November Pogrom Research Articles

Emigration as Rescue and Trauma: The Historical Context of the Kindertransport

Why did the majority of German Jews not escape the impending catastrophe caused by Hitler and the National Socialists by fleeing from Hitler's sphere of influence? Those who ask this naive question neither think about the economical and administrative difficulties which stand in the way of emigration nor do they consider the political hurdles put in the way of German, and later other European, Jews by potential receiving countries. Loss of status, almost always incurred by emigration, and a lack of professional qualifications for the country of immigration proved further difficulties. Assimilated German Jews' identification with Germany was a significant, maybe even the most significant reason, which stood psychologically in the way of emigration.(1) Very few German Jews reacted to the new German government with thoughts of emigration. The realization that the basis for Jewish life in Germany was lost was not widespread among Jews in the spring of 1933. The difficulties of emigration (these ranged from the Reichsfluchtsteuer emigration tax and progressive economic harassment to pillage and plunder before emigration) were one hurdle; the problems posed by the immigration authorities (proof of available means, professional qualifications, affidavits and guarantors) were the other.(2) At the time of Hitler's rise to power 550,000 Jews lived in Germany. Only 38,000 left in 1933. In 1934 the number of emigrants came to 23,000, whereas in 1935 20,000 German Jews emigrated. The Nuremberg Laws, which classified the Jews of Germany as second-class citizens without political rights, caused a small increase (25,000). During the year of the Berlin Olympic Games in 1936, emigration declined again. The biggest exodus, amounting to 40,000 emigrants, took place in 1938 and was caused by antisemitic harassment following the Anschluss of Austria, which had a Jewish population of 190,000, and following the November pogrom in Germany. In 1939, 75,000 to 80,000 Jews left the National Socialist sphere of influence. By 1939 it was clear that anti-Jewish policies were being stepped up; this became apparent in the violent expulsion of 17,000 Polish Jews, in the pogroms of Kristallnacht, and in numerous laws and policies including required registration of Jewish possessions and the compulsory addition of Sara and Israel as additional forenames for Jews. To start with, France was the most favored country of exile; Austria (until 1938), Czechoslovakia, and the Saarland, which was under a mandate by the League of Nations, were the first stages. Up to the autumn of 1938, 11,000 Jews fled to Great Britain, but after the November pogrom another 40,000 found refuge there. Palestine and the U.S. were the most popular destinations for exile. Because of the restrictive quota system introduced by Britain in Palestine, which it held under a League of Nations mandate, only a small number of the Jews wishing to immigrate there were allowed to do so. The British tried to prevent illegal immigration by all possible means. A quota system also regulated entry to the U.S.A., and this was coupled with the requirement to provide an affidavit from a U.S. citizen guaranteeing that the immigrant would not become a burden to the welfare system. Less than 50,000 German Jews found refuge in Palestine, whereas 130,000 made a new home in the U.S.A. All in all, only half of the German Jewish population succeeded in escaping National Socialist persecution by emigrating.(3) Until 1939 the National Socialist government both encouraged and hindered emigration simultaneously. Forcing Jews out of the economy increased their desire to emigrate, but the plundering of Jewish capital and high taxes hindered them from doing so. The insidious nature of the regime revealed itself in its hope of exporting antisemitism. This could be achieved, it was calculated, if the expelled impoverished Jews became a social problem in their country of exile. After the Anschluss of Austria and annexation of the Sudeten German regions, the flight of Jews from the National Socialist sphere of influence became the main focus of attention in the neighboring states. …

Civil commotion and riot insurance in fascist Europe, 1922–1941

Insurance for damage caused by public unrest became popular in post-1918 Central Europe and proved to be a profitable business, but one that became increasingly problematic because of the role of fascist regimes in promoting civil commotion. This article addresses some of the experiences of insurance companies, especially the Munich Reinsurance Company, when trying to manage policies covering political unrest and riot in Italy, Germany and Spain between 1922 and 1941. In the case of Italy in 1922, the new fascist regime forced the insurers to pay for damages caused by the Squadri. In Germany, the insurers were forced to assume a fictitious liability for damages done to the Jews in the Pogrom of November 1938. In Spain, Franco forced the insurance companies to treat Civil War damages as a civil commotion and make payouts despite their strenuous objections. These experiences demonstrated that civil commotion insurance was most safely marketed in democracies that provided enough unrest but also law and order to make it worthwhile.

The Forty-Fivers: A Generation Between Fascism and Democracy

In 1999, Germans celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Federal Republic. Unlike the fiftieth anniversary of other events in the recent national past—the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, the anti-Jewish pogrom of November 1938, and the unconditional surrender in 1945—this is not an awkward occasion for the country’s elites. On the contrary, the Federal Republic is indisputably Germany’s most successful state, and its record of stability and prosperity compares favorably with that of two prominent neighbors, France and Italy. This anniversary gives us pause to pose the basic questions about West Germany. How was it possible to construct an enduring democracy for a population that, exceptions notwithstanding, had enthusiastically supported Hitler and waged world war to the bitter end?

Antisemitismus im lebensgeschichtlichen Kontext: soziale Prozesse der Dehumanisierung und Schuldzuweisung

A stage model for the gradual process of de-humanization of Jews after 1933 is developed by means of a biographical case-study based on interviews with bystanders and persecutors of the Third Reich which are counterposed to interviews with Jews who experienced persecution in Germany and Europe. These stages correspond to the state policy of deprivation of rights and extinction. In the first phase (1933-1935) contacts between Jews and non-Jews decrease. The second phase (1934-1938) starts with the Nuremberg Laws and ends with the November pogrom 1938. The isolation and avoidance of Jews increases. Thirdly, 1938-1945: the persecution of the Jews and mass transports lead to the point, in which Jews are totally de-humanized and they disappear from public awareness, until they appear again as concentration camp prisoners towards the end of the war. In the fourth phase, after the end of the Third Reich, the socially created awareness of the extinction of Jews corresponds to the projection of feelings of guilt onto the Jews. The creatures without identity are turned into ,guilty' Jews.

Not Available

AbstractWhen the National‐Socialists started their restrictive measures against Jewish civil servants and professionals in 1933, they caused a wave of emigration only to be surpassed by the one following the Anschluß of Austria and the ‘November pogrom’ in 1938. Due to their great number, jewish doctors were to become the main object of Nazi persecution in the professional group. Up until 1935 Palestine was their main destination of immigration. In 1935 the British Mandatory Government passed a numerus clausus which mainly cut down the licensing of newly arrived doctors. The article deals with the social problems caused by the mass immigration of a highly qualified professional group in Palestine and with the fight against the restrictive measures of the mandatory Government. A short retrospective glance is cast at the situation in Palestine before 1933. Finally an outlook is given at the impact of this immigration on the health system in Israel.

The "Jewish Question" in the "German Question," 1945-1990: Reflections in Light of November 9th, 1989

November 9th, 1989, the day the Berlin Wall fell, spontaneously suggests to historical consciousness the association with another November 9th: the great pogrom of November 1938, Reichskristallnacht, the night the synagogues burned. But is this association the case for every historical memorry to the same degree? Isn't it true that a newly gained liberty namely the freedom to change realities while remembering rivets attention on two different pasts? On the one hand, there is the memory of over forty years of German division and the development of the successor states to the Third Reich, and on the other, the harrowing world of murderous normalcy that held sway before May 1945 an era that suddenly appears to be so much more distant and removed from the present, so much more remote.2 Nothing is closer for some and farther for others than the question of the German-Jewish relationship at this critical historical juncture,