Ideological Transfers and Bureaucratic Entanglements: Nazi ‘Experts’ on the ‘Jewish Question’ and the Romanian-German Relations, 1940–1944

Each political party will be changed because it is determined by its internal and external factors. The changes are ongoing at their political process and mechanism, towards their objective and gives an impact to environment both to internally and externally. The change occured on Golkar’s structures and political changes in facing national reformation movement. Research affords to describe the changes that have been going on, through external dan internal determinants, process and mechanism, as well as the objective and impact. The research object is Golkar’s structures and political interaction that changed at the Golkar party in Bandung. The research used political sociology studies, qualitative approach, and descriptive methods. Meanwhile, the techniques of collecting data used document, literature, observation, and in-depth interview with using resource triangulation. The result of research showed Golkar faces process and mechanism changes, particularly about political structures and interaction. It determined by external (national reformation movement) and internal (democracy demand) factors. It leads to objective (adapting, modernizing, democratic, and decentralization) and impacts (to the Indonesian armed forces retired members and the civil servant and also the people to make and manage new political parties). To modernize its structure and political interaction, Golkar in Bandung should be continue the commitment, consistency, and adaptation to the nation development and dynamic of the region in Bandung.

This chapter analyses the views expressed in the Catholic press between the two world wars regarding the Jewish question in Poland. Catholic periodicals of the inter-war period expressed a range of attitudes towards the Jewish minority, ranging from strong hostility to moderate approval. All Catholic journalists agreed, however, that there was indeed a ‘Jewish question’ and that the Jewish minority in Poland posed a threat to the identity of the Polish nation and the independence of the Polish state. The general tenor of the articles published in the Catholic press was that all attempts to ease the conflict between Poles and Jews were unrealistic; without a fundamental reform of Polish policy towards minorities, there was little hope for peaceful coexistence between the two communities. There were even proposals to abandon the existing policy that acknowledged Jews as having the same rights as Poles and recognized them as equal citizens. The Catholic press warned against treating the situation lightly: there could not be two masters (gospodarze) on Polish soil, especially since the Jewish community contributed to the demoralization of the Poles, took jobs and income away from Poles, and was destroying the national culture.

This chapter describes how the ‘Jewish question’ and its ‘solution’ were defined in Catholic publications. The call to strengthen Christian values in the modern age and the call to convert the Jews were the most common solutions offered in English Catholic newspapers. The Tablet, the Catholic Times and the Catholic Herald did not change their view that the Jews brought their fate upon themselves, despite anger at the brutality of the pogrom. The Gelben Hefte did not share the self-restraint that the papers of political Catholicism tried to practise. National Socialism could tap into a stream of antisemitic stereotypes that were popular and common since the First World War. Most literature on Catholic antisemitism asserts that racial antisemitism was firmly rejected by Catholics. Generally, this discussion shows the nature of anti-Jewish prejudices and times and occasions when the intensity of antisemitic articles was specifically high.

Historians have generally accepted the notion that Hitler's war against France was planned and conducted as a Blitzkrieg from the very beginning. Recent research, however, has shown the fallacy of this assumption by firmly establishing that Hitler and his generals expected the war in the West to become a re-enactment of the First World War. This review puts the new findings in military history in the context of other recent studies on Nazi plans to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ after the surprisingly fast victory over France. It links Nazi war and extermination planning with Hitler's underlying ideology and strategy and looks more closely at the still controversial Madagascar plan. One of the questions discussed is why there were no plans to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ under the cover of the war against France, a war expected to last for years.

During the Second World War, the Vichy government published many of the same antisemitic laws in Tunisia as it did in the metropole. But in Tunisia, the ‘Jewish Question’ also became a question of maintaining control over the French Empire. Vichy racial legislation aimed at the Protectorate’s multinational Jewish population did not only reflect the state’s antisemitic policies; rather, these laws were inextricably bound up in France’s colonial rivalry with Italy. In a colony where French political and economic hegemony had been only tenuously secured in the preceding decades through strategic naturalization, Vichy racial laws presented French authorities with a radically new avenue to consolidate power in the Protectorate; however, they also threatened to upend Tunisia’s economy and provoke Italian intervention. This article explores how the frequently-delayed and often partial application of Vichy anti-Jewish laws in Tunisia resulted from the difficulties of reconciling the aims of economic aryanization with the exigencies of protecting French rule against the pretensions of Fascist Italy.

This chapter describes how the ‘Jewish question’ and its ‘solution’ were defined in Catholic publications. The call to strengthen Christian values in the modern age and the call to convert the Jews were the most common solutions offered in English Catholic newspapers. The Tablet, the Catholic Times and the Catholic Herald did not change their view that the Jews brought their fate upon themselves, despite anger at the brutality of the pogrom. The Gelben Hefte did not share the self-restraint that the papers of political Catholicism tried to practise. National Socialism could tap into a stream of antisemitic stereotypes that were popular and common since the First World War. Most literature on Catholic antisemitism asserts that racial antisemitism was firmly rejected by Catholics. Generally, this discussion shows the nature of anti-Jewish prejudices and times and occasions when the intensity of antisemitic articles was specifically high.

ABSTRACTAfter the massacres and genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, thousands of Armenian refugees arrived in Romania and reinvigorated the local minority group (native Armenians), which at that time was mostly assimilated. While native Armenians were citizens, the refugees were stateless people holding Nansen passports. From the 1930s on, and especially during the Antonescu regime (1940–44), the legal status of Armenians, especially of Nansen refugees, worsened due to the rise of ethno-nationalism, particularly in the economic area (a process called Romanianization). This article investigates the ‘Armenian Question’ in World War II Romania, including its connection with the ‘Jewish Question’. Believing that Nansen Armenians were disloyal to Romania—because some of them wanted to repatriate to Soviet Armenia and engaged in communist and fascist revolutionary organizations—and profited from the Romanian economy, and especially from Romanianization, the Antonescu regime treated this group as dangerous foreigners and subjected them to police surveillance and legal and economic persecution, resembling, to a certain extent, its antisemitic policy. However, Antonescu did not push the persecution of Nansen Armenians too far and, in general, they fared better than the Jews.

The article discusses the “Jewish question” in the Polish-language press in Łódź at the turn of the twentieth century (until the First World War). The follow- ing titles were analyzed: Rozwój, Goniec Łódzki, Kurier Łódzki, and Nowy Kurier Łódzki. These journals represented different ideological profiles. Especially after the Revolution of 1905, Rozwój demonstrated support of National Democracy, while Goniec and its successors—Kurier Łódzki and Nowy Kurier Łódzki—be- longed to the progressive camp. This had a direct impact on their attitudes toward Jews and the Jewish question. While Rozwój quickly became openly antisemitic and anti-Zionist, its competitors followed a path typical of the Polish intelligentsia of the time, in which different positions clashed. In the end, however, the press in Łódź did not show any greater originality of views on the issue than the Warsaw press, and the multinational character of the city, which required the cooperation of many ethnic and religious groups, did not prevent the local press discourse from promoting the idea of assimilation to antisemitic attitudes.

Several studies have dealt with British antisemitism after the First World War but they disregard the wider manifestations of the Jewish Question’ by attributing too much importance to marginal antisemitic groups. Proper treatment of the question must also relate to attitudes that single out Jews, even to those that are not prompted by hatred. The Jewish Question was not a confrontation between two clearly distinguishable groups—Jews and Gentiles— but involved a dynamic and composite system of relationships.

Reviews 9o4 7heXewish Question' inGerman Literature, 1749-I939: Emancipation andits Discontents. BYRITCHIE ROBERTSON. Oxford: Oxford University Press.I 999. X + 534PP.£60. Although there havebeentomes written aboutthe'Jewish Question' inGermany andtheworld atlarge, Ritchie Robertson's bookisthefirst full-length study ofthe literary expressions ofthe Jewish question as itwasshaped inmyriad forms from the Enlightenment tothe rise ofNazism. Robertson doesnotseek toreveal howthe debateabouttheJewish question led totheHolocaust, as manyscholars have sought to do. Instead, he explores theproblematic natureofEnlightenment philosemitism andhowJewsand Gentiles in Germany andAustria reacted to emancipation through literature in their endeavour to define Jewishness inthe period from I 749 to I 939. Theresult isan erudite, original, andinsightful study. Robertson combines thorough research with sophisticated close readings ofselected texts, andinthe process hemanages tocapture aspects ofthe struggle about Jewish identity andself-identity without conforming toa Holocaust agenda, that is,without trying toshow howthe rise ofthe Jewish question historically ledtothe Holocaust. Robertson's bookis divided intofive chapters: 'Enlightenment', 'Liberalism', 'Antisemitism', 'Assimilation', and'Dissimilation'. Though hemoves chronologically from theI 7sostotheI g30s, Robertson isnot primarily interested incomprehensive historical documentation and chronology. Each chapter setsoutto examine a particular phaseofthe Jewish question, andhow Jewish identities were forged out ofmaterials that camefrom the Jewish tradition andtheGerman culture inwhich their writers grew up.Chapter I, 'Enlightenment', setsthestage byexploring in depth howtheprocess oftheemancipation of Jews wasa double-edged sword, for Jewsofthelateeighteenth century wereexpected toreform themselves and/or improve their moralcondition byconverting to Christianity ifthey weretobe emancipated andrecognized as Germans. Robertson provides a brief historical account ofGerman Jewry before emancipation andthen proceeds toexamine the reasons Germans sought to'emancipate' theJews: toleration, mercantilism, and rationality. Often these reasons weremixed andweredebated byGermans and Jewsalike.Robertson focuses on texts byGotthold Ephraim Lessing, Christian Wilhelm vonDohm, Wilhelm vonHumboldt, andMosesMendelssohn while also relating howthetraditional-minded Jews debated with theenlightened Jews about theessence ofJudaism andwhether they couldpreserve their valuesagainst the secularizing pressures inherent inpluralism. InChapter 2,'Liberalism', Robertson begins bysurveying theramifications thatgreater emancipation hadfor Jews in Austria andGermany inthenineteenth century, andhecomes totheconclusion that 'wehavea development inwhich emancipatory liberalism gradually losesout tofree-market liberalism andJews aregradually excluded from the political process. Theirentry intoGerman andAustrian society, outwardly successful, gavethem limited and decreasing power,whiletheycontinued, evenafterfullformal emancipation, tobeidentified asJews' (p.85).Robertson then studies three texts, Heinrich Heine'sDieBader von Lucca (I829),Berthold Auerbach's Spinoza (I837), andFanny Lewald's jFenny (I843),toreflect uponthemanner inwhich Jewish writers dealtwiththisdilemma. At theend ofthechapter he presents three engrossing casestudies ofthelives andkeyworks ofArthur Schnitzler, Sigmund Freud, andStefan Zweig todemonstrate their basicdiscontent with themanner in which the Jewish question undermined their faith inrational inquiry. In thenext chapter, Robertson shifts hisfocus byexamining the diverse forms ofanti-Semitism andtherepresentation ofJewsin selected texts byGentile writers. Herehe is concerned with theanti-modern mentality andthestereotypical images ofJews MLR,96.3,200I 9o5 projected inthe writings ofFriedrich Hebbel, Ferdinand vonSaar,Wilhelm Raabe, andThomas Mann. In Chapter 4 'Assimilation' Robertson investigates the Jewish responses tothe failure oftheir hopes for greater integration. Here,too,heprovides a large amount ofhistorical background that covers the period primarily from I870toI930,andhe emphasizes howJews hadbecome model Bildungsburger inGermany andAustria, onlyto encounter variousforms of subtleand vitriolic antisemitism. He is particularly incisive inexploring thetensions ofassimilation andacculturation as theyare depicted in theJewish family novelsof Ludwig Jacobowski, Jakob Wassermann) GeorgHermann, Arthur Schnitzler, Auguste Hauschner, Adolf Dessauer, andMaxBrod.Inaddition, there areexcellent sections onMaximilian Harden, KarlKraus, HansNatonek, andEliasCanetti that dealwith Jewish selfhateas wellas a general account ofthenationalism ofJewish writers andtheir friendships withGentiles. In hisfinal chapter, 'Dissimilation', Robertson argues that World WarI wasa turning-point inGerman-Jewish relations because Jews werecompelled torealize that, nomatter howthey might fight for andembrace German nationalism, they would always remain Jewish intheeyes ofGermans and thus identified according tocertain prejudices andstereotypes. Asa result, the Jews reacted byreinventing newwaysofbeingJewish and created various Jewish identities throughout theI920SandI930S.HereRobertson studies theambivalent attraction totheEastern Jew, Orientalism, andZionism andhowsuchwriters as Joseph Roth, Theodor Herzl, andArnold Zweig sought topresent alternatives to . . . . . . Demg Jewls z InAustrla or Jermany. Robertson's book ends abruptly without a conclusion. Itends with a comment on Arnold Zweig's novel De Vraendt kehrt heim, which Robertson believes adumbrates the political and moraldilemmas thatwouldarisefrom theJews'homecoming in Palestine. Thisisa curious andyet very appropriate 'ending' toRobertson's superb study. It iscurious becauseRobertson refrains from drawing together themany strands ofthe Jewish question asrepresented inthe literature of Jewish andGentile...

Common historical wisdom has it that the Peasant Revolt of 1907 and the elections of December 1937 reflected the profound anti-Semitism of the Romanian peasantry. And since the events of 1907 and 1937 have also been looked upon as decisive in determining the course of the history of the peasantry, if not of Romania as such, it seems only proper to assess the accuracy of these contentions.The revolt of 1907 was indeed a social movement directed against the exploitation of the impoverished Moldavian and Wallachian peasantry by Romanian landlords and Jewish “arendaşi” (Leaseholders). After 1907, and throughout the interwar years, Romanian historiography and political propaganda stressed the anti-Semitic character of the uprising in an effort to exonerate the absentee, and other, Romanian landowners and to emphasize the exploitative nature of Jews and Jewish capitalism. The Jewish question was organically connected with the peasant question in a variety of ways, all condemnatory of Jewish and Judaizing capitalism.As none of the major political parties of pro-World War I Romania—or, for that matter, few of interwar Romania as well—paid more than lip service to the economic and social plight of the peasants, it was convenient to regard the Jew as the root cause of all the evils affecting the peasantry. Before World War I, populists and, paradoxically, socialists enunciated political theories regarding “neoserfdom,” which, however different in origin, converged in demands for radical land reform. The reform came not because of such demands but because of the Bolshevik Revolution and the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires. Officially, it was unrelated to any political ideology, certainly separated from the Jewish question which, in theory, was resolved concurrently with the peasant question through the granting of citizenship and extension of political rights to the Jews of Romania. Following the countrywide agrarian reform in Greater Romania the peasant and the Jewish questions were in fact severed as Jews and Jewish capitalism had virtually no connections with the land.

Reviews 203 The First World War as a Caesura? Demographic Concepts, Population Policy, and Genocide in the Late Ottoman, Russian, and Habsburg Spheres. (Gewaltpolitik und Menschenrechte, vol. 3). Edited by christin pschichholz. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2020. 247 pp. €49.90. ISBN 978–3-428–18146–9. This thought-provoking volume is the product of a 2016 conference organized by Christin Pschichholz in conjunction with the University of Potsdam and the Lepsiushaus Potsdam. Its aim is to place the 1915–16 Turkish genocide against the Ottoman Armenians in a broader regional context while also examining the cross-border connectedness of radical population policies during what Ronald Suny, borrowing from Domenico Losurdo and Enzo Traverso, calls the ‘international civil war’ that began in 1914 (p. 13). All of the contributors — with the partial exception of Peter Holquist, who identifies 1905–07 as a significant moment linking Tsarist population policy and revolutionary, classbased violence in Russia in 1917–21 — agree implicitly or explicitly that the First World War was a caesura. Yet by comparing the ‘unprecedented dimensions of demographic engineering’ (p. 7) in the late Ottoman, Tsarist and Habsburg empires, they also tease out important differences between them. For Ottoman Turkey, as both Hans-Lukas Kieser and Oktay Özel show, the year 1913/14 was critical in terms of setting the political goal of ethnic homogenization of Anatolia as the heartland of a new, regenerated empire following the loss of the Sultan’s last remaining territories in North Africa and Europe (with the exception of Edirne, recovered from Bulgaria in July 1913 after the Second Balkan War). Talk of ‘microbes’ that needed to be ‘removed’ from the empire’s territorial ‘body’ emerged in 1913 and fed directly into the 1915–16 genocide. By then the entire Armenian population — women, children and older men as well as younger males — were identified as an internal enemy or ‘fifth column’ (pp. 89–90). In Tsarist Russia, there was no actual genocide, although Holquist mentions the Imperial army’s suppression of the 1916 Central Asian uprising as getting close to this. There were also the mass deportations of various population groups — Jews, Germans, Baltic peoples and others — from the western borderlands to the interior in 1914/15. What this had in common with policy in the Ottoman empire was the identification of particular ethnic communities as a permanent security threat, thereby legitimizing ‘exceptional’ state action, and — in wartime — the extension of violence to the entire ‘enemy’ civilian population, whether that population was to be found in home or occupied territory. This was as much a ‘western’ as an ‘eastern’ phenomenon, as Mark Levene, Arno Barth and other contributors stress. When British diplomats sought to restrain Russian violence against Jews in 1915, this was not a straightforward public-spirited gesture (as western criticisms of the Kishinev pogrom of 1903 perhaps had been) but became entangled with narrative strategies that ‘securitized’ the Jewish question, in other words, turned it into a security Reviews 204 issue not just internally for Russia, but internationally too. New demographic concepts of borderland protection, cultural identity and world order — ‘often [expressed] in the most phobic and paranoid terms’, to quote Levene (p. 41) — meant that Jewish (and German) populations globally could now be seen and spoken of as a potential threat to the unity of the Allied cause. A similar dynamic was at work in the anti-German riots that took place in Moscow, in the UK and in many parts of the British empire, again in 1915. Where does this leave Austria-Hungary? Certainly the behaviour of the empire’s military leadership towards border populations in East Galicia and Bukovina, annexed Bosnia-Hercegovina and occupied Serbia, and on the frontiers with the Kingdom of Italy, especially in 1914–15, evinces a similar pattern of sanctioning ethnic violence under the guise of defending imperial territory. Internment camps such as Thalerhof near Graz, mentioned by Serhiy Choliy in his contribution, are a case in point. However, compared to the Ottoman and Russian spheres, there was no drive towards full-scale national/ cultural homogenization in the Dual Monarchy. True, as Hannes Leidinger argues, there was a ‘systematization of hatred’ against Serb ‘terrorists’, Ukrainian ‘russophiles’ and Italian...

Historians of British antisemitism consider Arnold White (publicist, author, journalist, campaigner) a key exponent of racially orientated anti-Jewish sentiment in the United Kingdom in the period before the First World War. These attitudes were repeatedly demonstrated by his vehement opposition to East European Jewish immigration and underscored by a large literary output on the topic. In the late 1880s, White frequently clashed with leading Anglo-Jewish figures on immigration yet, in general terms, there was often difficulty in assigning him definitively to the antisemitic camp. This was the result of his work for Baron Maurice de Hirsch and the Jewish Colonization Association, which led to a more flattering interpretation of White's contribution to solving the so-called ‘Jewish question’. Indeed, at times, he was actually regarded as a ‘friend of the Jews’. Johnson's study examines the problems Anglo-Jewish society had in analysing and negotiating the White world-view. For instance, an appreciation in the Jewish Chronicle described him as a ‘veritable Janus at the gates of Jewry’, essentially a two-faced troublemaker whose true attitude was not easy to determine. For almost three decades, the question of whether White was friend or foe was asked by various individuals and publications. Ultimately, Johnson considers what White and his Anglo-Jewish encounters reveal about the nature of the Jewish-Gentile relationship and how antisemitic ideology was confronted in Britain in the period before the outbreak of the First World War.

Journal Article The Belgian Government in Exile in London and the Jewish Question during the Second World War Get access Veronique Laureys Veronique Laureys Palais de la Nation, Brussels Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Historical Research, Volume 67, Issue 163, June 1994, Pages 212–223, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1994.tb01826.x Published: 12 October 2007

A review of the chosen teachings of the Church concerning Jews and Judaism – both official and unofficial – showed that in the twentieth century, before the Second World War, the Church spoke especially in response to the errors of racism, statolatry and various forms of Antisemitism. The historical context were the Russian revolutions, World War I, the fascist movements. The Church's statements intensified when, at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, the National Socialist Party grew stronger, taking over power in Germany in 1933, leading to the tragedy of World War II and the drama of the Holocaust (Heb. Shoah). Although in its official teachings the Church has always been cautious in wording, in order to avoid direct involvement in political matters or become a party to any conflict, some statements of the popes referring to the broadly understood "Jewish question" can be considered as "milestones". This applies above all to the letter of Pope Benedict XV considered by some to be the most important act of opposition to Antisemitism, the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" by Pius XI, opposing the idolatrous relationship to race, nation, state or power and emphasizing the value of the religion of Israel and the Old Testament and the famous formula spoken during the meeting of Pope Pius XI with the Belgian pilgrims: "spiritually, we are all Semites".