The Holocaust: A New History

by Laurence Rees

  This pattern, of capitalizing on the desire of Nazi supporters to initiate anti-Semitic actions, sanctioning the attacks and then ensuring that his own name was never explicitly used on any formal order to attack the Jews, is – like the use of Jews as ‘hostages’ – one that we will see repeated a number of times in this history. Hitler later said that he wanted his generals to be like bull terriers on chains, and they should want ‘war, war, war’ and ‘I should have to put brakes on the whole thing.’16 That method of leadership – whereby those below called for action in areas of policy for which Hitler had already expressed support in principle – applied just as much to his Stormtroopers in the context of the attack on the Jews as to his generals with the approach of war. There were many advantages to Hitler in operating in this way – not least that he could preserve a certain distance from any policy that later proved unpopular or damaging, if necessary blaming what happened on ‘hotheads’ who could not be restrained. But Hitler was always ultimately in control. If he wanted something stopped, it stopped at once.

  After he had learnt of protests held abroad by foreign Jews, Hitler almost certainly did believe that there was some kind of international Jewish conspiracy at work. Most famously, on 27 March 1933 a mass protest rally was held at Madison Square Garden in New York, with more than 50,000 protesters attending inside and outside the hall. Three days before, on 24 March, the front page of the Daily Express in Britain had read ‘Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite in Action’.

  Two groups of German Jews – the Organization of German Zionists and the Centralverein (the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith) – sent delegations at Göring’s request to London at the end of March to try and prevent the imposition of trade restrictions against Germany.17 While their actions were understandable, in the warped world that Hitler inhabited they proved that there was a link between Jews that extended beyond nations. Jewish groups outside Germany were also well aware of the similar paradox they faced. If they said nothing, it looked as if they were abandoning the German Jews; if they spoke out, they fuelled Hitler’s fantasy of the existence of an ‘international conspiracy’ of Jews. It was an impossible situation for them, and one that prevented a unified international response to Nazi anti-Semitic actions during the early years of Hitler’s rule.

  The Centralverein issued a press release on 24 March that illustrated the delicate line that this most influential of Jewish groups in Germany sought to tread. On the one hand, they dismissed as ‘pure fiction’ reports that were allegedly in the foreign press claiming that the bodies of Jews had been found dumped outside a Jewish cemetery in Berlin, and that there had been a round-up of Jewish girls. On the other hand, they did admit that ‘some’ Jews had been the subject of ‘acts of political revenge and violence’. The situation for Jews in Germany was bad, they seemed to be saying, but not as bad as some people abroad were claiming.18

  On the eve of the planned Jewish boycott Goebbels, authorized by Hitler, announced that the action would now take place only for one day – Saturday 1 April – but it would be reimposed if foreign attacks on the regime did not stop. Once again the Nazi regime sought to demonstrate that the welfare of German Jews depended on the behaviour of other countries towards Germany. Hitler and Goebbels were attempting to build a mental construct within which their assault on the German Jews could be seen as an act of self-defence against attacks by foreign Jews.

  In Stuttgart, fifteen-year-old Arnon Tamir awaited the imposition of the boycott with trepidation. He had already heard ‘stories of friends who had been beaten up. And I also had a friend, an older friend, who just happened to be home at the time. He told me that SA men [Stormtroopers] from outside the village came into the village to beat up and thrash all the Jews so badly that they were unable to sit down for weeks. One heard things like that. It was their [the Nazis’] particular technique not to have SA men from the same village attack the Jews but to bring in people from outside.’19

  On 1 April, Arnon felt ‘a deep chasm opened up inside’ him: ‘The SA marched and positioned themselves in front of all the Jewish shops. They daubed paint all over the shop windows and then one or two or three SA men stood outside each shop. The public was gathering around or passed by and it was said “Germans do not buy in Jewish shops,” “the Jews are our misery” and so on. We were standing there and looked on, and it did happen that one or two Germans did enter the shop anyway and were not to be stopped, they went in demonstratively, that was still in ’33 … And that’s when the penny dropped, that if you could treat Jews like that, then all the stories suddenly came together, the stories about arrests … about beatings and manslaughter … I felt as if I was falling into a deep hole. That’s when I intuitively realized for the first time that the existing law did not apply to Jews. Meaning that you could do with Jews whatever you liked, that nobody stood up for them, that a Jew was an outlaw. That’s when I realized for the first time what it meant that anybody can do to you whatever they like, even beat you to death. That was deeply terrifying for me. I was a young lad, not even sixteen years of age. That’s when it clicked, that’s when I began to distance myself from the Germans. Basically, my parents did not really believe that something like this was possible. There were also German neighbours who said: “This is just a horrific episode, it will pass, they don’t mean you, they mean the others, the big Jews, the moneyed Jews, the international Jews.” ’20

  From the Nazis’ point of view, the boycott was a mixed success. While it allowed the Stormtroopers to vent their splenetic hatred in an organized way, it also revealed the lack of broad public support for anti-Semitic actions of this brutish kind. Arnon Tamir’s experience – that a number of Germans braved the Stormtroopers outside the shops and went inside as normal – was a common one. Few Germans appeared to relish the idea of Nazi thugs targeting defenceless shopkeepers – even if they were Jewish – and such a visible, state-sanctioned boycott was never repeated.

  Having harassed the Jews in a physical way, the Nazis turned to the law. On 7 April 1933 Hitler’s government passed their first pieces of anti-Semitic legislation. The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service called for officials who were not of ‘Aryan descent’ to be removed, and a similar law ordered ‘non-Aryan’ lawyers to cease practising. But, at the request of President von Hindenburg, a number of exemptions were made, chiefly for those who had fought in the First World War or whose close relatives had been killed in the conflict. This dulled the effect of the legislation and large numbers – including more than half the Jewish lawyers – were able to continue to practise. At the end of April a third law was announced, which limited the number of Jewish students in state schools and universities.

  Tension continued between the wishes of fervent Nazi supporters for widespread anti-Semitic actions and the desire of Hitler and the Nazi leadership to minimize disruption to the economy. Jewish doctors, for example, had been excluded from the restrictive legislation in April 1933, but some local Nazi groups targeted them regardless. It was obvious that a number of Hitler’s followers – no doubt influenced by their Führer’s previous hate-filled rhetoric about the Jews – wanted swifter change.

  Many Jewish businessmen suffered immensely. Arnon Tamir’s father, for instance, owned a small cigarette factory in Stuttgart, and shortly after the April boycott the cigarette dealers in the city told him that they couldn’t sell his cigarettes any more. This wasn’t an ‘official’ action – the government would have known nothing about it – but that made little difference to Arnon Tamir’s father who lost his business and was plunged into a deep depression.

  However, there were other German Jews who found that their daily routine was relatively unaffected by the arrival of the Nazis. The quality of their life depended to a large extent on the attitude of the non-German Jews they lived among. Rudi Bamber in Nuremberg, for instance, felt that ‘outside school hours’ he was perfectly safe walking around the city. But in th
e months after Hitler came to power he did notice that the teaching changed at the mixed religious school he attended: ‘A biology teacher began to teach German biology and the racist approach – the Jews were a different race to the Germans and lots of racist theories were held forth.’ On one occasion he discovered that an anti-Semitic cartoon, torn from Der Stürmer, had been left on his desk: ‘Everybody was looking and watching to see what my reaction would be to this, and I can’t remember exactly what I did but it was quite clear to me that I’d have to be careful what I did – or didn’t do – in order not to give too much gratification to the people. I think I probably lifted the lid up and shoved it inside the desk and left it there. But the teachers were keen to maintain control in the class so the pupils were aware that they couldn’t go too far.’21

  Just as there were Germans who expressed open anti-Semitism, so there were others who did what they could to help the Jews. Eugene Leviné discovered that good Samaritans could sometimes be found in unexpected places. Shortly after Hitler came to power Eugene was warned by a non-Jewish family friend that the flat he was living in was being watched. Eugene was particularly vulnerable, both as the son of one of the most prominent Communist revolutionaries and as a member of the Berlin Young Communists. But what surprised him was that the family friend who came to tell him he was in danger was a member of the Nazi party. Eugene has always been grateful to him, not least because ‘he took quite a risk to do that.’22 Subsequently, he discovered that other Jewish refugees had ‘similar stories to tell’.

  Around 37,000 German Jews left Germany in 1933 – 7 per cent of the country’s 520,000 Jews.23 Many of the German Jews who left went to neighbouring countries like France or the Netherlands; it was notoriously problematic to arrange a visa for the United States. Jews who wanted to emigrate also had to contend with stringent laws restricting the amount of wealth that they could take out of Germany – most left with virtually nothing. The Central Committee of German Jews for Relief and Reconstruction warned against a mass exodus: ‘It will not help anybody to go abroad aimlessly … but only increase the numbers there who are without work and means.’24

  There were also a whole series of emotional reasons why flight remained an unattractive option. ‘My mother’s parents were living with us,’ says Rudi Bamber, ‘and while it might have been possible for my parents perhaps to find something abroad, they couldn’t take the old people, that would be impossible … my mother didn’t feel that she wanted to abandon them to their fate. I was perhaps [also] influenced by my parents’ optimism – the optimism of various people – that it’s not going to get worse.’25

  Today, we know how much worse life was going to get for the Jews who remained in Germany, which is why it is so important to remember that at the time it didn’t even seem certain that Hitler would survive in office for more than a few months. After all, the last three Chancellors had struggled to control events and had been replaced – why wouldn’t Hitler just be another in that long list? ‘Many people thought, “Ah well! He can’t cope with unemployment,” ’ says Eugene Leviné. ‘ “He can’t do anything. He’ll be finished. He’ll make a lot of promises – he’ll be finished …” That’s why so many Jews stayed on, despite the pleading of their relatives and children to leave. Because who wants to become a refugee and live on next to nothing, when you’ve still got your comfortable flat?’26

  The Jewish experience in Germany thus varied considerably during this period, to a large extent depending on geography. The majority of German Jews lived in big cities, particularly Berlin and Frankfurt – in Frankfurt nearly 5 per cent of the overall population was Jewish.27 In these large metropolises, German Jews were less subject to arbitrary attack than those who lived in the countryside. Away from the cities, signs reading ‘Jews are not welcome here’ sprouted in a number of villages and towns, particularly in the area of northern Bavaria known as Franconia. Julius Streicher was Gauleiter of Franconia, and this was a district where anti-Semitic sentiment ran high. Indeed, it was no accident that during these early years of Nazi rule the most infamous example of an attack against the Jews occurred here in Franconia – in the small town of Gunzenhausen, 30 miles south-west of Nuremberg.

  On the evening of 25 March 1934, Kurt Bär, a twenty-two-year-old Stormtrooper, went with a number of his comrades to a pub in Gunzenhausen that was run by a Jewish landlord. It was Palm Sunday, a date of considerable religious significance to Christians, and the Stormtroopers had heard a rumour that an ‘Aryan’ might be drinking in the pub – something they considered outrageous. Once the Stormtroopers were in the pub, Bär claimed that Julius Strauss, the son of the landlord, spat on him – though Julius Strauss denied this ever happened. Bär proceeded to beat up not just Julius but his father and the rest of the Strauss family.

  A crowd gathered in front of the pub and Bär stopped hitting the Strauss family long enough to give an impromptu speech. He asked how it was possible ‘even in these days’ that ‘a Christian drinks his beer at a Jew’s place, since the Jews are our mortal enemies and have nailed our Lord to the cross. Furthermore, the Jews are to blame for the two million dead of the world war and the 400 dead and 10,000 severely injured of the [Nazi] movement. Plus, how many Jews have already raped German girls and how many bastards run around in Germany now? Nowadays, if a Jew still dares to spit at an SA man it is as if he spits on Adolf Hitler and the whole movement.’28 One witness said that ‘around 200’ people listened to Bär’s speech and ‘they all agreed’ with it.29

  The beating of Julius Strauss now resumed, with the crowd egging on the Stormtroopers, shouting ‘Hit him! Hit him!’30 Afterwards the whole Strauss family was taken to the local jail. According to an official report of the incident, once in the jail Mrs Strauss protested that she had done nothing wrong, and ‘Kurt Bär struck her across the face and said, “You Jewish hussy, keep your trap shut.” Mrs Strauss tried to hide behind the prison administrator and grabbed hold of his arm. This gave Bär an excuse to strike her another blow, saying, “you Jewish hussy, you must not touch a Christian.” ’31

  Several hundred – some reports say more than a thousand – citizens of Gunzenhausen now roamed the streets, yelling ‘The Jews have to go!’ Jewish property was attacked, around thirty Jews were arrested and two Jews died. One committed suicide when a mob threatened him. The other, Jacob Rosenfelder – who was found hanging in a shed – had almost certainly been murdered.

  Although a large number of people had participated in the riot, only a handful of Stormtroopers were ever put on trial. In June 1934 the district court at Ansbach also decided that – despite evidence to the contrary – both the Jews who died had committed suicide. So the defendants only had to face charges of breach of the peace and causing minor injuries. Five of the defendants were discharged, seventeen received sentences of between three and seven months in jail, and Bär was told he would go to prison for ten months. None of those found guilty were taken into custody straight away, and on 21 August 1934 every sentence – apart from Bär’s – was quashed on appeal.

  During the investigation into the crime, the deputy of the ‘Supreme SA leader of the government of Central Franconia’ tried to shift the blame for the whole incident on to the Jews themselves. He wrote that despite the ‘National Socialist Revolution no stop has been put to the dirty game of the Jews’. Furthermore, ‘the Jews in this district nowadays are just as arrogant, brazen, barefaced and brash as they were before the revolution. A large number of inhabitants of the town of Gunzenhausen as well as the district of Gunzenhausen have been legitimately annoyed by this for some time.’32

  The authorities in Berlin were concerned that local Nazis had taken the law into their own hands. ‘I strongly request’, wrote the Reich Minister of the Interior to the authorities in Bavaria, ‘that measures be taken so that these riots don’t repeat themselves, and that the police intervene to stop the singing of the song “And when Jewish blood splatters from the knife, everything will be fine again! SA comra
des, hang the Jews, put the fat cats against the wall!” The Jewish question is to be handled by the government of the Reich, not by the SA of Gunzenhausen.’33

  That wasn’t the end of the incident. On 15 July 1934 Kurt Bär together with two of his comrades returned to the pub in Gunzenhausen where the riot had started. According to the subsequent indictment against him, ‘Kurt Bär entered the room shouting, “Hands up”,’ and immediately fired two shots at Simon Strauss [the landlord] who sat directly in front of him and who was hit in the head by both shots.’ Julius Strauss, the landlord’s son, tried to escape, but Bär shot him as well. Bär was taken to the local jail where he shouted out through a window to a crowd that had gathered in the street ‘I have shot two Jews. Be contented, I defended the honour of my SA comrades!’34

  Simon Strauss died of gunshot wounds but his son survived, so Bär faced one charge of murder and one of attempted murder. In October 1934 he was sentenced to ten years in prison, but he was released just four years later. Julius Streicher had called for Bär to be treated leniently, saying, according to one eyewitness, ‘It is wrong, naturally, that this Jew was killed, but I am naturally glad about every Jew that is being killed.’35