The critical position of the Jewish Communities in Germany took up almost the entire attention of the speakers at the Conference of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Prussia, which has been meeting here. Rabbi Dr. Vogelstein, in opening the Conference, immediately started off by emphasising the difficult times in which they were meeting, days of economic and spiritual distress of the Jewish population. The larger communities are subject to difficulties on all sides, he said, and the smaller communities find their very existence imperilled.
Dr. Leo Wolff, the President of the Council, also spoke in his report of the exceptionally difficult situation, due to the distress in the Father land and the specific Jewish distress. In order to secure respect in our fight for equal rights, which at present exist largely only on paper, he said, we must settle our differences among ourselves like brothers, instead of taking our disputes into the outside world.
Antisemitism, he went on, has grown to a tremendous extent and has assumed unbearable forms. From this place we shall express our indignation against the attacks made upon Jews, the insults hurled against Judaism and the degradations to which we are subjected. We may expect the authorities to recognise our position, but we do not intend to conceal the fact that there have also been cases where our demand for protection has not been taken into sufficient account.
Herr Georg Kareski (People’s Party) said that the dispute as to whether the Jews were a religious community or a Volksgemeinde (People’s Community) must be stopped. There were proposals before them from the Liberal side, too, he said, which did not fit in to the framework of merely a religious community. The present political and economic distress was not merely transitional, he said, and they did not, therefore have to take any exceptional measures to cope with an exceptional situation. They must rationalise the whole of Jewish life for duration. He did not think that a poor community like theirs could afford the luxury of three high schools and three teachers’ seminaries.
Dr. Horowitz (Conservative) said that the work of the Jewish community was not exhausted by the work of merely a religious community, but at the same time the Jewish community was not a people’s community. Judaism owed its preservation to the realisation of the Jewish law in life.
There was much disturbance when Dr. Peyser (Union of National German Jews) spoke sharply against the demand of the Jewish People’s Party for the transformation of the Jewish religious Community into a People’s Community, suggesting that the members of the People’s Party by their own admission were not Germans in the sense in which his party understood it.
He was compelled to break off because of the protests of the People’s Party, who complained that he was throwing aspersions on their loyalty as German citizens.
Dr. Bruno Weil said that economically German Jewry had been thrown back 60 or 80 years. It seemed essential, he said, that the administrative machinery of the Federation should be reduced in view of the economic distress. The latest political declarations made by the leading Government authorities, he complained, did not take a definite stand against the religious and racial enmity towards the Jews.
German Jewry, he urged, must take its place in the fighting front, together with the big non-Jewish groups, like the Catholic Church, the Labour Parties and some of the Protestant groupings, which were fighting Hitlerism, so that they could safeguard the rights of the Jews. At the same time, they must not isolate themselves from the Christian section of the population, and must stand firm against every attempt at segregation.
Dr. Nahum Goldmann (People’s Party) said that contrary to what Dr. Peyser had claimed, he could recognise himself as a Jew without running counter to the best German traditions.
Dr. Alfred Klee (People’s Party) said that they had to discuss not the economic distress of the Jewish Communities, but the economic distress of the German Jews in general. They should establish loan banks to aid the 3,000 German Jews who were now literally on the streets. They should also set up a wanderers’ employment bureau for the assistance of those who were seeking employment by going to other towns. An economic conference of German Jews should also be convoked to combat the practice of those employers who would not give employment to Jews.
Councillor Peyser (Liberal) said that Jews were discouraged and tired of fighting and also people did not believe that there was any possibility of an improvement in their position before the general economic situation improved. Their Federation ought to fight against this tiredness and disillusion. In view of the fact that the Jewish private bankers who previously could help the Jewish middle class had now disappeared, they should do everything possible to further the co-operative idea. Instead of calling an economic conference, which would be an expensive business and would take a lot of time, he suggested that they should set up a special commission to consider economic questions.
Herr Alfred Berger (People’s Party) said that the existence of a specific Jewish economic distress was now recognised even by the Liberal side. If Councillor Peyser had made his present statement a few months back, the “Juedische-liberale Zeitung” would have attacked him as a Zionist utopian. The present economic crisis was not a chance happening. The Jews were particularly hard-hit because of the annihilation of the middle class and the trade depression, as well as the concentration of capital and the amalgamation of companies. It was impossible for Jews to obtain employment not only in non-Jewish enterprises, but even firms directed by Jews had a numerus clausus against Jewish employees. The prospect of a Jewish worker or employee ever being able to become an employer on his own was gone. The Jews were being pushed out even from the liberal professions.
The Jewish economic problem in Germany, he claimed, was fundamentally the same as in Poland. Even if it was not possible to have a radical means of relief, they could by the establishment of loan banks which would not be excessively cautious in their policy, do a good deal to alleviate the situation.
The fight against the economic distress also of necessity he thought, demanded political action. If the supreme court in Munich, for instance, decided that Jewish unemployed who refused to accept employment involving work on the Sabbath, were for that reason not entitled to unemployment pay, the whole of German Jewry should take political action to get this decision rescinded. The Catholics in Saxony had done that in regard to a similar decision affecting themselves, and they had won.
Professor Julius Hirsch said there was no doubt that the Jewish population was subject to severe economic distress, because of its special economic grouping. They had to consider three questions, the economic world crisis; the economic crisis in Germany, and the specific Jewish problem in German economic life.
The improvement in German economic life which would come with the end of the world crisis would also improve the Jewish economic situation. A good deal could also be expected from the new branches of production, like the radio, the motor-car, and the film. Professor Hirsch concluded by warning the Conference against the idea of a Jewish agricultural settlement on German soil, advocated by Professor Franz Oppenheimer. The system of loan banks, too, he said, could not bring about any real alleviation. Instead of the suggested Jewish economic conference, he proposed the setting up of a small committee of outstanding economic leaders, which could meet immediately and show the Jews of Germany that there was still hope.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
