Jewish Emigration from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule (Part B)
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
An important sub-group among the Jewish lawyers, which was even more severely affected than were the lawyers as a whole, was that of the notaries, who were closely linked to the public legal system. As a result they were doubly affected by the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums of 7th April 1933. It might be expected that this fact would increase the notaries' tendency to emigrate, in comparison to other lawyers. In fact, the quantitative data available confirm this assumption 35 : during one year from 7th April 1933 to 1st April 1934 the number of 'non-Aryan' lawyers in Prussia fell by 39%, whereas the number of 'non-Aryan' notaries fell by 56%. In Berlin alone their number fell by 56.5% and in Kassel it reached its lowest point of 73%, a phenomenon not found among lawyers anywhere else.
Two sets of data are available with regard to the total number of Jewish medical doctors in Germany on the eve of Hitler's rise to power, the number of them affected by the Nazi legislation and the number of doctors who emigrated. According to the 'maximalistic' numbers given in McDonald's reports 36 , in January 1933 there were in Germany some 9,000 Jewish and 'non-Aryan' doctors. About 4,000 of them were affected by the Nazi legislation: 3,000 were expelled from the Krankenkassen (sickness benefit schemes) and another 1,000 were dismissed from the public hospitals. About 1,100 of those losing their jobs (about 27%) left Germany during the April 1933-June 1934 period.
Other, more 'minimalistic' figures appear in the German doctors' journal, Das deutsche Aerzteblatt . They were based on a census held among doctors in Germany and were quoted in the general German and the German-Jewish press 37 . According to these figures, on the eve of the 'Nazi Revolution' there were 6,488 Jewish doctors in Germany. Their relative proportion among the total population of doctors in Germany (50,000) reached about 13%. As a result of the April 1933 legislation 1,667 'non-Aryan' doctors were dismissed from the Krankenkassen and of these about 500 (30%) emigrated during that year.
Despite the difference in absolute numbers between the two sources, it may be noted that the percentage of those emigrating among the dismissed doctors is almost identical in both of them, 27% and 30% respectively. The second, German, source provides further information on the effect of the anti-Semitic legislation on the emigration of Jewish doctors. According to this source, a total of 578 Jewish doctors emigrated of Jewish doctors. Five hundred of them were, as stated above, doctors emigrated in 1933. Five hundred of them were, as stated above, doctors who emigrated as a result of their dismissal from the Krankenkassen . The emigration of these doctors was especially noticeable in the large cities, in which the relative proportion of 'non-Aryan' doctors was much higher than the national average, which was 26% of all the Krankenkasse doctors in the Reich . For example, in Berlin the percentage of 'non-Aryan' Krankenkasse doctors on the eve of the Nazi legislation was 43%, in Breslau 39.8%, and in Frankfurt am Main 38.7%. It will be remembered that these three cities were the 'main suppliers' of Jewish emigrants in the April-June 1933 quarter 38 .
A more exact figure on the relatively high proportion of doctors from the large cities among the total number of doctors emigrating may be found in another German source ΓÇô the Berlin doctors' journal 39 . According to this journal 86% of all doctors emigrating were residents of the large cities in Germany. About 70% of all doctors emigrating came from Berlin alone, where 40% of all the Jewish doctors in Germany lived 40 .
These quantitative figures thus indicate that the vast majority of doctors emigrating came from those dismissed from the Krankenkassen , mainly in the large cities: from Berlin, Breslau and Frankfurt am Main. This shows the link between the Nazi legislation against the Jews and their decision to emigrate. However it should be noted that only 30% of the doctors dismissed actually did emigrate. An important explanation for this is found, as in the case of the other professions discussed above, in the ability of those dismissed from the Krankenkassen to continue to support themselves by relying on the demand of the private sector. For the Jewish doctor affected by the Nazi legislation the move from the public to the private sector was relatively easy, especially in Germany. The public medical system there was based on the traditional pattern of private medicine; the German-Jewish doctor working for a Krankenkasse was not a salaried employee. He received patients, both private and Krankenkasse members, in his private surgery, and the insurance funds did not dictate his work conditions. The Krankenkassen in Germany did not maintain independent medical institutions. They merely served as agents for health insurance, covering the costs of treatment, medicines and hospitalisation provided by private institutions and doctors with whom they had signed contracts 41 .
McDonald's report quoted above 42 also shows the importance of private practice as a factor encouraging Jewish doctors to remain in Germany. In the section dealing with the medical profession, the High Commissioner states that the employment situation of the dismissed doctors was not so serious, able as they were to engage in private practice, enabling them to maintain themselves economically.
The same conclusion is reached from the study of an autobiographical source 43 , using a specific case to demonstrate some of the wider emigration patterns. The writer, a lawyer, describes how in 1930 he joined the firm of a relative who had been active in the Unabhaengige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (USPD) in the early years of the Weimar Republic. At the end of February 1933, only one night after the Reichstag fire, his partner fled to Paris, because he was now considered an 'enemy of the German people'. The writer himself, who was not yet either physically or economically threatened, continued to work in the office for several months. He left Germany only in June 1933, as a direct result of his disbarment. His brother, a doctor by profession, remained in Germany even longer. Most of his patients continued to attend his private surgery and he had an income sufficient even to support his elderly mother.
Differential examination of the various academics and the professions as we have shown thus proves that among those injured by the Nazi legislation the tendency to emigrate or to remain in Germany depended largely on two factors: the existence of realistic possibilities of alternative employment in the Jewish/private sector which did not involve a drop in status, social standing and income (Jewish teachers, doctors, journalists, artists) or the absence of such an alternative (university professors and lecturers, notaries, Christian 'non-Aryan' teachers); good chances of economic absorption in another country (engineers and chemists, university professors and lecturers) or prospective difficulty in economic absorption in those countries (lawyers).
To these should be added another important factor affecting all academics and professional people ΓÇô the degree of vulnerability to the Nazi legislation of members of different age groups among Jews belonging to these professions. As stated, the dismissal of civil servants, lawyers, doctors and dentists did not apply to Jews who had held their posts since before the First World War, who had fought at the front in that war or whose relatives had been killed in it. Thus the younger age groups (20-35) were more exposed to Nazi legislation than the older age groups. It would therefore be expected that a greater incidence of emigration would be found among the young than among their older colleagues. In fact, the sources do suggest such a trend; for example, in an article in a German-Jewish newspaper on emigration from East Prussia 44 it is stated that young academics affected by the Nazi legislation are the leading group among the emigrants. A similar picture is obtained from the memoirs of contemporaries. Liselotte Kahn, the wife of a Nuremberg Jewish doctor, writes that her husband was able to continue to work since he had served as a doctor in the First World War and had been wounded 45 . However a young doctor whom she met in the street told her that he was forced to emigrate since he had lost his job; he was too young to have served in the war. The writer goes on to make a generalisation that the Jewish doctors who were too young to have seen war service were the first to be affected by the Nazi legislation. To conclude her discussion of this issue, Liselotte Kahn quotes another young doctor who told her that 'It is probably better to be forced out of the country than to be able to continue working like Ernst and having the torture of making the decision to leave on your own.'
A survey of the 'German case files' of the Joint 46 also confirms this impression. The younger doctors had found it difficult to build up an extensive private practice within the relatively short time since they had completed their studies. Thus they did not have alternative employment in the private sector which would support them decently. Quantitative confirmation of the over-representation of the younger age groups among the emigrants in the academic and professional category can be found, at least in part, in the data referring to emigration of Jewish doctors in the first two years of Hitler's regime 47 : 66% (860 out of 1307) of all doctors emigrating in those years were aged 30-45, and a further 10% were still younger.
Up till now the emigration of academics and professionals has been examined mainly at the sectoral level. However, in order to trace the decision to leave or to stay, the choice of timing and destination, examination must be made at the level of the individual. The main sources for this are the 'German case files' of the Joint and the memoirs of emigrants of the period.
An important factor, already mentioned in the discussion at the sectoral level, was dismissal or disbarment. Expulsion from their workplace, which generally struck Jewish academics and professionals as bolt from the blue, is frequently mentioned in the 'case files' of the Joint as an immediate cause of emigration. Furthermore, the proximity in time between the date of job loss and the decision to emigrate is often striking 48 .
Another important factor, which affected those not dismissed, and was therefore influential after 1933 as well, was a fall in income. This affected mainly doctors and dentists who could continue to practise in the private sector, but who felt, subjectively, that their income was no longer sufficient, to provide a decent living 49 .
Jewish students who had just completed, or were about to complete, their course of study, especially in medicine or law, were affected by another economic aspect. They assumed that as a result of the anti-Semitic legislation of April 1933, they had almost no chance of finding a livelihood in Germany in their field of study in the future. As a result, they were inclined to emigrate in order to finish the remaining years of study, or to begin their specialisation, in another country where they could continue working in that field 50 .
It is known that 44% (3,500 our of 8,000) of the Jewish students expelled from German universities in 1933 as a result of the law against 'overcrowding of German schools and institutions of higher learning' emigrated 51 . The relatively large extent of emigration among the students is similar to that of the university lecturers and of the engineers and chemists. The main explanations for this were the relatively promising economic prospects in the host countries set against the inability of finding future employment in Germany; the youth of the students, which made professional retraining easy if it became necessary; the fact that many of them held leftist views, i.e. they were political refugees; the students' unwillingness to become a burden on their parents 52 .
Until now mainly 'push' factors have been discussed. We will now discuss 'pull' factors attracting people to the countries of refuge, which had a decisive effect on the direction of emigration and its timing.
The prospects for economic integration and obtaining employment in the host countries have already been mentioned as an important catalyst for emigration in the case of academics, engineers and chemists. However, it was also important for members of other professions. One of the earliest examples was connected with emigration attempts by doctors and lawyers to go to Egypt, which met with no success: at the beginning of May 1933 the English newspaper The Daily Telegraph followed by the Germany-Jewish press 53 reported that the Egyptian government had decided to grant rights of settlement and employment to about 200 lawyers and doctors from Germany, victims of the Nazi legislation. As a result of the publication of this information the number of Jewish lawyers and doctors who sought to emigrate to Egypt rose considerably during May 54 . However, about a week later it turned out that the rumour was incorrect 55 . The Egyptian government denied it completely, and the Jewish doctors and lawyers who had hoped to settle in Egypt were disappointed.
This unsuccessful attempt illustrates the importance that information on employment opportunities in the host countries, or, on the other hand, on limitations of employment, held for the decision to emigrate to those countries and for the timing. A similar case with regard to the link between a government measure concerning the employment of emigrants and the timing of their arrival occurred in connection with the emigration of doctors to Palestine some two-and-a-half years later, in the summer and autumn of 1935. On 25th July 1935 the Mandatory Government of Palestine published a draft law limiting the number of work permits to be given to doctors reaching Palestine after 1st December 1935, by setting annual quotas. As a direct result of the publication of the proposed law, in the summer and autumn of 1935, mainly during October/November, about 400 doctors, mostly of German origin, arrived in Palestine in order to obtain a work permit before the quota law came into force 56 .
The reports of the Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen 57 show that those doctors who were already preparing their emigration brought their plans forward and carried them out during the summer and autumn of 1935, in order to anticipate the target date. These reports show that in the first quarter of 1936 there was a drastic fall in the number of German-Jewish doctors requesting to emigrate to Palestine. The reason is clear: the promulgation of the quota law considerably reduced employment prospects for doctors in Palestine from the beginning of 1936 and made Palestine, from that time on, an unattractive destination for them 58 .
Another important factor deciding the destination and timing of emigration was the emigrant's ability to transfer property, capital and pension rights to a particular country 59 . A clear example of the dependence between the possibility of transferring pension rights and the destination and timing of emigration was the attempt of the Central Bureau for the Resettlement of German Jews in Palestine to effect the emigration of Jewish civil servants in Palestine 60 . As cited above, as a result of the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (paragraph 3) thousands of Jewish civil servants were retired. About 100 of them expressed to the Bureau representatives their willingness to emigrate to Palestine. However they would actually emigrate only if their pension rights from the Ministries which had employed them (the Ministries of Justice, Interior, Culture) were transferred to them in Palestine.
The economic prospects for finding employment in a particular host country were not linked only to special laws and regulations published on this or that date by the local government. One particular country would sometimes have a consistently favourable reputation as to its ability to provide employment for members of a specific profession. It may be assumed that this was based on the experience of previous emigrants. Thus for example Italy was considered to be a country where historians, dealers and students of art had a good chance of finding employment in their field. Indeed, emigrants of this type formed a prominent group among the total number of emigrants to Italy during 1933-1934 61 .
A similar image was created for Britain as a country suitable for the settlement of doctors. Jewish doctors emigrating to Britain could obtain a doctor's license after supplementary studies and examinations. This opened up to them by the possibility of continuing to work in their profession not only in Britain itself but also in all the countries of the British Empire. Furthermore, as bilateral agreements had been signed between Britain, Italy and Japan, doctors with a British diploma could find work in these countries too. It is, therefore, not surprising that Jewish doctors tended to emigrate to a country which opened up for them such a variety of employment opportunities.
Nevertheless, the attraction of Britain for Jewish academics, professionals and students pertained only during 1933 and the beginning of 1934 62 . The reason for this was the new regulations (from spring 1934) which limited the export of capital from Germany. As a result of the Haavara Transfer Agreement these regulations did not apply to emigrants to Palestine. Academics and professional people therefore preferred Palestine to Britain from the second half of 1934 onwards 63 . In this case it can be seen that the consideration of ability to transfer capital and property outweighed the consideration of a varying employment possibilities.
For the members of certain professions such as the performing arts, writing and journalism, the German language was an important condition for professional success. It may be assumed that such people hoped wherever possible to emigrate to countries such as Austria, Czechoslovakia or Switzerland, where they could continue to work in a German-speaking environment. A general census held among the academic and professional emigrants registered with relief organisations in Europe 64 shows that such a tendency did exist: of 117 emigrants listed in Austria 72 (61 performing artists and 11 writers and journalists), i.e. over 60%, clearly belonged to professions based on the use of the German language. Further more, the number of performing artists, enumerated for Austria (61) was even greater than the number for France (55), then the most popular destination for the German Jews. A similar trend is found when examining the destinations of writers and journalists. Apart from France (where 64 members of these professions had settled) all the other important countries of refuge for writers and journalists could offer a German-speaking audience. Thus for example, a small country like Switzerland received 43 writers and journalists (2/3 of the number received by France), Czechoslovakia 20, Austria and the Saar region 11 each. Altogether German-speaking countries received over 50% (85 out of 167) of all the writers and journalists enumerated in the census in Europe.
Discussion of the emigration of Jewish academics and professional people, at both the sectoral and individual level, reveals the importance of economic motives and considerations. These factors worked in both directions, from the country of origin on the one hand, and from the host countries on the other. They largely determined the tendency to emigrate or to stay, the timing and the choice of destination.
References:
35. Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 17 (26th April 1934), p. 3. It should be emphasised that the drop in the number of lawyers and notaries in Prussia does not necessarily coincide with the number of emigrants, since it includes emigration plus internal migration plus those undergoing professional retraining and remaining in Germany. However, this does not detract from the importance of these data, since they are presented here only for purposes of comparison of the decrease in the number of notaries to that of lawyers, and not as absolute numbers.
36.High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, 'Report of the Representative...(4th to 5th July 1934)', loc. cit. , pp. 5ΓÇô6.
37.The data given below, quoted from Das deutsche AErzteblatt are found in Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 2 (10th January 1935); Juedische Rundschau , No. 2 (4th January 1935); Berliner Tageblatt , No. 614 (31st December 1934).
38.Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin, loc. cit. , p. 3.
39.The data quoted from the Berlin journal for doctors are found in Der Innsbrucker , No. 26 (31st January 1934), BAYHSTA, Praslg 3924. It should be noted that according to this source 412 Jewish doctors emigrated from Germany in 1933 as against the 500 given in Das deutsche AErzteblatt .
40. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs , Band 451, Heft 5 ΓÇô Die Glaubensjuden im Deutschen Reich (Volkszaehlung, 16.6.33), Berlin 1936, p. 98.
41.Ludwig Preller, Sozialpolitik in der Weimarer Republik , Duesseldorf 1978, pp. 284, 329.
42.High Commissioner for Refugees... loc. cit. (July 1934), pp. 5ΓÇô6.
43.Sachs, 'A German-Jewish Refugee', loc. cit. , pp. 2, 11ΓÇô16.
44. Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 3 (18th January 1934), p. 10.
45.Liselotte Kahn's Memoirs, LBA, N.Y., Memoirs Coll., pp. 15ΓÇô16.
46.A letter by Frida Mansbacher concerning her son (23rd December 1936), Joint-German Case Files, ARΓÇô7196, LBA, N.Y., Box 15, Folder 5; A letter by Otto Rubens and John Lanzkron (17th November 1933), Joint-German Case Files, ARΓÇô7196, Box 12, Folder 5.
47. Juedische Rundschau , No. 44 (31st May 1935), p. 2. The data are quoted from Das deutsche AErzteblatt .
48.Joint-German Case Files, ARΓÇô7196, LBA, N.Y.; 1. A letter by the lawyer E. Loewenthal (July 1933), Box 14, Folder 6; 2. A letter concerning Dr. Zeuner, palaeontologist (6th November 1933), Box 5, Folder 1; 3. A letter by Otto Rubens and John Lanzkron (17th November 1933), Physicians, Box 12, Folder 5; 4. A letter concerning Willy Israel, engaged in the film industry (13th June 1933), Box 9, Folder 3; 5. A letter concerning the lawyer Dr. Hirschfeld who left Germany just two days after he lost the right to practice law (7th February 1936), Box 8, Folder 5.
49.Joint-German Case Files, ARΓÇô7196, LBA, N.Y.; 1. A letter by Richard Lefkowitz, a dentist (29th January 1934), Box 13, Folder 1; 2. A letter concerning Mrs. Freund's daughter, a pediatrician (13th January 1936), Box 4, Folder 3; 3. A letter by Frida Mansbacher concerning her son, a pediatrician (23rd December 1936), Box 15, Folder 5.
50.High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, Memorandum on Refugees Employment (undated), pp. 1ΓÇô2, LBA, N.Y., ARΓÇô7162, Box 6; Joint-German Case Files, ARΓÇô7196; 1. A letter concerning the student Jacques Malkiel (12th September 1933), Box 15, Folder 5; 2. A letter by Heinz David (6th November 1933), Box 1, Folder 3; 3. A letter by Hans Krefeld (6th November 1933), Box 13, Folder 4.
51.According to a report of the International Student Service (May 1933ΓÇôAugust 1937), pp. 6ΓÇô7. Central Zionist Archives , Section AΓÇô255, File 860.
52. Ibid.
53.Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 19 (11th May 1933), p. 2.
54.Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin, loc. cit. (AprilΓÇôJuni 1933), p. 5.
55. Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 20 (18th May 1933).
56.A letter from Moshe Brachmann to Fritz Noak (Chairman of the Health Committee of the Vaad Leumi) (16th December 1935), Central Zionist Archives JI/2456; S. Kanowitz, 'Ein verfehltes Gesetz', Mitteilungsblatt der Hitachdut Olej Germania (1st January 1936), pp. 10ΓÇô12.
57.Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Muenchen, Vierteljahresbericht JuliΓÇôSeptember 1935, p. 9, BAYHSTA, MInn 74182; Taetigkeitsbericht der oeffentlichen Auswandererberatungsstelle, Koeln fuer JuliΓÇôSeptember 1935, p. 2. Hauptstaatsarchiv Duesseldorf, Reg. Aachen, 18957.
58.Taetigkeitsbericht fuer JanuarΓÇôMaerz 1936, ibid. , pp. 3, 15.
59.The question of transfer of property and capital as a deciding factor for the timing and destination of emigration is worthy of separate systematic discussion elsewhere. One example from the academic and professional sector will be presented.
60.A letter from the Central Bureau for the Resettlement of German Jews to Foley, the British Passports Office in Berlin (28th June 1933), Central Zionist Archives S7/64.
61.Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, BerlinΓÇôStand der Auswanderung im 3. Kalendervierteljahr 1934, p. 14, BAYHSTA, MInn 74165; die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Muenchen, Vierteljahresbericht fuer JuliΓÇôSeptember 1934, p. 6, BAYHSTA, MInn 74182. The reports emphasise that the emigration to Italy of art historians, students and dealers was striking in previous periods as well.
62.Taetigkeitsbericht der oeffentlichen Auswanderungsberatungsstelle, Koeln, fuer JanuarΓÇôMaerz 1934, p. 6, Hauptstaatsarchiv Duesseldorf, Reg. Aachen, 18467.
63. Ibid. (AprilΓÇôJuni 1935), p. 2.
64.Partial results of this census, held in 1934, were published in High Commission for Refugees Coming from Germany, Central File of Professional Refugees, London (4thΓÇô5th July 1934), LBA, N.Y., ARΓÇô7162, Box 7, p. 2. It should be emphasised that this census was problematic for two reasons: a) Britain, Holland and Belgium had not completed it by the date for returning results. The findings for these countries are therefore partial only. b) It included only people registered with the national and international relief and welfare associations, and not all academics and professional immigrants from Germany living in Europe. As a result it will be used only to suggest trends, ignoring the absolute numbers which are, as stated, fragmentary only.
