trades and agriculture in Germany nee new blood' 56 and that 'we Jews cannot be torn from the body of the German people without leaving lasting, bloody wounds.' 57 Even after being temporarily shut down by the Hamburg police, the paper stated that 'after [occupational] restructuring has been completed, we shall present ourselves to those of our fellow German Volksgenossen as the kind of individuals we always were: an integral part of the German people ΓÇô full of strength, ready to engage in reconstruction, a segment that cannot be discouraged or kept down long by any blow of fate.' 58
The first article of the paper on emigration opportunities, with reports from Denmark, England, Holland, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Czechoslovakia, carried the pessimistic caption: 'Abandon all Hope... No Possibilities to Survive Economically for German Jews Abroad.' The paper noted: 'We did not request information from our staff correspondents in the Holy Land because anyone desiring to got there can obtain comprehensive information from the Palestine Office, Berlin W15, Meinekestrasse 10.' 59 A short time thereafter, the paper published a full-page spread 'From the Holy Land,' with reports and information 60 . That column became a regular feature and was further expanded, though the section on Palestine was incorporated as part of a new page entitled 'Occupational Restructuring and Emigration.' 61
The initially negative attitude toward emigration was amended that the same summer by other reports: 'Are There Prospects for Emigrants After All? What Foreign Countries Need and Don't Need,' 62 an article in which Belgium and Morocco were added to the above list of countries. In September, the paper conducted a large-scale survey, 'The Situation of Emigrants in Various Countries,' including ten countries in Europe, along with Palestine, the United States, Egypt and Latin America 63 . An editorial at year's end concluded: 'Though it is certain that the inexorable constraints of living will drive a good many of the younger generation of Jews to embark upon the building of their economic existence far from their homeland, the destiny of the greater majority of German-Jewish youth will, of necessity, be played our here on German soil... Over the past six months, Palestine, the land of our fathers, has demonstrated both its Jewish and practical economic importance for a substantial number of German Jews. For that reason, the heavy burden of concern for an undiminished continuation of Jewish immigration to Palestine... rests upon the entire Jewish community.' 64
In early 1934, the paper dispatched two correspondents to study the situation of Jewish emigrants from Germany in European countries as well as the situation and prospects in Palestine. The reports appeared in a double series, one entitled 'German Jews Abroad' and the other 'German Jews in the Jewish Country.' The first began with the question: 'Did they burn all bridges behind them, or had they only been seized by that old wanderlust which reverberates through the lines of both German and Jewish folksongs? ...Are others helping to look after you, are you able to provide for yourself, are you happy or would you like to return home?' 65 An editorial in the second series, which later was issued in book form by the publishers of the Israelitisches Familienblatt, distinguished between 'those who don't care which particular country can offer new opportunities for living and those for whom, if forced to depart from their German homeland, there can be only one destination: the Holy Land.' 66 Without touching on emigration, the article 'Taking Stock After Two Years' dealt with 'new forms of our Jewish communal life... a strengthening of Jewish consciousness.' 67 There was a nonpartisan cal for religious renaissance and a distinctive Jewish cultural life. A month later, the paper sent another reporter, Doris Wittner, to Palestinon special assignment. 'The Berlin Jewish author of novels and travel literature, for years a quite well-known writer, has been dispatched by us on assignment. She is now on board the ship Tel Aviv', that steamer of the new and the first purely Jewish Palestine Shipping Co., and has begun the initial leg of a Contemplative Trip to the Land of the Jews'.' 68
Following its relocation to Berlin 69 , the paper commented in its issue for Passover holiday: 'It is precisely our tragedy as Jews that we are forced again and again, without wanting to do so, to pick up the wanderer's staff.' 70 The editors prefaced extracts from Fritz Theilhaber's book Untergang der deutschen Juden? (The End of German Jewry?) with some advice: 'Let's be optimists! Let's assess the future of German Jewry without any illusions far removed from the real world, yet likewise devoid of that paralyzing absence of hope, completely lacking any basis in reality.' 71
References:
1. Kurt Loewenstein, 'Historiker und Publizist,' in Tramer und Loewenstein, 1961, p. 84f.
2. Time , December 23, 1983.
3. 'The Zionists did not differ from the anti-Zionists or non-Zionists in respect to their deep attachment to Germany,' Dawidowicz, 1977, p. 221.
4. Walk, 1981, p. 127.
5. Freeden, 1963, p. 7ff.
6. Lexikon des Judentums , Guetersloh 1967, pp. 201, 551f.
7. 'General von Blomberg...informed Hitler that he was authorized by the Field Marshal that unless the present state of tension in Germany was brought quickly to an end, the President would declare martial law and turn over the control of the state to the Army. When Hitler was permitted to see Hindenburg for a few minutes in the presence of Blomberg, the old President confirmed the ultimatum. This was a disastrous turn of affairs for the Nazi Chancellor...if the Army took over, that would be the end of him and of Nazi government.' Shirer, 1968, Book II, 'The Blood Purge of June 30, 1934.'
8. Dawidowicz, 1977, p. 238.
9. 'As Jodl testified at Nuremberg, Considering the situation we were in, the French army could have blown us to pieces.'...That almost certainly could have been the end of Hitler...for the dictator could never have survived such a fiasco,' Shirer, 1968, Book III, 'A Coup in the Rhineland,' pp. 403, 405. In March 1936 the two Western democracies were given their last chance...as we have seen Hitler admitting ΓÇô to bring the Nazi dictator and his regime tumbling down,' p. 405.
10. Juedische Rundschau , October 20, 1933.
11.A.H., in CV-Zeitung , April 4, 1935.
12. Der Israelit , March 30, 1933.
13.'In truth, there is less indication that the average Zionist was in any way less devoted to his German homeland than the average non-Zionist, or that he was in any fundamental sense opposed to the ideals which secured Jews their freedom,' Jacob Boas, 'Germany or Diaspora,' YLBI , 27 (1982), p. 117.
14. Juedische Rundschau , April 13, 1933.
15.Ibid., August 29, 1933.
16.Ibid.
17.Ibid., November 14, 1933.
18.Ibid., July 31, 1934.
19.Ibid., June 16, 1933.
20.Ibid.
21.Ibid., November 17, 1933. Robert Weltsch later regretted that, in his well-known article 'Wear the Yellow Badge with Pride' ( Juedische Rundschau , April 4, 1933), he had called upon the Jews to demonstrate pride instead of encouraging them to leave the country as soon as possible (Dawidowicz, 1977, p. 223).
22. Juedische Rundschau , March 6, 1934.
23.'The Jewish organization...which restructured itself after 1933 in accordance with the 'principle of the leader' [ Fuehrerprinzip ]...and that wanted to integrate all Jews into this state was the Reichsbund juedischer Frontsoldaten with its 30,000 to 40,000 members...But that attitude was acknowledged' by the Nazis only for a short period of time. Starting with the end of 1935, the Reichsbund also dealt with the question of emigration and Palestine; in 1937, it reached a reconciliation with the ZVfD, an organization it had previously waged a bitter struggle against.' Alexander Schoelch, 'Das Dritte Reich, die zionistische Bewegung und der Palaestinakonflikt,' Vierteljahreshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte , 1982, Heft 4, p. 654f. Cf. also Dunker, 1977, pp. 113ΓÇô185.
24. Der Schild , July 27, 1933.
25.Ibid., April 13, 1933.
26.Ibid., April 27, 1933.
27.Ibid., May 11, 1933.
28.The term 'German outlook' has been used here and elsewhere to render the distinctive expression deutsche Gesinnung which denotes a complex of attitude, ideology and patriotic sentiment [trans. note].
29.30.Ibid., September 14, 1933.
31.'Hardened by previous ordeals, the readers of the CV-Zeitung were resolved to ride out the storm in Germany. Hence, for Alfred Hirschberg the question of a Jewish future in Germany hinged on finding a place inside the German order,' in accordance with the state's new principles,' Jacob Boas, 'Germany or Diaspora,' YLBI , p. 112.
32. CV-Zeitung , December 14, 1935.
33.Ibid., August 17, 1933.
34.Ibid., October 19, 1933.
35.Ibid., September 20, 1934.
36.Ibid., January 11, 1934.
37.'The Hamburger Israelitisches Familienblatt' resembled nothing so much as the gemuetliche middle-brow journal written for the average petit-bourgeois family in city and country, the Sunday paper that wants to edify, educated and comfort, the Jewish equivalent of the (anti-Semitic) Gartenlaube.' Herbert A. Strauss, in World Federation of Jewish Journalists, p. 323.
38. Israelitisches Familienblatt , March 9, 1933.
39.Ibid., April 13, 1933.
40.Ibid., April 20, 1933.
41.Ibid., June 2, 1933.
42.Ibid., June 29, 1933.
43.Ibid., October 19, 1933.
44.Ibid., July 6, 1933.
45.Ibid., September 14, 1933.
46.Ibid., September 28, 1933.
47.Ibid., February 1, 1934.
48.Ibid., March 8, 1934.
49.Ibid., February 7, 1935.
50.Ibid., February 14, 1935.
51.Last issue in Hamburg, March 28, 1935; first issue in Berlin, April 4, 1935.
52. Israelitisches Familienblatt , April 17, 1935.
