lps: Row see Ree epre CUNYS34B/Volkov ‘Frinterssherdian 521 84688 9 This page intemionally left blank May 732096lors Rew oszr8s:cscpre CUNY EIVolkav —Prioter:sherdian 0 320 89688 9 May 72096 Germans, Jews, and Antisemites Trials in Emancipation “The ferocity of tae Nazi attack on the Jews took many by surprise This book tries to explain why, Volkov argues thar 4 new look at both the nature of antisemitism and the complexity of modern Jewish life in Germany is required in order to provide an explanation. While anti- semitism had a number of functions in pre-Nazi German society, it most particularly served as a cultural code, a sign of belonging to a particu- lar political and culvural milieu, Surprisingly ichad only limiced effect fon the lives of tie Jews themselves. Theirs was a semarkable suocess story. By the end of the nineteenti century, cheir integration was well advanced. Many of them enjoyed prosperity, prestige, and the pleasures of metropolitan life. This did not necessarily entail an abandonment of Judaism. This book stresses the dialectical nature of assimilation, the lead of the Jews in the processes of modernization, and, finally, cheit continuous efforts to “invent” a modern Judaism that would fic theie new social and cultural positions Shulamit Volkov is the Konrad Adenauer Chair for Comparative Euro- pean History and Professor of Modern European History at Tel Aviv Universiry. She was a Fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford; The ‘Wissenschafeskolleg in Berlin; and tie Historisches Kolleg in Munich Wblkor is the author of The Origins of Popudar Antimodernisen in Germeny: The Urban Master Artisans, r873~r896 (1978), Die Juders ins Deutschland r780-ror8 {2000}, and two volumes of essays: Anti- semitismus als Kultureller Code (2000) and Das Kedische Projeks der Moderne (1001), She is the edivor of Detasche Juden und die Mod- ene (994) and Being Different: Minorities, Aliens, and Outsiders in History lin Hebrew, 2000},lpssraw seeRscesepre CUNYS34B/Volkov Pinte: sherdian 0 521 84688 9 May 732096low Rew oser85:cscpr€ CUNYs3;EIVelkov Printer: sherdian 0 522 84688 9 Germans, Jews, and Antisemites Trials in Emancipation SHULAMIT VOLKOV Tel Aviv University CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS May 72096Cambie, New Yor eborne Maid Cape Town, Sapapoce, Salo Cambie Unie Pass ‘The Bdsburgh lang Cambiar 230, U Pabirh in che Unie Sut of Ama by Cambridge Univeniy Pres, New York sromcambidgnory Tnfsanadon om chile: ww cambridge onS7B0521846882 ‘© Shamir Volkov 2006 “This publication isin copyright, Subject ostansosy exception and dhe peovision of eleva collesive licensing agesmane 0 sepeeduction of any pace may cake place swithout thevritten paminion of Cambadge Univesity Pes Fist published in prima foemar 2006 sacs pS-osiregiiy$ eBook EBL) BNO G3N-74N78 eBook (EBL) Iso) oyS-osan-8g688-2 hardback Ise-40 esar-84688-9, hardback Iso) sp8osz1-60555-5 paperback IsBe0 c-sar-Gooss-3 paperback CCombeidige Unive Prosshas no eesponsbils foe thepessistence accuasy of unis forever third-pacyinernet websites cefered to in chi publication, and nes wot nance chacanycomentensachwebsits,wileemain, accurate appecpsatelow Rew oser85:cscpr€ CUNYs3;EIVelkov Printer: sherdian 0 522 84688 9 May 72096 It is like a miracle! I have experienced it a thousand times and it remains forever new to me. One blames me for being a Jew, the other forgives me for it; the third even praises me on this account; but they all think of it. As if they were caged in that magical Jewish circle, no one can get out. Ludwig Birne, in a letter from Paris, February 7, 1832lpssraw seeRscesepre CUNYS34B/Volkov Pinte: sherdian 0 521 84688 9 May 732096low Rew JoserSscsopre CUNYs3:2/Volkeoy Printer: sherdian 9 321 Sa688 9 May 72096 Contents Preface age ix Prologue: My Father Leaves His German Homeland PART, INTERPRETING THE DANGER SIGNS, x. Views from East and West a. The Eastern Perspective b. Loyalty and Complacency 2 Bxcorsus on SelfsHarred and Self-Criticismn 3. Past Skadows, Present Needs a. TheKeistallnacht and Other Pogrons b. A View from Eretz Israel PARTI, ANTISEMITISM AS A CULTURAL CODE 4 Antisemitism Old and New 4, Origins and “Complete Explanations” b. The Vocabulary of Antisensisisms 5. Functions and Meaning 4a, National Consciousness: The Jew as the Other b. The Political Function of Antisemitism: in the Kaiserseict ¢. The Cudturad Meaninrg of Antisemitisns + Norms and Cades: Twa Case Studies a, The Case of Social Democracy b. Antisemitism and Anti Pemsisns 7» Comparing Germany with the French Republic 3 B 33 47 ay 4 7 ST ou 9 107 ug ug ng 145lpssraw seeRscesepre CUNYs3BVolkoy Frinterssherdian 0 521 84688 9 PART If, THE GERMAN-JEWISH PROJECT OF MODERNITY 8, Excorsus on Minorities in the Nation-State 9. Climbing Up the Social Ladder 42, Beconting Bourgeois b. Language and Proper Behavior ¢. Advantages and Disadvantages ro, Paradoxes of Becoming Alike a. Who Came to Resemible Whons? b. Demography ard Intimate Culture 1, Jewish Success in Science 4a, The Social Origins of Success b. Succeeding within the System x2, ‘The Ambivalence of Bildung 413» Forces of Dissimilation a, The Limits of Assimilation . Reassessing the Jews from she East 4. Inventing Tradition Epilogue: Closing the Circle index May 732096 Contents 359 379 370 381 392 209 224 334 337 248 356 356 263 276 287 299low Rew oser85:cscpr€ CUNYs3;EIVelkov Printer: sherdian 0 522 84688 9 May 72096 Preface This book addresses the great hope for equality, citizenship, and a life of parmnership thar had uplifted German Jews during the Fra of Eman- cipation, It treats the various factors that caused the shattering of this hope. It also treats the Jews’ extraordinary achievements - sometimes indeed against all odds ~ during that period. It is the stary of success on the brink of destruction. However, | do not intend to tell it im full nor in a perfect chronological order. My purpose is to dwell upon some of the questions this story has raised for me, from my own, personal point of view. Yer this is nor a private matter. My personal perspective is, in a sense, the perspestive of an entire generation, a generation of Jews, in particular Israeli Jews, who seem to be still contemplating the strange life-experiences of their parents and grandparents, sometimes even their great grandparents, in Germany before Nazism. Mine, I believe, is like- wise the perspective of a generation of historians, endeavoring to rethink what has traditionally been presented to them as a closed, reasoned, and sealed story. The questions pose reflect my place in the generational chain of German Jewry as well as my position in the historiographical chain of ‘writing abour them. They also reflect, as always, the uneasy rimes in which we live. They reflect, or so | hope, something of the search for identity by those who were brought up, as I was, on Zionism without doubts, of, in any case, on Zionism that felt unable to openly discuss doubts; of those ‘who were brought up while the extent of the catastrophe in Europe was being revealed but also while Jewish life was being reconstructed within the confines of a new world, with different and changing paramet “The history of the Jews in Germany has all too often been regarded as a mirror of Jewish fate in general. Zionists on the one hand, andlpssraw seeRscesepre CUNYs3BVolkoy Frinterssherdian 0 521 84688 9 May 732096 x Preface non-Ziouists, or even antiZionists, on the other, have repeatedly made ideological use of it. Even today historians continue to find themselves ‘grappling with issues that were controversial among German Jews aslong as a hundred years ago. Telling this story, historians find themselves all 100 often participating in debates belonging to past generations. We seem to be still entangled in that Jewish “magical circle,” referred to by Lud- ‘wig Bomme in the epigraph of this book. Equally complex and many-sided is the discourse about antisemitism, particularly in Germany, saturated by current political attitudes and dictated by positions taken on various current affairs. While | have not refrained from occasionally taking on explicit positions in this book, I tried to make at least some use of the relatively long historical distance now at our disposal. Even in dealing with such delicate issues, distance permits us, at long last, to detach our- selves from the circumstances of past debates and rethink them from our own angle, As historian, | am committed to applying the full range of historical sources, concepts, and methodological rools. | am committed to the effort of searching truth about the past. However, | am well aware of my Limitations, This history continues to bear upon my life. It touches my personal roots and the issues | am concerned with ~ not only as a historian, | have tried not to ignore this fact. For more than two decades | have been preoccupied with the history of antisemitism in Germany and the life of the Jews in that country. Some of the essays I wrore in the process, such as my work on “Antisemicism as 2 Caltural Code,” have had a modest influence on this field. Nevertheless, when] first beganto compile these essays, lrealized that they seem to form chapters of a single book and that the arguments in them stand out much better when presented together. The structure of the book, then, partially seconstrusts the path I trod during the years of research and partly reflects my present understanding of the theme as a whole, It begins with the question that had initially driven me to work in this field: Why was it so hard to see the approaching disaster? What caused the “blindness” thar afflicted so many Jews and non-Jews, in Germany and abroad? The premise underlying my answer to this question is that the difficulty was a result of the true complexity of the situation. Contemporaries did not suffer from a rare case of blindness or insensitivity. Matters were indeed so obscure and so mubidimensional that it was practically impossible, even for many clear-sighted men and women, to see through and extract, the ominous signs. In the first part of the book I therefore attempt to reconstruct what men and women living in that era saw, to tell their story by getting closerlow Rew oser85:cscpr€ CUNYs3;EIVelkov Printer: sherdian 0 522 84688 9 May 72096 Preface xi to their own world of vision and associations from a variety of perspec tives. Only then do I proceed to form my own interpretation of what 1 believe was the essence of their experience, discussthe external forces that influenced them, their individual and collective motivations, and above all, the various dilemmas they were forced to confront. | open with @ re-evaluation of the history of modern antisemitism in Germany. This is the focus of Parr Il of the book. Considering the tragic end of this story and my insistence on keeping alive today’s point of departure, discus- sion of this question could not be deferred. Here I mainly address the antisemitism of the second half of the nineteenth century, while explor- ing the role it then fulfilled in the functioning of German society and its connections with a variety of other, related issues at the time. This part is intended as a contribution to German, not only to German-Jewish, his- tory. Again, the underlying assumption may not be entisely self-evident: Coping with antisemitism, | would argue, was no doubt an integral part of the life of German Jews, It was central ro their lives even in that “semic neutral society,” to use historian Jacob Katz’ fitting term, within which they then learned to move and act. Undoubtedly, in order to properly appreciate their experience, we must understand its history. But the story of antisemitism, despite its paramount importance for Jews, despite the ‘Sant shadow it casts on every aspect of their life, is mainly the story of the non-Jews, in this case the other Germans, including but not exclusively the antisemires among them. Iris the peculiarities of German sociery and culture that inform the arguments in this part of the book. As for the Jews, antisemitism in this period was not really the focus of their existence, Part III of the book turns to tell their story. It often dwells, indeed, upon that seam connecting Jews with other Germans, but its focal point lies in issues that concerned Jews alone, As the discus- sion develops, I try to show that modern German Jewish history revolved around neither antisemitism nor Jewish efforts to be accepted, “German- ined” or assimilated. Jews were busy doing many other things at that time, Following an excursion into the problem of minorities in the mod= em nation-state, Part Ill describes frst Jewish efforts to climb up the socio-economic ladder and then some aspects of their acculturation. It then tums to deal with the process of Jewish modernization and explain its tactics of exploiting old advantages and devising new ones. After taking a closer look at one area in which Jewish sucxess was, indeed, phenome- nal, namely in the natural sciences, Part Ill moves on to abserve the limits of assimilation. By the late nineteenth century, “entry” could still be only partially achieved, but by then Jews were once again preoccupied withlpssraw seeRscesepre CUNYs3BVolkoy Frinterssherdian 0 521 84688 9 May 732096 Preface other matters, now mainly with the debates among themselves concerning the ways in which to reshape their identity under the new circumstances. This had to be done within a complicated context, within a society that simultaneously accepted and rejected them, that appreciated and resented them at the same time, that opened some gates for them and locked, par- tially or fully, some others. Thus, the story gets more intricate as we move along, The questions raised get thornier; the answers become, alas, less conclusive. ‘There is a broad historiography on German Jewry. In much of it German history merely serves as a background. In this book | tried to present Germany and its Jews within a single perspective. Jews, anti- semites,and “ordinary” Germans formed a whole that sould not be untan- led. Theirs is a single history. In addition, 1 rejest the historiographic convention according to which various historical genres must never be truly mixed. This book is conceived as both a cultural and a social his- ory. In writing it I used sources considered characteristic of inrelleecual history, such as the works of philosophers, iterary figures, and a variety of social observers. | also used sources deemed typical of social history, such as newspapers, memoirs, and some quantitative, statistical data, I main- ‘ain that historians must utilize all the sources at their disposal and that only by doing so can they begin to offset their major professional “draw- back,” namely their inability to interrogate and poll contemporaries, to folly decipher their symbolic and associative world, Moreover, within the book | have placed together findings based on extensive reading of the secondary literature with results based on my own primary investigations. “These investigations, such as the one constructing a demographic profile of one particular Jewish community in Germany, that ofthe city of Altona, or the one concerning a small yet important group of outstanding Jews in the natural sciences, were conceived in an effort to explore and expound very concrete questions raised in the course of my work, Although such studies may also be read separately, | try to place them in their proper context, within an overall framework, Hopefully they enrich the story. An earlier version of this book was published in Hebrew by Am Oved Poblishing House in Tel Aviv, 2002 Orit Friedland has prepared a full English translation of this version with much care and sensitivity. L am deeply grateful to her. The final text, however, has undergone numerous stylistic reformulations, as well as some changes in structure and organi- ation. A warm thank-you goes to Aya Lahay, too, who rewrote the notes with extreme care, rendering them more useful for the English reader,low Rew oser85:cscpr€ CUNYs3;EIVelkov Printer: sherdian 0 522 84688 9 May 72096 Preface xiii and in the process corrected and improved them considerably. | have also attempted to update my bibliography, but despite the continuing stream of works on German Jews, some of which are of the highest standard, | decided to make only slight revisions and a few sporadic additions to my ‘own text in response to these works. | hope my arguments hold within this rich and ever-changing historiographical context, too. ‘cannot possibly mention here all the people who have contribured to my work along the way - teachers, colleagues, friends, and students, in Israel and abroad, But | cannot conclude this preface without invoking the memory of my parents, both of whom have passed away during the years Iwas working on this project. They bath followed with some amazement my interest in the history of Germany in general and its Jews in particu- lar. 1, om my part, never understood why they were amazed. Afterall, it ‘was my father who had epitomized for me all the generosity and dignity typical of the German Jews, and it was my mother who had taught me, in her own way, 10 think critically even abour those I loved. This book is indeed related to my parents and interwovenin their lives by many strings, both obvious and subtle. But finally, it was only Alik Volkov, who shared with me the journey itself, the years of research, writing, and rewriting. He always believed, even when I had my grave doubts, that this was a worthwhile effort. It grieves me immeasurably that he will not be able to see the finished product. This book is dedicated to his memory with love.lpssraw seeRscesepre CUNYS34B/Volkov Pinte: sherdian 0 521 84688 9 May 732096loss ey S284488ipra CUNY BiVolkey Printer sherdian 9 yar 84688 9 May 72036 Prologue My Father Leaves His German Homeland “The story that intend totell inthis book, the stary ofthe Jews of Germany, can only be told backwards. Iris a story that must begin ar the end. And the end is that singular event in which European Jewry, millions of men, women, and children, were led to their death, gassed, and massacred in all manners of unnatural death, Hitler and his followers may have indeed known all too well how they were going to “solve” the “Jewish question”; ‘or perhaps the “final solution” was crystallized only gradually, out of partial, local action, taking on its true proportions at some later stage. ‘We shall probably never know for sure. Bor ourside the small circle of Nazi leaders and a number of staunch, ruthless antisemites, hardly anyone could imagine that is would be their policy - simple, and total. Many of the Jews in Germany regarded the transformation that their country was undergoing as the Nazis took over the government on January 30,1933. as a transient affair, disturbing but temporary. But even among those who did understand that “their” Germany would never be the same again, uly a few, fewer than it seems in retrospect, anticipated the forse of the How that awaited them. Signs were abundant. Once the Nazis gained control of the central government in Germany they promptly began imposing restrictions on Jews. Emergency orders and legislation concerning German citizens of the “Jewish Race” began pouring in from the various official authorities of the Third Reich, even during the early months of its existence. The boycott on Jewish businesses was scheduled for April rand its limited success did nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of the new regime. On April 7, the law excluding officials of Jewish origins from public service was pronounced,lprseex. Joss 8468Ropr0 CUNYs54#/Volkoy —Printer-sherdian 0 52 BAAR May 752006 2 Prologue followed by decrees restricting the employment of Jewish lawyers and medical personnel. A strict ntemsertes clatstes [restricted number or quota} designed to prevent what was seen by the Nazis as the flooding of Germany's universities by Jewish students was announced. And while the rate of excluding and isolating Jews slowed slightly during 1934 and 1935» the pressure put on them continued unmercilessly, Restricting regu- larions issned by the bureaucracy came in quick succession, and suppos- edly peace-loving citizens found ways of their own to abuse and harass their Jewish neighbors. The Nuremberg Laws, which were put into effect in September 1935, at first seemed to be aimed at the completion and consolidation of that ongoing process of exclusion, But economic prohi- bitions and the various manifestations of social ostracism were becoming ever more severe. Those who refused to acknowledge the gravity of the sit- uation up to that point were finally shaken out of their illusions when vio- lence was given free rein across Germany during the so-called Reichskris- tallnacht, the landslide pogrom thar occurred on and immediately after November 9, 1938 Yer even at that time it was difficult to grasp the dimensions of the impending horror, Although the majority of German Jews had by then realized that it was pointless to expect things to improve, surely not in the foreseeable future, many still filed to anticipate the true scope of the Nazi threat. Understandably, those who were observing the events in Germany from afar could nor grasp the scale ofthe imminent carascrophe. Irsemained beyond the capacity of human imagination. From our vantage point some seventy years later, this combination of hopefulness and tenacity with which so many Jews hung onto their German identity and the evaporating reality of theix past existence seems disconcerting. People of my generation, in the relative shelter of Israel at the time, during the rososand r960s, had often encountered German Jows in their litte shops and coffee houses in Tel Aviv, in the streets of the northern town of Nahariya, or onthe shaded paths of some of Jerusalem's new Jewish neighbarhoods. Alhough we could nor understand what was being said in these immigrants’ living rooms, which were crowded with old furniture and rugs that somehow had found their way across the Mediterraniean, we knew they were often preoccupied with the affairs of the world they had left behind, Even more so ~ they were involved in issues related to that highbrow, wondrous, and for us unattainable culture that they brought with them from that world, Its fruits decorated every naked corner on their walls with fine paintings and elegantly bound volumes. They were busy with poetry, literature, and music, cultivating 25lou eYx, Jos284688apro — CUNYss4B/Volkey Printer sherdian ya 84689 May 72036 My Father Leaves His German Homeland 3 the treasures of their lost homes, On their part, they seemed to regard us forgivingly, somewhat suspiciously, and with apparent reservations. It seemed as if they were judging us from afar or from within that strange bubbk in which they lived among us, under the scorching sun of their new land. Those were the days during which the scope of the atrocities perpetrated on the Jews in Europe were only beginning to dawn upon us. Even as a young girl, the peculiar combination thar Jews of German origin had projected - an enduring admiration for German culture on the one hand, and a burning hatred for this modern-day oppressor on the ocher-wasa constant source of discomfort for me, My father immigrated to Palestine from Germany in the summer of 1933. Our apartment con- tained the familiar German bookshelf, including omamented editions of the writings of Goethe and Heine, first editions of Thomas Mann's nov- els, some Schiller and Nietesche, and even Bismarck’s memoirs in three gold-trimmed volumes. However, at home we spoke only Hebrew. On Sarurday nights, when Pinchas Rosen, Israel's first Minister of Justice, would come up from his next-door apartment to smoke a cigar with my father and attempt one of those uneasy conversations in German, my father would always respond in Hebrew. Of course he retained the unmis- takable German-Jewish, the so-called Yeke accent, but he was proud of his eloquent, fluent Hebrew. Hisstory, we have always believed, was the Zionist story at its best: Dad was “there” when Nazi students raised their flag on the central building of the Kaiser Wilhelm Universicy in Berlin, He immediately realized that there was no place for him there anymore. The preparations took a few months, as several matters had to be taken care of, but he had no doubts about the right course. Going to Bretz Israel was clearly the only solution. In any case, that is what the family story always implied, though others did not always see it that way. It was always under- stood that “the parents,” that is, my grandparents, would not hear of it. Their elegant villa, adjacent to the multistory sanitarium that they owned on the wooded slopes of Baden-Baden, a lively resort town in Southern Germany, was their only home. Their children were raised there as gen= tine Germans. The desert town to which their young son had sailed away to them seemed menacing and alien. They could not fathom what this offspring of a typical Jewish bourgeois famuly of successful bankers and businessmen, scientists, physicians, and lawyers ~ a family that had been sooted in German soil for generations, would be doing in the dunes of that remote country, We did not discuss the matter too often at home, but we were always proud of our father, the only Zionist in his assimilated family - our kind of man. 25lprseex. Joss 8468Ropr0 CUNYs54#/Volkoy —Printer-sherdian 0 52 BAAR May 752006 4 Prologue And we had never questioned this story. The first cracks appeared unex- pectedly, One morning, my father was rushed straight from bis office in the Ministry of Justice in East Jerusalem to the Sha’are Tzedek Hospital in a coma. The next morning, as he began to recover, | was at his bed- side when a young doctor interviewed him, trying to assess the damage. ‘The patient was not sure of his whereabouts, nor could be give his name, his dare of birth, or any other personal information. Then the doctor, in a seemingly offhand manner, asked him when he had immigrated to Israel. “Nineteen-thirty-three,” my father promptly replied, and 1 sud- denly grasped how central this date must have been for hima, This indeed ‘was the watershed in his life. It was a watershed even for those German Jews who had not yet sensed the magnitude of the imminent catastrophe at the time, It was a moment of great inner shock that would sooner or later require each and every one of them to perform a complete reassess- ment of their existence. The basis of their self-image had been completely shaken, Their personal and collective expecrarions were shavtered. They were now forced to reexamine all the assumptions ~ social, cultural, and ideological — underlying their daily lives, their personal connections, their past experiences, and all of their economic and professional plans for the farore. ‘Though my father’s condition slowly improved, he never recovered completely. Interestingly, bis relationship with the treasures of German colcure, which he had apparently relinquished on immigration, became more accentuated now, in the twilight of his life, | noticed, too, that he ‘was getting slightly softer on the use of the German language. It seemed that be was even pleased to help me in my frst steps as a student of German history, though he was apparently rather perplexed at my new interest. He spoke German more often now with his old friends, and the connections with other members of his family, the ones who had opted for immigration to the United States, their children and grandchildren, grew warmer and more genial. Father passed away on November 295 1985. During the week of mourning, in search of old photos, we found in the attic a wooden box containing an entire archive, of which we had had no inkling: hundreds of letters written to him by his parents and friends after he left Germany. Among them, one packet, held together by an old rubber band, immediately captured my attention, The packet contained thirty-seven letters my father had written to his foture wife, my mother, between April and June of 1933, He was still in Germany then, while she, Palestinian” who had come to Germany as a student a few years carlie, 25lou eYx, Jos284688apro — CUNYss4B/Volkey Printer sherdian ya 84689 May 72036 My Father Leaves His German Homeland 5 was already back at her parents’ home in Tel Aviv. When the Nazis came 10 power, my mother had just managed to obtain her physician’s diploma, and by the end of March she was sailing back to Jaifa, With a clear and steady hand and in fine German prose, this young man of twenty-five tried to tell his sweetheart what he was going through during those days. When ‘we found the letters, my mother was as curious as. Yet when she glanced through them, she seemed upset. “Had I been less cercain thar he actually wrote them,” she pointed to the meticulously numbered pile, “I would not have believed it.” She could not cope with the pain. That night l tightened the old rubber band around the letters again and placed them back in the ‘wooden bax, now temporarily shoved under one of the beds. My mother never asked what happened to them. It was only after her death that I went back to the wooden box and fished out my father’s letters again, The more | read, the more L understood my mother’s displeasure. Surprisingly, the letters did not support the story ‘we had been telling ourselves all hose years. Only the basic “dry” facts matched. Mother had gone to Germany to study physics in Berlin, the science capital of Europe in those days, and later switched to medicine. Her father was a pioneering Zionist, This enlightened autodidact had been a Hebrew teacher even back there in Berditschey, and his mastery of Hebrew grammar served him well when he immigrated in ror2, along with a pregnant wife and seven young children, ShmuelChaym Berkus soon became a teacher at the first Hebrew Gymnasium in the by-then barely established town of Tel Aviv, The children grew up there and were naturally staunch Zionists. From my mother’s point of view, there were indeed no doubts: Nazi Germany left only a single alternative to Jews. She promptly returned home. In his letters to this energetic and clear-sighted ‘woman, young Otto Rudolph Heinsheimer could probably express just a fraction of his conflicting emotions. Nevertheless, the shock he had suffered was clearly reflected in his writing: the pain, the confusion, the imminent depression, the disorientation, and, finally, the hesitant decision to sail after her co Palestine forthwith. Doring the first days of the Nazi regime, Berlin must have been a very disconcerting place for this young man, On April 25, despite his dark mood, so he wrote, he decided to go to the opera: “In the intermis- sion ~ foyer: the public ofa new Germany - completely uniform. Income between 250 and 1000 marks per month. Social position between chief clerk and government counselor, Not more than one percent Jews. | was dumbfounded as I have not been in a long time: because of the complete 25lprseex. Joss 8468Ropr0 CUNYs54#/Volkoy —Printer-sherdian 0 52 BAAR May 752006 ‘ Prologue twansformation, because of the incredible uniformity....°" A few days later he had a similar experience when he heard - and he must have made a special effort to hear - “a particularly weak speech” by Berlin Uni- versity’s new rector, anthropologist and race scientist, Professor Eugen Fischer, “It became Clear to me, that in this new university [sic!] there was no room for us Jews,” the young Heinsheimer dryly wrote, “no, no room arall.” And ona more personal nore he added: “Do you remember how 1 always used to go to the university and how I used to come back?”* How hhe must have loved to go there and how he loved the city opera! Inthe atmosphere of those days, Heinsheimer found it difficult to write: “Not a thought is being formed,” he complained, “not a word. Inside me— akind of dark, powerful, strangely exciting vibration, unrest and silent agitation.”? The words most commonly repeated in his letters from these days were “wilderness,” “a dead-end desert,” “darkness,” and “uncertain darkness.” “Inside me — utter darkness,” he wrote to his beloved, “and thoughts, sensarions, feelings and everything else scramble in confusion like ghosts. It all seems like a play of shadows on a half-lit wall, one cannot recognize the people responsible for it, nor grasp them.” “Not yet,” he adds with a sudden gust of youthful hope, “but soon it will all be fine.”* ‘The depth of despair of this young man was finally fully revealed in his letter of May 2, written after hearing on the radio the speech that Hitler {gave the previons day ar the Tempelhoferfeld in Berlin. The letter is brim ming with enthusiasm, even a sense of exultation vis-i-vis the slightest, albeit far and vague possibility, one that would soon slip away forever: a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, he could still be a part of Germany again. The petsonal context of Heinsheimer’s life in Berlin only serves to highlight the message of this letter. At the time, many of his close friends were hard-core Zionists. My mother, too, surely had no doubts. Here was a man- who wasjust one step away from a decision to join her and her friends and draw all the necessary cousequeces. Indeed, he probably ‘was then, as he had always been, a slightly introverted, withdrawn person, strictly rational, and very hard to impress. And this was only days after the passage of the Arierparagraph, which virtually destroyed any chance * eve and throughout the Prolegue 1am quoting from a calletion of my fathers personal letes in my possession, all auunhered chronelogically by hin. The passage quoted here is from leter umber a © Letter umber 9. 8 Lette oumber 5 4 Lecter aumber 4. 25lou eYx, Jos284688apro — CUNYss4B/Volkey Printer sherdian ya 84689 May 72036 My Father Leaves His German Homeland 7 for him to advance a professional career in Germany. Yet Hitler’s speech hhad an immense impact on him. It was not the text itself that so deeply moved him, but primarily that sparkle of new hope, the hope of joining a course that had seemed totally obstructed before. But then, soon enough, came another wave of confusion, paralyzing indecision, and nally, again, just “darkness.” ‘According 1a his own testimony, Heinsheimer listened ro Hitler's speech in a somewhat reserved and generally unsympathetic milieu, at a friend’s home. Yet it was an overwhelming experience: “The shocking, crushing yet at the same time uplifting - thing about the speech. ..was certainly not the details of the program; not the elegant, organic structure, the flawless eloquence, but the sheer expression of a gigantic force of nature, a brilliant testimony of an unshakable belief, a direct communication with avisionary and the thunderous call of a colossal personality."* From these heights, Heinsheimer was once again thrown into the existential abyss in ‘which he found himself: “Is there really no possibility ar all for a Jew to take part in this thing here? Or, if not now, when would it be possible again? Can one perhaps wait through this time of transition? Should ue?” Then came the unavoidable disillusionment. He was engulfed by doubts and rhetorically addressing himself he wrote: “And what exactly are you giving up here? What awaits you outside? Where do you belong? ‘How and where can you set yourself up? What do you look for, after all? ‘Whar is really important for you? Where and what are your valves, your talents, your aims, your ideals? Where, who, how, what?” “At times it seems o me,” he concludes in despair, “that I can no longer live nor die.” “There is surely a measure of general malaise in these lines, an expres- sion of the existential agony of a young man. But it is also the voice of aperson whose world was shattered, undergoing deep crisis, seeking away out of a real catastrophe. Heinsheimer was twenty-five years old then, gifted, hardworking, and energetic, Within a coupke of months ke gathered his strength and left for Palestine, “As much as it seems attrac- tive ~ in theory ~ to participare in this new and wonderful project thar is apparently being built here...” he waites, “so it seems inexorably cer- tain ~ in practice ~ that our cooperation is unwanted, prohibited and sejected; and so the conclusion that we should turn our back to this soun- ‘ry is inevitable.”” His friends, who as in many other cases were mostly Skater number & © eter number & 2 etter number 25lprseex. Joss 8a68fapre CUNY35fVolkov Printer sherdian 0 52 BA6RB 9 May 752006 8 Prologue of Jewish origin, went each their own way: During those very days one of them married a non-Jewish woman, moved to Hamburg, and later on made his way to the shores of the Pacific Ocean and the suburbs of San Francisco. Another always had a liking forall things English, and that summer he sailed off to England without much reservation or sentimental- ity. A third was determined to stay. Eventually he even joined the wrband Nationatdeutcher juden,the organization of German-Jewish nationalists. But he too managed to escape the inferno in time, They were all in their late twenties, from well-to-do and highly cultured families, dynamic and resourceful - exceptional in that atmosphere of general “lethargy” among Jews, of which Heinsheimer reported in his letters. Yet how difficult this extraction must have been for them! One had to be freed, my father wrote in another letter, from so many ties that were “unshakable and unquestionable... From the country and your sense of belonging to it — something that was taken for granted; fromthe language and the culture — ‘which are still your narural foundations; from rhe profession of German law and its surroundings” ~ and here he stresses his own personal expe- rience ~ “in which I grew up and which has been my legacy,” and also from the “urban milieu of Central Europe, the practices and lifestyle of the intellectual petit bourgeois, from the climate and the seasons of the temperate zone, etc.” After all, he comments elsewhere, ane should never forget nor underestimate that self-evident certainty with which, despite everything, “I had been a German ~ even if ir were a thousand times an error.” ‘The depth of disillusionment cries out from every sentence. It was a personal tragedy. Moreover, this tragedy must be viewed in contrast to that sense of success and satisfaction that had inspired so many Jews in Germany in previons years. In a 1988 article, historian Jacob Toury reminded us of the “sense of security of being German” that prevailed among the leadership of most Jewish organizations during the Weimar Republic This sentiment was not limited to the fully assimilated, negli- {gible margins; it was the sweeping sense of an entire community, even of those who maintained their Jewishness openly and explicitly, who devel- oped close ties almost exclusively among themselves and held themselves responsible for sustaining the uniqueness of their separate social world. ® Letter amber 2 See Jacob Tour, "Gab os ein Kuisendewussssin unter den Juden wlthrend dec “Guten Jahre der Weimarer Republik 1924 | 2" It vive jabrbich fr Dexiche Gaschichte HBR ae 25lou eYx, Jos284688apro — CUNYss4B/Volkey Printer sherdian ya 84689 May 72036 My Father Leaves His German Homeland 9 In that difficult hour, even they were faced with a crucial choice. “I am speaking here about the good German bourgeois Jews,” my father wrote tn the eve of his departure from Germany, already looking at them as if from outside, “not only about the loss of everything, about the new exile. No, this is areal collapse. A hard and terrible fall. People who have been moving safely on a wobbly scaffold are now realizing that everything is falling aparc. And into whar? Inco nothingness...” AS my father saw it, these Jews found themselves, suddenly and without warning, “sailing on a ghost ship which can no longer be saved from drowning. He himself arrived in Jaffa in July 1933. With surprising agility he adopted a new identity — Jewish, national, and eventually Israeli. Perhaps his young age, and maybe his wife’ loving family, which immediately embraced him, facilitated this transition, After all, a new national com- munity was being built here as well, Here, 100, it was possible to take part in a great, exciting nation-building projest. And my father ardently joined in. When he went 10 Germany to visit his parents two years larer, he was already writing home long letters in high, standard Hebrew. After some searching, he found his way back to the lav, passed the bar examination in its British version, and began to work in his profession, both in the private and in the public sectors of the Jewish Yeshicu. When the State of Israel was declared, my father was among the founders of the Ministry of Jus- tice, He was among those who drafted the various versions of the Charter of Independence, the Law of Rerorn, and ocher fondamenral laws needed by the emergimg State ~ he was one of the forefathers of Israel’s corpus of civic law. Our family story about his road from Berlin to Jerusalem perfectly suited this new identity. The days of “darkness,” the shame, the indecision concerning emmigration ~ all of these were suppressed. His memory - and ours — has been adapted to the new reality. "© Lecter aumber 35. 25lprseex. Josa8a68fapre CUINYs54f/Volkov Printer-sherdiano sz BAAR May 752006 23loss ey S284a88aco2 CUNY BVolkey —Printerssherdian 9 yar 84688 9 PART I INTERPRETING THE DANGER SIGNS May 72036 faglprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3 Ballon Pinte: sherdian sar ReBRB 9 May 7y2006 a4lou eYx, osi8q688¢01 CUNYs;4BIVolkov —Priner:sherdian sz: 846889 May 72006 I S from East and West a. The Eastern Perspective In his autobiography, From Berlin To Jerusalem, Gershom Scholem described how he had found himself isolated among his Jewish friends ‘when he began to take interest in the antisemitic literature of the time. “Twenty years before Hitler’s accession to power, he recalled, he had dis- covered in this literature “clearly and unmistakably... .everything that the Naris later translated into action.” And this was how he tried to account for the blindness thar gripped his co-religionists: Jews in Germany had never bothered to familiarize themselves with this literature, just as later on hardly anyone bothered to read Hitler’s Mein Kampf. They failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation although the writing had been clearly on the wall. They kept repressing that one single truth, already upheld and propagated by Zionism then and there: that Jews cannot live safely amongst the nations, No amount of tolerance and liberalism would do. No emancipation could ever eradicate the eternal enmity toward them, From this poine of view, blinciness seemed ro have been a chronic con~ dition, It did not begin with the Nazis’ rise to power. Of paradigmatic importance was Jewish reaction to the manifestations of antisemitism that surfaced during the decade after the completion of their legal eman- cipation, in the early years of Bismarck’s New Reich. Historians usu- ally regard anti-Jewish activities during that time as manifestations of * Gerstom Seholew, From Berlin 10 jerusalem: Memories of My Yourk, New York, Schocken Books, 1980, p. (originally in Gerinan, 1977). 6lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 14 Interpreting the Danger Signs “modern antisemitism.” While its precise nature will be dealt with later on in this book, I want to begin by focusing on Jewish reactions to this presumably new phenomenon, on their apparent refusal 1o acknowledge its true scope, and on their inability to observe the danger signs attached toit. Surprisingly, that new wave of antisemitism had a particularly criti- cal impact on Jews outside Germany. To be sure, only a small minority of educated or well-traveled Jews in Eastern Europe was truly familiar with events in Germany, However, occurrences in the West seem to have played a major role in their self-consciousness. They have almost dimmed the effect of what was happening in their more immediate environment at the same time, During the early 1880s, violent pogroms took place in various locations in southwestern Russia. These at least partially premed- itated attacks made a lasting impression on the intellectual elite of Russian Jewry. Indeed, one would expect these events to leave a much stronger imprint on them than would the mere war of words waged in faraway Germany. The pogroms in the Russian Empire were, after all, a matter of life and death; they represented a real battle ~ with bloodshed and arson, But while the basic motivation of Eastern Europe’s Jewish leader- ship and the psychological makeup of its members were indzed shaped by the experience of these pogroms, it was in the context of what was happening in Germany that their theoretical and ideological arguments ‘were being formulated. Leo Pinsker was the first to react in his path-breaking Auto- Emancipation (2882).* Still under the immediate impact of the pogroms, the example of “enlightened Germany” explicitly played only a minor role, yetit clearly had deep implications. It is evident from Pinsker’s text that he was fully aware of the situation in Germany and that the German case provided him with important insights for discussing his main theme, namely, the failure of emancipation. According to Pinsker, such insights could not be derived from the Russian experience alone. The pogroms did confirm the existence of a deep-rooted anti-Jewish sentiment among, the Russian mob and at least the ill will of the authorities, Yet these could not throw much light on the possible success or failure of emancipation as such. After all, Russian Jews had never attained emancipation under the Tsar. Based on the experience of pogroms alone, it would have been reasonable to pursue its attainment, not to reject it. What became clear in Russia, as Pinsker endeavored to explain to his enlightened readership, * LeoDinshes Ato. Emarcipstion,New York, Masads, | (originally in Gerinen, U1). a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West y including many in Western Europe, was the true nature of antisemitism, that obsessive and instinctive kind of “Judophobia,” as he termed it, the incontrollable fear of the “ghast-like” ‘existence of Jews in the midst of non-Jewish society. But only the German case could illuminate the nature of emancipation. It was the re-appearance of antisemitism in moderu-day ‘Germany that proved emancipation, 50 eagerly sought by Russian Jews,an inadequare solurion co their plight, he argued. Despite its inherent values, emancipation could not overcome the prevailing hatred of Jews among gentiles, Emancipation was a noble cause, indeed), Pinsker agreed, but it could not be obtained from the powers that be, Genuine emancipation could only come from within, through the development of an indepen- dent Jewish collective will and a full-fledged national revival movement. Emancipation had failed from now onavéto-emancipation alone ought to be the goal. Interestingly, while so keenly aware of the tragedy of Jewish life in the diaspora, Pinsker expressed no moral rage, Seeing antisemitism as a kind of hereditary psychosis allowed him to regard it as one regards a disease or a natural disaster, When the volcano erupts, itis best to move away, and, better still, to stay away. Nabum Sokolow published another view of the history of antisemitism, in awkward, old-fashioned Hebrew at the same time.? This had litle of the spirit that animated Pinsker’s presentation. Nevertheless, its message ‘was equally illuminating. For Sokolow, 100, the main lesson to be learned from the current outburst of antisemitism in Enrope was the failure of emancipation. It failed, in bis opinion, because it had never been granted whole-heartedly. Emancipation was an act of reason, stemming from the inner logic of the French Revolution, and it was granted without true pas- sion, As such, it could never combat antisemitism effectively. Europeans everywhere were only waiting for the first pretext to renew their attacks on the Jews. Significantly, runs Sokolow’s argument, the first explicit sign of this dismal failure came from Germany, the birthplace of that glori- ous bourgeois Bildung, the epitome of the Age of Eolightenment. It was against the anrisemitic wave thar hir the German capical in 187gthar faith in the Enlightenment’s healing power was finally shattered, For Sokolow, the German antisemites,, lashing out at the Jews of Germany, provided the final proof of the bankruptcy of emancipation Sokolow’s analysis initially appears to be very different from Pinsker’s. For him antisemitism was nothing but the other side of an authentic 5S Nahutn Sokelow, Erna! Have for an Eternal People [Hebrew], Warsaw, 4 Ibid. Introduction and pp. 5 a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 x6 Interpreting the Danger Signs national self-interest; not a disease, but a natural and understandable force, the inevitable psychological counterpart of what he considered “a healthy national egotism.” With great pathos he applied to the problem of antisemitism tools borrowed from nascent social psychology, whose severberations must have reached Warsaw, too. A physician by profession, Pinsker preferred to borrow pathological terms, while Sokolow ventured orake his cues from a newer and to him more relevant conceptual world. For both, however, antisemitism did not represent « moral problem, but an all-too-homan response to inherent forces - psychological, cultural, or both, Pinsker and Sokolow both indicated other sources for the new antisemitism, too. These were derived from social conditions, economic rivalries, and a variety of political conflicts. They seemed to be able to address these factors in the same temperate tone of open-eyed moderate sealism, And this tone was striking indeed in comparison to the indignant moral reproach that was so characteristic of German Jews at that time. Despire the fact thar the grievances they had ro endure would bur pale against the “Storms in the South,” as the Russian pogroms were later named, the reactions of German Jews seemed far more emotional. The Russians were less taken by surprise. They were pethaps more in need but seemed more capable of drawing practical conclusions. A particularly interesting example is that of Moshe Leib Lilienblum. From the 186cs onward, Lilenblom regarded himself as a typical Russian- JJevvish mast (Hebrew for a “disciple of the Enlightenment”). Like many devoted liberals in Western Europe, too, he believed that antisemitism was a passing ailment, a relic from earlier times. It could not and should not be allowed to cloud the sunny skies of Mother Russia. If only the Jews were to seek self-improvement, he argued, nothing would prevent their full inte- gration in their beloyed land of residence. The Odessa pogrom of 1871 however, made the frst dent in Lilienblum’s ideological armor. Despite bis natural optimism, by1882 this veteran idealist found himself thrown into deep personal crisis. Lilienblum touchingly describes his five months of depression and soul-searching as he was trying ro accommodate the new facts into his worldview. He finally emerged onthe other side of that crisis, new man: a Jewish Nationalist, a zealous Zionist.° Clearly, the initial impulse came from his own experience of the pogroms. But byr884,when he finally published {in Hebrew) what would eventually become a classic of Hibbat Zion (the Love of Zion) movement, “On the Rejuvenation of 8 The processis described in his hook: Moshe L Lilienbhun, The Way of Rerwr [Hebrew], sow, 189. a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from East and West 7 Israel in the Land of Its Fathers,” German antisemitism seemed to assume a central role for him, too. Lilienblum exhibited mastery of the debate between Heinrich von Treitschke and Theodor Mommsen onthe question of the Jews in Germany, and his socio-economic analysis of antisemitism repeatedly referred to the German case, addressing Russian events only implicitly. It was the German merchant, the German scholar, the German pauper, andthe unemployed who feared, and therefore hated, “their” real or imagined Jew, he wrote. “It was the German national egotism” that apparently could not tolerate the existence of the foreignes, and it was therefore the German case, first and foremost, that made it necessary to review Jewish history. It was there ~ and not in Russia that the utter failure of emancipation and the inadequacy of the policy of integration could be best perceived. Like Pinsker and Sokolows Lilienblum too never blamed the non-Jews for antisemitism, directly or indirectly. He found it natural and under- scandable thar they all wished 10 eject the stranger from their midst. Civie lization, he wrote, could protect the Jews against religious discrimination and prejudice, but it could not force the insider to love the outsider, It was precisely within the framework of “the culture of emancipation,” which in Lilienblum’s terminology was identical to civilization, that antisemitism was an understandable impulse. Within this civilization it could even be considered inevitable. At least until the rise of pan-Slavism in Eastern Furope, this disillusioned Russian Jew now argued, nationalism had been atrue expression of human progress, providing the basis for world peace and life improvement for all, though at the same time, indeed, this very nationalism was also the source of antisemitism, In Lilienblum’s poetic phrasing, antisemitism was nothing but the shadow of civilization, the dark side of an essentially positive force, an inevitable result of the nature of the galt [life in exile). Western culture had done its best to foster eman- cipation, he believed, but it was a solution that ultimately went against the grain, Like Sokolow, Lilienblum saw antisemitism as the necessary counterpart of essentially positive and progressive forces. Many of the central questions preoccupying the Zionists were already being suggested here: What was the meaning of antisemitism and what ‘was its significance for the Jews? Was it a tractable illness or a chronic, * or the following see: Moshe L. Lilienblun, On she Rejuvenation of Issa ot the Land of les Fathers [Hebrew], Jerussler, | [188s], especially pp. |p | y 100-7 For 2 partial translation see Anthut Hedtabeg (eh), The Zeomst Ide A Hisiorteat Anabss sud Reade, New York, Ataeneutn, 1971 [1359] pp. 16677 Ste also Daud Vital Onigins of Zionism, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975 Ch. ¥. a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 x8 Interpreting the Danger Signs incurable disease? Was tin contradiction to the values of emancipation or merely its inevitable counterpart? Finally, it was Abad Ha’am, who sought and seemed to have found a middle-of-the-road solution to these ques- tions.’ We, the Jews of the East, he proclaimed, have suffered poverty, ignorance, and humiliation. But they, the Jews of the West, were now struggling under the yoke of something much worse —a spiritual servitude. ‘The events surrounding the new wave of antisemitism in the enlightened German Reich and later in Republican France during the Dreyfus affair have become constitutive for his thinkung, too, The Jews in the West, Abad Ha’am argued in one of those essays that were soonto become Zion ist classics, “Slavery in Freedom,” had become slaves to their own rights, to their yeamed-for emancipation. The efforts they invested in assimila- tion had been so great that they were now incapable of adequately coping with the antisemitic menace forced upon them, They therefore attempted to repress or deny it, to minimize its true significance. Thus, it was now the task of the Jewish national movement to force them confront the ‘true nature of antisemitism and the inherent limitations of emancipation. Abad Ha’am, like Sokolow, believed that emancipation had been granted in the West as a derivative of the inner logic of the Liberal political tra- dition and not out of any genuine sense of partnership or solidarity with the Jews. And thus, while antisemitism was allegedly incompatible with emancipation, the two continued to coexist side by side. The capacity of sociery to preserve pockers of reaction and barbarism in an age of reason and progress made such a paradox possible: “It is not impossible,” he ‘wrote in his distinctive Hebrew prose, “that with time ‘humanism’ would spread and would indeed include all mankind; white, black, gray, etc., until it spreads its wings over even the greatest sinners, as famous ‘crim- inologists’ would wish, and the world will be filled with justice, honesty, compassion and mercy for every creature, extending even to the bird's nest ~ only ‘except for the Jews.""* Of course, it was not only the Zionists in Eastern Europe who reacted 0 energetically 10 the ourbreak of antisemicism in Germany, bur it was in the East that its implications echoed most powerfully. By 1899, Simon Dubnow, the Jewish-Lithuanian historian, undertook the labor of writing Ahad Ha'am, *Slavey in Freedom,” in Selected Esseys Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 19127), {orginally in Hebrew, 1893], and oa hima see especially Steven J. Zipperstein, Bsve Prophets Abed He'amand the Origins of Zionism, Beckley, CA, University of California Pres, 1995 ® Sinton Dubaow, Wiligeschichre des dischon Volks, ro vel, Berlin, jidischer Verlag, Wee | a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West 19 bis monumental history ofthe Jewish people. This immense historiograph- ical project was to be published in its entirety only between 1925 and 1929, but parts of it were already in print before World War 1? Ever since the days he spent in Odessa in the 1890s, Dubnow became the voice of non-Zionist Jewish nationalism. Today it is indeed difficult to deter- mine whether his interpretation of Jewish history as a story of shifting ‘geographical centers was a result of his comprehensive historical research or its original driving force. But in any case his “History” later served bim well as a detailed cachet for his worldview. Accordingly, antisemitism had a very distinct function: It was the force that compelled Jews, in varying but repeated intervals, to abandon one center of their life and replace it ‘with another, Like Liltenblum, but perhaps especially like Ahad Haar, Dubnow perceived antisemitism as a challenge. Its power and influence ‘were insufficient for wiping the glorious Jewish diaspora out of existence, he believed. It could only bring about a shift of its gravitational cen- ter. This was Dubnow’s way of coming ro terms with anrisemicism. He saw it as part of an all-inclusive, progressive historical force that finally promised a better future for Jews, even against all odds. Like his great predecessor, Heinrich Graett, and despite their differences, Dubnow also emphasized the persistent European pattern of Jew-hating, its relentless- ness, and the repetition of familar motifs in its various manifestations.'° Antisemitism remained for him a permanent factor in Jewish history, valu- able despite irs ugly face. Even lareron, in viewingthe rise of the Nazis and shortly before his violent death at their hands, antisemitism did not seem, to him reason enough to abandon the diaspora and give up its civilizatory achievements. Zionists at the time differed from Dubnow-style nationalists mainly in their emphasis on the “negation of the Galue” life in exile); in their ieological arsenal, this was the most effective tool for dealing with anti- semitism, The core of their approach was a shift from focusing atten- tion on Jew-hatred, which was to be found among non-Jews after all, to stressing self-criticism, which was practiced by Jews themselves. This ‘was a central tactic in their attempt to persuade Jews to abandon their places of residence and migrate to the mythical land of their fathers, but it had the added value of helping to consolidate Zionist historiography 2 Ibid. Vols. 9and 10. "® Salo Baron argued 2pzinst this approach in bis essay “Gheto and Emancipation: Shall ‘We Revise the Traditional Views" Nienonab Jowmal 14,1928 «See alo his essay on antisemitisn: "Changing Patras of Aatisemitnns & Survey,” fevrsh Socil Studies bigs b a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 20 Interpreting the Danger Signs and explain its rationale, Ina way, closest to Dubnow among the Zionists ‘was his apparent rival, Ben Zion Dinus, who later became Israel’s first Minister of Education, Dinur saw himself as a fierce opponent of Dub- now. Like Dubnow, be too discerned in Jewish history a stary of changing political and cultural centers. But contiary to Dubnow, he wished to get rid, once and for all, of this unstable cycle of existence, its cultural and social implications and its political consequences. Dinur loathed the Jew- ish existence in the diaspora and dreamed about eliminating it through the one, last move of the center of Jewish life - this time to Eretz Israel (Land of Israel). Unlike Dubnow, be viewed all previous moves as a chain of calamities that had to be broken once and for all" Because Jew-hatred was chronic and impossible to overcome, there was no point in trying to preserve Jewish life in the diaspora, according to him, Thus, contrary to all shades of non-Zionist nationalism, as well as to the so-called Culraral Zionism, led by Abad Ha’am, political and practical Zionism made the negation of the gal in whacever form or shape its main tenet. It is not difficuk to imagine the horror of ordinary assimilating Jews upon zeading the articles of yet another Zionist thinker, Jacob Klatzkin."* Editor of the leading Zionist organ Die Welt from 1909 to x91 and renowned as a sharp-tongued publicist, Klatzkin gave the most radical expression to Zionism’s antigalit stance, Contrary to many others, bis point of departure was not antisemitism or the impossibility of Jewish assimilation. Instead, Klavzkin always believed thar full integration was not only possible but inevitable, With the decline of institutional and the- ological religious links, there was nothing to unite the Jewish people and preserve them as a community he felt. In fact, even antisemitism could no longer do the job. Klatzkin did admit that antisemitism had done much for a renewed sense of Jewish solidarity, but he thought that this would not hold up against the rapid blusring of all features of Jewish unique- ness and the collapse of the traditional bonds among them. The source of evil for him was not antisemitism but the abnormality and decadence of galt life, noc the cusse of the Gentiles bur the deterioration of the Jews. A hint of this bitter overtone could indeed be traced to the early writings of many other Zionists, but this “Germanized” Russian Jew was now relentlessly focusing on this theme. Klatzkin conceded that the most bru- tal manifestations of antisemitism had to be resisted, but an ideological See Ben-Zion Dinus, "Diasporas and their Ruin” (Hebrew), Knesset 8 199344,46— » "See Katalin’ book: Kvsis unc Emischatdeng om fudentam, Berlin, ldischer Vers, 192, Por 3 partial translation see Hestzherg The Zions dey 2 a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from East and West aa stand against it was illogical, he claimed. “If we deny this antagonism all its justification, we also deny our own identity as a Volk,” he wrote.'? In any case, he added, antisemites should be more acceptable to Zion- its than the so-called philosemites, since the former acknowledge the existence of a separate Jewish identity, whereas the latter only seek to eradicate it. Klatzkin insisted on exposing the links between antisemitism and Jewish nationalism. The aft, he repeatedily asserted, had orally destroyed the character of the Jews and filled the world with sick and spiritually deformed people, Indeed, it was not only the gale as a his torical phenomenon that he rejected, but the “galt Jews” themselves, human beings who for him were no more than its unfortunate products. From his point of view, then, antisemitic attacks on Jews were at least understandable, if not altogether justifiable. Klatzkin’s viewpoint was surely extreme, yet the sentiment he expressed was not uncommon, One only nerds to glance at the writings of Yosef Haym Brenner or Micha Yosef Berdichevski to find more descriptions of thase loathsome products of galuctlife. One may even turn to Mendele ‘Mocher Sefarim for that type of Jew though here be is depicted in a some- what different tone, perhaps more forgiving, even more generous. In any case, that total negation of the galict had been an essential part of Zionist ideology — and to a certain extent, a substitute for what had been consid- ered a futile war against antisemitism. Zionists of other varieties, those ‘who would not have the gattt Jew so rorally abused, such as Yehezkel Kaufmann, nevertheless remained adamant in their rejection of the galt as such.'+ For Kaufmann, too, the source of Judaism's predicament was the abnormality of existence in the galset =not antisemitism. Writing in a different time, but still augmenting Lilienblum’s or Ahad-ba’am’s argu- ments, Kaufmann wished to demonstrate that even democracy could show its darker side to the Jews. Fascism, he argued, was indeed a wild growth, yet the source of its antisemitism was not its reactionary policies, wor the particular social basis of its popular support, but the popular, “demo- cratic” narure of the regime ic gave rise to. In any case, Kaufmann was quick to generalize, every phase of human progress was bound to bring only calamities upon the Jews in the Diaspora.'* ° Klatakia,Krisis wad Entec, 92 “4 Yeherkel Keufmana, Diaspore and Foreign Lands [Hebrew], 2 vls., Tel Aviy, Dui, |. 495% especially Vol. 2 "s Yehezekel Kcufmana, “The Destrcton of the Soul” ia his In che Thvaes of Time [Hebrew], TH Ase, Duin 9369p = 5 | =307 a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 an Interpreting the Danger Signs b. Loyalty and Complacency While Russian Jews, or at least their intellectual elite, were devoting much attention to events in Central Europe, especially in Germany, the Jews in the West were reluctant to draw conclusions from the pogroms taking place in Russia. The organized communities and the international philan- thropic Jewish organizations did raise an ourcry and made special efforts to aid the refugees fleeing from the East, but they did not feel the need to 0 into the details of what was actually happening there. They assumed they had a sufficient grasp of the situation and that it bore no conse- quences for them, Their view of their own past and of their own present surely seemed clear and coherent to them, and it seemed to require no immediate adjustment. The Western countries had for some time now led the emancipatory campaign, moving from the center to the periphery, and it was easy enough to regard the surge of violence against the Jews in the East as bur another manifestation of long-standing prejudice, further evidence of that proverbial backwardness of the Czarist Empire. Hence, the national revival among Russian Jews failed at first to raise the interest of their presumably more sophisticated and enlightened brethren in the metropolitan centers of Central and Western Europe. But events in their own backyard could not be so easily ignored. The wave of open antisemitism that swept Germany, especially Berlin, toward the late 18705 came as a surprise and seemed contrary 10 all expecta- tions. It was indeed so venomous that not much seemed to remain of the comfortable atmosphere enjoyed by Jews in the early days of the new Reich, The presumably rat antisemitism had a strong political face and was driven by a powerful popular movement, seemingly relentless and uncompromising. Moreover, the Jews, especially those in Berlin, were stunned by the support that the new movement was winning and pasticu- larly by the occasional sympathy manifested toward it in the most unex- pected circles, Heinrich von Treitschke’s public statements on the matter seemed astounding, Jews could comfortably continue to ascribe the old~ fashioned Jew-hatred on street comers and by the vulgar mob to ignorance and the rabble-rousing agitation by fanatic, itesponsible leaders. It was but a reminder of what was then termed “medieval barbarism,” a phe- nomenon bound to disappear with time. But the pronouncements of this renowned scholar could not be placed in that same category. Treitschke was by then at the peak of his fame, already the most prominent historian of the so-called Prussian School and an influential political gure within a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West as the moderate Liberal camp. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Bismarck and a popular lecturer on various political issues, When Treitschke pro- claimed from the pages of the prestigious Prissian Yearbooks that “The Jewsare our calamity,” the effect was shattering.’© Berthold Auerbach, for instance, a Jewish author enjoying respectable fame in educated circles, spent the rest of his life under the shadow of that unexpected eruption of antisemitism. He had devored a liferime 10 telling the story of the South German peasantry and, like Treitschke, had for decades participated in formulating the tenets of German hiberal-nationalism. In November 1880, waiting to a close relative, Auerbach conveyed his distress: “When ] am gone, then tell them all: B. Auerbach [sic] died from shame in deep pain.” Young Hermann Coben, then a budding philosopher full of con- fidence in that spiritual and deep-rooted connection between Judaism and “Germanism,” composed a detailed public reply to Treitschke: “We, the ‘younger generation,” he concluded, “were allowed to hope that we would wadually succeed in joining in with the nation of Kant. ...This confidence hhas now been shattered. The old anxiety is reawakened.""" Even more typical was Harry Bresslau’s reaction. Like Treitschke, Bresslau was a historian, teaching at the University of Berlin, though not as an Ordinarits (a full professor) but as an Extraordinarits (an adjunct professor}. Like Treitschke, he was a declared and active Liberal. Thus, Bresslau naturally attempted to respond to Treitschke in a moderate fash- ion. His senior colleague's onslaught and the venomous armosphere in the streets of Berlin did not shake his confidence in the possibility of total Jewish integration in Germany. As he set out to refute Treitschke’s assump- lions regarding the “healthy popular nature” of the new antisemitism, be nevertheless found himself, like many others before and after him, appeal- ing for nothing but some extra time, Confident of Jewish desire and ability to fully adopt German culture, Bresslau was equally convinced of the need to grant them a respite to complete this task, The Liberals, he believed, “* Hinrich vom Treitscbhe, “Unsere Ausichten,” in PrenBische Jobeblcher, Noxernher 17a. Hee | used a later priming ins Heinch von Tretschke, Dewtsche Klmmpfe Schnfoen zw Tagespolic, Lopzig, . Hirzel, 1896, pp. == Ie "7 Berthold Auerbach, Briefe an snen: Frewnd Jokab Auerbach, Vol. 2, Frankfurt ML, 188, P- ase quoted in: Ismat Schorsch, Jewish Reactions to Gerraan AnirSemitism 287e-1914,New Yerk, Columbia Univesity Pres, 1972,» Hermann Cohen, Em Bekenntnis i der FuienPope, Beclin, UV « Reprinted in: Walter Boxblich (+), Der Berliner Ansisemsciomascvet, Frankfurt a, lsel-Vetlag, 1963, Peas a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 ae Interpreting the Danger Signs ought to make sure that this would in fact be granted. Gradually, as he phrased what was to him the prevalent belief among Liberals, Jews would shed their singularity and the residues of their “dual nationality.” ' No amount of antisemitic poison could ever rob them of their German-ness, he insisted. Above all, it was Heinrich Graetz, who between 1853 and 1876 had poblished his monumental eleven-volume History of the fetus and was singled out for attack by Treitschke in the above-mentioned article, that found bimself on the defensive, Graetz denied any intention to ever define or defend the existence of a separate Jewish national life in Germany or within the political framework of contemporary Europe in general"? Nevertheless, like Hermann Cohen but not like Bresslau, he now felt obliged to rethink the Jews? place within this framework and even ponder anew the nature of their Judaism. Indeed, Jewish response to this first ‘ware of post-emancipation antisemitism may be regarded as the begin- ning of their rerun ro a more conscions search for ways to preserve their Judaism. Total devotion to the project of assimilation was apparently no longer enough. But at this stage, no radically new answers were forth- coming. Jews were not yet looking for ways to react jointly ox publicly to their attackers. They did not yet seek to apply any organizational or legal measures in an attempt to defend their reputation, Antisemitism upset and troubled them, but it was not enough to spoil their sense of loyalty to ‘what was for them a beloved fatherland, or their sarisfaction ar their entry into its social fabric, The new manifestations of prejudice and discrimi- nation could not shake their pride in the numerous signs of their success within it. In Austria’s thriving capital, Theodor Herzl too was forced to confront the reality of antisemitism, He first addressed the subject early in x882, apparently unaware of the recent pogroms in Russia, But he was deeply distressed by the literary expressions of a “new” antisemitism in near- by Germany, It was primarily a book by Eugen Dithring that had just been published in Berlin thar most deeply upser him. Dihring was con- sidered a serious though somewhat eccentric scholar, and Herzl’s aston~ ishment at reading his text echoed the bewilderment of Eastern Jews at Harty Breslau, "Zur Judeoftoge. Sendschsichen an Herca Peaf, De Heintch x “Ieitschke,” in Bocblich, Atisoonttsmusstry 52-76 * Por Teeitschke's attack on Graet, se ase “Here Graets und sta fudentuce,” published in the Ponfische Jabyblich, Deceasber 187%, and Bosblich, Asusemtsmssize = Gract’s response, Sst published ia the Scbtenschon Presse on December 7and by 17, isalso reprinted in Bocbich, Antisomiismesstr, — 5 — a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West a5 the expressions of antisemitism in Germany as a whole: ' Like them, he was agonited and constemnated. How should one respond? Herel first struggled to formulate a straightforward reply to Dibring’s indictments, He tried to evaluate the author's accusations “ objectively,” as he then put it, but soon found himself clinging to old, often-repeated arguments. Like most educated Jews in and out of the German-speaking region of Central Europe, he too thoughr che book was nothing bur a car alog of medieval prejudices in modern, seemingly scientific, guise. Young ‘Herzl was still able to dismiss antisemitic charges as a relic of the past, a passing childhood ailment of bourgeois society. The reality of his own life, however, soon forced him to reconsider bis position. Asa student he had occasionally encountered the antisemitism prevalent among his fel- ow students at the University of Vienna, and in the liberal literary salons of the Habsburg capital, too, he was treated with suspicion, primarily because of his Jewish origins, he felt. Finally, the experience of reporting the Dreyfus affair from Paris may have provided him ar least an added impetus to the formulation of his Zionist utopia.‘ Integration and assimn- ilation, which had earlier been the obvious goals of Jewish life in the old and the new German Reich, were now exposed as a much more difficult, maybe even an impossible task. From this standpoint, he now believed, more radical conclusions were called for. Indzed, in his opening speech at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, on August 28, 1897, Heral did nor conceal the underlining bitterness of his vision: “In these times, so progressive in most respects, we know ourselves to be surrounded by the old, old hatred,” he exclaimed, “That very part of Jewry which is modern and cultured, and which has outgrown the ghetto and lost the habit of peity trading,” he so typically continued, “that part was pierced to the heart.”'? Yer hatred from the outside must become a force for renewal from the inside. If not for that hatred, Enropean Jewry would have been assimilated to oblivion within two generations. It was this hatred that 2% eral’ impressions ofthis beok are recorded in bis easy notebooks, which are now at the Ceatral Zionist Archives in Jensalem and are reconstsucted in: Ams Elon Herat [Hebrew, Te Ain, Am Oved, 1975 9-715 {aso in English, New York, Helt, 1975). © eral hielf iste source ofehe widespread notion thatthe Dreyfus affair was of malez importance for the emergence a his Zionist vision, This has now heen reevaluated and accoided 2 much less premaeat rele ia bis setval ioteleaual development, See [acaye ‘Kornberg, “Hera, the Zionist Movement, and the Dreyfus Affai,” in Reselyae Koren znd Dan Michman (eds), Les ftellgraals fee a 'ffatre Dreyfus Pari, ’Harmattan, 199% Pp. 107-195 and the intcoduction {in Hebe) by Shlome Avie to the Hebrew tdinion of Heras diary, Vol , Jerusalem, Mlosad Bialik 1397. 8 Quoted in: Herzberg, The Z:Gnist dan 227. a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 I Interpreting the Danger Signs had repeatedly made them strangers in their own lands, and it alone had shaped them into a modern nation. In the present context, the question of whether Herzl’s diagnosis was accurate is beside the point. Significant is his basic understanding of the sole of antisemitism in the regeneration of that Judaism that he was rather suddenly seeking tolead, Unlike most of the spokesmen for German Jewry ac the time, and unlike his own position only a few years earlier, Herzl now basically refrained from addressing the old-style, traditional hatred of the Jews, As a modern Jewish nationalist he considered only the new, contemporary antisemitism a relevant phenomenon; it was not another chapter in the chronicles of an “eternal people,” but a basically different phenomenon, a direct result of the social, economic, and political con- ditions of Europe at that time. Like his predecessors in Eastern Europe, and, as we have seen, based on the same historical reasoning, Herzl now believed that antisemitism was but the dark side of emancipation, not a passing failure of the world’s nations, bur a healthy, even “reasonable” reaction on their part. Contemporary antisemitism was for him above all a response of the educated middlle class in German-speaking Central Europe to the overproliferation of Jewish intellectuals. It was, more than anything else, his own personal experience that formed the basis of this assessment, but there was enough in it to fire his imagination.” Her2l’s uniqueness was thus not in providing a better or more com- prehensive analysis of the sicuarion at hand. Whar characterized him, and what ultimately made him the only effective leader among the fig- tures mentioned above, was his determination to find a new solution to a new problem, Herz] realized that a preoccupation with the deeper roots of antisemitism might jeopardize his basic optimism about western civi- lization, a necessary precondition for bis Zionism. He was by no measn ready to give up this civilization, Instead, be offered a detailed plan for an independent Jewish state to be established outside Europe, to be sure, but unequivocally within its cultural orbit. It was designed to solve not only the problem pressed on the Jews by non-Jews, bur also the problem pressed on non-Jews by the Jews. Accordingly, Jews who experienced the new sense of national solidarity expressed in Zionism and responded to the national revival it spawned could emigrate to their own homeland, while those wishing to continue to assimilate inthe European environment *4 For Hers positon onamtisemitisa, see Dar jadentsats Versuch ever modernon Leng diay Jaderfroge, Bevin, idscher Verlag, 1934 (1896). Aa English translation is in Herzberg. The Zionist Mlea205- + a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West ay ‘would now enjoy better treatment and an improved chance of success. Europe, too, had something to gain from the new arrangement. It would berid once and forallof its “Jewish Problem.” As historian Jacob Talmon wrote, “Herzl apparently believed in the possibility of a deal with the antisemites.,..We shall take out the excess Jews from your countries, and you will help us find them a refuge and establish their own state.” In other words: You will help us solve the Jewish Problem, and we shall release you from your own painful dilemma. We shall remove the obsta- cle, which has been standing in the way of the onward march of human ‘progress, and you shall reward us by cooperating with our grandiose plan. Herzl was indeed prepared to negotiate with even the worst antisemites, as evidenced by his meeting in x903 withthe Russian Minister of Internal Affairs, von Plebye, But above all, it was the representatives of enlight- ened Europe whose good will Her#l wished to stir; it was in their hands that he decided to entrust the fate of Zionism. He based his thought on the existence of permanent and perpetual antisemitism in Europe, and yer he never gave up his faith in the liberal and emancipatory forces in that same Europe. In fact, it was not only Herzl who remained so powerfully attached to the liberal principles of a Europe that had repeatedly proven itself unreliable. Other Zionist leaders also held on to this dialectical position. Max Nordan, for instance, 2 man who by the mid-18905 was already avell-known cricic of the European enlightened tradition, also wished, as a Jast resort, to remain loyal to it.**In his pre-Zionist phase, Nordau could be classified as a “cultural pessimist” of the type that was often attracted to antisemitism. As a Jew, however, even if totally assimilated, Nordau could not possibly apply his overall vision to the Jewish issue in the way of other contemporary critics. Instead, he merely used it as an indisputable proof of Europe's moral decay. Like other anti-modern thinkers, Nordau resented the entire rational basis of the liberal creed. No ue equaled him in formulating the Zionist position against that rational, > Jacob Talinoa, “Heral'sfadonsioai—7o Years After.” iahis The Ageo Wiolence [Hebrew], “Te Avie, Am Oved, 1974 P17 ¥ Oa Noda (149-1925), see the biography by his wife and daughter: Anna snd Maxa Nordau, Max Nordeus A Brossapioy New York, The Nowau Committee, 194% For bis pre-Zionist phase, see especially his aszdoxey London, William Heiaemaaa, 1905 (osiginally in German, 1883] The Conventional Les of or Civzson, hicage, Laird 8 Lee, 1495 originally in Geeman, 1883); and Dagerrai‘ong Lincoln, NE, University of [Nebraska Press, 1995 (orginally in Germaa, $92] ) sith 2a intersting iatoduction by George L. Mosse a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 28 Interpreting the Danger Signs and hence, flimsy basis of emancipation, Emancipation ought to have been first accomplished in “the world of the sentiment,” he claimed, before it was made into law. Since its true values were never really internalized, it was bound to remain a dead letter.°7 Nordau saw the Jews as a sepa- rate race, accepted the impossibility of assimilation, and concluded that immediate action must be taken to set Europe free of the dilemma posed by them. Ar the same time, he believed, Jews would finally be liberared of their humiliating existence, But following the first spell of ideological enthusiasm, as he began working within the framework of the Zionist movement, Nordau began to sense unease when attacked as an enemy of progress, a traitor to the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. When criticism from the liberal anti-Zionist Jewish camp grew sharper in the summer of 1899, he set out to defend himself. From the open letter he first published in the French Le Sidcfe and later in the German Die Welt, it appears that he had upheld little of his earlier radicalism.** Basically, Nordau was now arguing thar the furure Jewish state should above all serve as a haven for refugees from the East. The return to Zion was not axeturn to “barbarism” but an escape from the ghetto. Moreover, was it uot possible to finally mobilize the Jews, this longsuffering people, for yet another effort on behalf of gennine human progress, he asked. In a speech at the Third Zionist Congress, Nordau clearly stated his trust in Enrope: Toopenly declare that I do not believe that the catastrophes of our past will be reenacted in the future. Today there is a European conscience, a conscience of humanity, limited indeed, but requiring at least the appearance of a degree of honesty, and it could hardly tolerate preposterous mob crimes"? ‘Thus, even he, perhaps the most outspoken anti-liberal among the West European Zionists at the time, a man whose Zionism was unquestionably based on confronting the reahty of antisemitism, did not lose faith in the basic decency of modern Europe. Both he and Herzl, along with the great majority of Zionist leaders of that first generation, kept clinging to the values that made Europe enlightened in their eyes, regarding these very values as the basis as well as the ultimate goals of their own “separatist” movement. 7 See Nerdau’s speech befor he First Zionist Congress Basel, 1897, his Max Novdaxe to His People, New York, Scopus, 19435 DP. ~745 especially © Die Weal, August 8, 189% 9 Bax Netdau, Zionst Writings [Hebrew], Jerusalem, Hasta Hasioait, 19561962, Vol. m 7.156 a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West 29 Af Herel and Nordau felt hard pressed to reconcile their faith in Euro- pean enlightenment with their budding Zionist impulse, such a reconcil- iation must have been all the more painful for one who viewed himself a citic of European enlightenment not from the right or the center but from the left, Bernard Lazare was a French radical, a revolutionary with a streak of anarchism.’? His book on antisemitism was published well before he had become a dedicared Jewish nationalist. Init he placed the main cause of antisemitism not on the intolerance of non-Jews, but ou the inflexibility of the Jews; not on the non-Jews’ wish to exclude the Jews, bot on their own stubborn refusal to assimilate, Srll, he too did not lose hope: In every way I am led to believe that antisemitism must ultimately perish... berause ¢he Jew is undergoing a process of changes because religious, social and economic conditions are changing; but above all because antisemitism is tone of the last, though mest long-lived manifestations of that old spirit of reaction and narrow conservatism, which is vainly trying to arcest the onward movement of the Revolution It was Maurice Bartts who pushed Lazare, as well as others of his genera- tion, to look deeper into the hidden roots of heir own self, extending bach their personal and their political consciousness. As a result, Lazare grew increasingly more interested in his Jewishness, though it was only later ‘0, during the Dreyfus affair, in his case, asin that of Nordau, that he was ‘sven the final push in this direction, He was now ready to abandon his, efforts at assimilation and declare himself a Zionist, An inner transforma- tion reminiscent of what Martin Buber later described in terms that were likewise borrowed from Barr’s - gave the first impetus to his change of course and the experience of the Dreyfus affair completed the process." © Oa Lazare’ life and idees(s] 1955) inthe context of French and Jewish history, see Michael R, Marcus, The Fotis of Assimoiron: A Shady of tb Fronch jewish Commu ‘ity or the Tome ofthe Dresfas Affor, Oxford, Clarenden Press, 1973, Bb: (64-1 « alia Shlomo Send, “Bernard Lazace: From Syinkolistic Poetry ta Poetic Nationalism, Ia Zions (Aebren] *% 1] > —| A othe effects of the affair en Nomdau, se Robert Wistich, “Max Nordea and the Dreyfus Adair," wrt ofIscelé History 00), 1s 1S;and Caristorh Schulte, “Fin de sfele, Dreyfus, Zionisrus: Max Norday als Beobaciner del, Republik,” in Christopher biething (eh), Mesehor Republicnsmas fx Frontsetch, Tibingen, M. Niemeyes, 1993)PP-— Besnard Lazate, Antisemitism. Its Hesrory an Catses|Newe York, Internationa Libsary, 1995, ph. (originally ia Prench, 594). oc Manin Bubers version of the search for coats, ee his early speeches, and espe silly “Das judentum und die Juden,” in his Radendiber des fudentumy Praakiur 2M. Ltezaturische Anstat Rutten & Locaing, 1923, 5P- 16 a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 " Interpreting the Danger Signs A clear sense of Jewish identity, even Jewish pride, was thus engendered in the heart of this ardent international revolutionary. And while Lazare later qualified his declarations about the near demise of antisemitism in the modern world and sharpened his criticism of the so-called assimila- tionists, he never discarded his leftist radicalism, even as he was forced to admit the failure of emancipation and as he grew increasingly more loyal to his newly discovered Jewish national identity Like most Zionists in Western Europe, Lazare did not consider his newfound insight into the Jewish predicament a just cause for abandoning his former ideals. Like Herzl or Nardan, indeed, antisemitism had deeply shocked him, but it did not make him reject his former spiritual assets. If this was true for ardent, leading Zionists, it was of course all the more so for other, less radical Jews. Even those who did acknowledge the importance of the “new antisemitism” and internalized its significance did not feel the need to formulate a completely uncompromising response, In the eyes of most Central and Westen European Jews,their home countries continued to be worthy places of residence; they were hostile at times, no doubt, but never ~ unlike the countries where actual pogroms were taking place — were they truly dangerous. Jews reacted to the waves of antisemitism inthe last quarter of the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries in four major ways. Many reasserted their faith in the values of universal hiberalism and emancipation while tuspally adhering ro the dominant nationalism of the sociery in which they lived. Others, feeling as strangers indeed within that liberal Europe that so repeatedly disappointed them, were loath to adopt any national- ism, including the Jewish one. Many of them opted for the international, Socialist solution. Yet another group, accepting the need to uphold a national distinction as Jews, still looked for ways to do so within the existing European frameworks, And finally, there were those who trans- ferred their hopes to what could then be considered “the Jewish utopia,” to Zionism, Groups representing different combinations of these diverse positions were fighting among themselves for the hearts of the Jews across Enrope. Iris noteworthy that, in those years between the end of the nine- teenth century and the beginning of World War I, the line dividing Jewish Nationalists from Jewish Liberals did not run parallel to the line sepa- rating German or French Liberals from German or French Nationalists. For Jews, the central issues were not republicanism, parliamentarism, or the feasibility of social equality. The struggle among them was about the a4lou eYx, JosaSg688aco1 CUNYss4B/Volkey —Drinterssherdign ya 8468819 May 72036 Views from Bast and West 31 divergent interpretations and the possible conclusions to be drawn from the brief experience of emancipation and the recent resurgence of anti- semitism, Since only few were willing to relinguish the liberal dream and unequivocally embrace the nationalstic discourse, most were faced with a difficult dilemma. Their reactions covered a wide political-ideological spectrum. The Liberals, on the one end, wished to obscure the gravity of antisemirism as much as possible and continue to regard it as an embar- rassing but passing aliment, no more than an unfortunate discomfort. Nationalists, on the other end, and Zionists in particular, saw in the resur- gent antisemitism a major, formative event, but still no cause to abandon their faith in enlightenment, German Jewsin particular were often devoted liberals, Most of them were proponents of integration and assimilation, bona fide “assimilationists,” as it were, to the very end, But even Jewish Nationalists and Zionists, while seeing in antisemitism a grave moral dis- grace, often underestimated its magnitude and importance. It was some- thing thar must nor be allowed 10 raise its head, bor ir was nor enough to force them to modify their overall worldviews, and surely it was not enough to force them to any kind of radical action. Useful in diverting attention {rom antisemitism was the apparent suc- cess of so many Jews in Germany, their role in its artistic hfe, its science, literature, and even politics. From the r890s onward, the Jewish press repeatedly stressed the manifestations of this success and the Jewish pub- lic seemed deeply gratified. Later historiography also repeatedly dwelt on these feats: It wasn’t assimilation and its hardships that lay at the center of attention, but success and its sweet fruits. “The contribution of German Jews? is a recurrent and popular motif in much of the writings about ‘German Jewry. The exact nature of the link between personal achieve- ments and ethnic or religious origins is rarely explored, But in the midst of the intoxication with success few seemed to question the relevance of Jewishness to the triumphs of individual Jews. The Natis were quick to refer to it, while the Jews themselves were never capable of forgetting it. Einscein, Kafka, Freud ~ we keep reminding ourselves of the glorious landmarks in the course of German Jewish history; and for the “initiated” = bnger and no less glorious list can easily be added. ‘Their achievements have been extraordinary, no doubt. The vast major- ity of these Jews were often members of the second or third generation of acculturation only. These were people whose parents had come from small towns in Prussia’s eastern provinces, from Galicia, or from remote villages set at the margin of German metropolitan culture. It was not unusual a4lprseex. Joss 8468hycor CUNYS3BVollov Printer sherdign 0 sar B46 2 May 7y2006 3h Interpreting the Danger Signs for them to improve their economic status, augment their education, and penetrate the professions or a particular sphere of intellectual and artistic activity within a single generation. The halo of success impressed Jews around the globe. It was in fact an international success story. The unpleasant, occasionally menacing attacks of antisemitism seemed at the time rather insignificant in comparison. a4loss ey 21845880 CUNY EMolkov —Primerssherdian 0 521 846889 May 72036 2 Excursus on Self-Hatred and Self-Criticism Only a small minority remained unimpressed by this success. It was, indeed, easier to see its pitfalls from the ourside, As early as 1892, Ahad Ha’am, who later became the leading light of “Cultural Zionism,” pub- lished in Ha-Melita a Hebrew journal that was edited in Odessa, an essay entitled “Slavery in Freedom.” This was a raging attack on the Jews of the West who were, according to him, boasting their successful ‘emancipation while disregarding their “spiritual slavery.” A few years later, indeed, Zionism was slowly emerging in Germany, too, relying on the same assumprions concerning the crisis of emancipation and focus ing on its implications, But the vast majority of German Jews in fin de s8cle Germany had lovingly accepted the combination of legal emancipa- tion and economic cum cultural success. Only the minority, consisting of Zionists and non-Zionists alike, was not ready to compromise. It was this minority that continued to harshly criticize the position of the Jews, their lif, and their ideals. While most chose to be content with their personal and collective success, the minority, at the margin, continued to view the situation anxiously, with their ears and eyes wide open, They were the ‘ones who heard the voices of the anvisemies, read their writings, listened to the sounds of hostility, and became acutely conscious of the dangers. Herel’ Zionism clearly indicated a turn to the inner Jewish sphere to seek a solution to antisemitism, Ar the same time, since he never aban- doned the values of the surrounding world, he was now suggesting their implementation within the framework of a separate Jewish sphere - polit- ical and geographical. His own critigue of Jewish life in the Diaspora ‘was yet another motivation for this radical solution. Among some of his ‘younger followers, such a critique was also often manifested in a resolve 3lprseex. Joss 8468Raco2 CUNYs5#/Volkoy —Frinter-sherdian 9520 846889 May 7y2006 34 Interpreting the Danger Signs to match the moral and physical standards applied by their non-Jewish contemporaries. They organized in separate associations; for instance, to be worthy of a true duel, they emphasized the development of their phys- ical prowess, they endeavored to return to a healthy life in nature, and so on, This may not have been a line that was acceptable to all. Such activi- ties sometimes enraged other Zionists, especially those in Eastern Europe who were looking for more specifically Jewish solutions to their plight. But worries about the physical and mental health among Jews were not uncommon among them, too, In Germany, in any case, Jewish and non- Jewish medical men were then debating the special tendency of Jews to articular diseases or asocial behavios, and a streak of self-crtique, some- times no doubt echoing antisemitic parlance, went through the generally smug mood that was characteristic of German Jewry at the time." “This, to be sure, wasnot merely a Jewish phenomenon, Concern about health, particularly about mental health, was widespread in German soci- ery as a whole! It was also a major theme in the critical public dis course in Austria, And it is in this context that the common accusation of Jewish self-hatred ought to be examined, The historian of German “nervousness,” Joachim Radkau, claims that expressions of group infe- Hiority among Germans at the time were both numerous and “amazingly vehement.” Among those who provide written evidence of this sentimet he counts not only Richard Wagner and Hermann Bahs, the Austrian authar and playwright, bor also the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp von Eulenburg, and the younger Moltke, head of the General Staff from1906? Pronouncements of sel-hatred among Jews, however, were noted espe- cially among Jewish intellectuals, who were often marginal men indeed, and were only later made to appear, erroneously, | believe, as a trademark of German Jewry:* * For a detalled analysis ofthis discourse, se John MM. Efion, Mladicene and she Cermmar Bs. A History, New Haven and London, Yale Univesity Press, 290% chs. 4 and 5, pp Ly andthe bibliography cited there * See especially Joachim Radkau, Das Zavaitar des Neroostit, Deutschland awiscben Biomarcl wad Hier, Munich, Hanse, 1998 3 Lida 33 “See Sander Li Gilman, Javish Self Hatradt Aan Semitism and tke Hidden Lorgusge of the Jews, Baltimore, MD, johos Hopkins Univesity Pres, 198% Allan Janik, "Viennese Culture and the Jewish Sef Hatred Hypothesis: A Critique,” in lar Oxcal tl. (eds), “fous, Ansisomiteom and Calture tm Vieone, London, Routledge 8 Kegan Paul, 1987, bpp. | -88;2eter Gay, “Hermann Levi: 8 Study ia Service and Selb Hatred," ia is Freud, [Prsand Other Germans: astersand Vicon ia Maderist CxlturgOxford, Oxford Uni ‘essity Beeas, 1978p. 183-230 From the older Sterature, see Kurt Levin, “Selé-atred among [ews,” ia his Resoluimg Social Confit: Selected Popers an Group Dynamics saglou eYx, JosaSe688ace2 CUNYss4@/Volkoy Frinterssherdian 521 84688 9 May 72036 Exctersus on Self-Hatred and Self-Criticism 38 Accusations of self-hatred have a long tradition of being applied by one Jew to another, often as a part of some political dispute. Present-day Israclis encounter the term all too often in public discourse, where itis used indistinctly and often demagogically, mainly to avoid coping with criticism from within. Ir is, in fact, no less commonly applied in coutem- porary Germany and has often been heard in discussions coucerning the legirimarion of nationalism in thar councry. There, too, self-harred is often confused with self-