D. Niederland Jewish Emigration from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule The Emigration of Jewish Academics and Professionals from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule Source: D. Niederland, 'The Emigration of Jewish Academics and Professionals from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule', Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook , 1988, pp. 285 - 300. The rise of the Nazis to power on the 30th of January 1933 brought in its wake substantial Jewish emigration from Germany.* However these emigrants did not leave en masse , simultaneously. What then, were the factors which determined who would emigrate, why, when and where to? This question has not been systematically considered in the historiography of the period. The usual explanations for the emigration of German Jews in the 1930s focus on the psychological shock caused by the Nazi rise to power; the loss of equal civil rights previously enjoyed by German Jews; their unwillingness to live under totalitarian rule; the racist legislation; political and physical persecution etc. German Jews were depicted as refugees who were under compulsion to leave the land of their birth, but were prevented by difficulties arising from both Nazi policy, and the immigration policy of the Western states and the Jewish organisations dealing with immigration. In contrast to this view 1 , which stresses the political and organisational aspects of the emigration of German Jews, and their status as refugees rather than emigrants, this paper will discuss some economic motives and considerations, at the level of the group and of the individual. It will be argued that, at least until the autumn of 1935 (the Nuremberg Laws) and perhaps even up till the pogrom in November 1938, the Kristallnacht , most German Jews could still weigh up the decision whether to stay or go, despite the new and difficult conditions created for them by Hitler's rise to power. The importance of tracing their economic considerations is therefore obvious. An examination of the factors leading to emigration, its timing and destination will therefore play a central role in the discussion and will be conducted by outlining the emigration patterns of Jews belonging to that occupational sector known as 'academic and professional'. This group in particular was chosen as the subject of discussion since it formed a dominant element of the total number of Jewish emigrants, especially in the first year after Hitler's rise to power. This can be proved by comparing the relative proportion of Jewish professionals among all Jewish bread-winners in Germany to their relative proportion in the Jewish emigration of 1933. Less than 13% of all Jewish bread-winners in Germany (before 1933) belonged to the professions, whereas their relative proportion among the emigrant Jewish bread-winners of 1933 was about 20% 2 . Furthermore, as will be seen below, the emigration of Jewish academics and members of the professions was particularly striking during the first half of 1933. It was therefore considered at the time one of the important and pressing problems connected with Jewish emigration from Germany. The central significance of the emigration of Jewish academics and other professionals from Germany in 1933 is also evidenced by the intensive organisational activity on the international and national level during this period, which aimed at finding a professional place for these emigrants in their host countries. The reports of James McDonald, the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, show that this international body, which was designed to co-ordinate relief efforts to dealing with the academics and professionals amongst them. McDonald justified this not only because 'these groups constitute an important part of the total emigration.' He also claimed that they represented the intellectual elite of the emigrants and as such created specials problems, which differed from those of other emigrants 3 . Furthermore he believed: Less than for any other group is a general solution possible for these categories. If their contribution to learning and science is to be preserved, they have to be slowly and individually absorbed in new places of work on lines of their training.' 4 In order to cope successfully with the special problems connected with the organisation of the emigration of academics and other professional Jews from Germany and their absorption in other potential host countries, many Jewish organisations dealing specifically with this problem were founded, especially in the West. These organisation generally specialised in one of the three subgroups included in this wider definition of academics and professional people, i.e. academics (professors, lecturers etc.), those in the liberal professions (doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, writers, etc.) and students 5 . Among these were the Academic Assistance Council (A.A.C.) in London, and the Emergency Council for Displaced German Scholars, New York, which led the way in organising the emigration of holders of university positions, mainly to Britain and the U.S.; the International Student Service, Geneva, which carried out most of the organisation of the emigration and absorption of students, and the Comite de Placement pour les Refugies Intellectuels , which specialised in the emigration of members of the professions, first and foremost to France, which in 1933 was the main destination of Jews leaving Germany 6 . After discussing the quantitative and qualitative importance of the emigration of Jewish academics and professional people from Germany, and the organisational activity connected with it, we will consider the question of the periodisation of this emigration and the character of the emigrants in each period. During the first two months after Hitler came to power (February/March 1933) the tendency to emigrate obviously increased among the Jews of Germany. However, at this period there was not yet a phenomenon of mass emigration. The reports of both the Jewish and the German emigration bureaux show that most of the applicants in those months requested information on the possibilities of emigration to various countries, but had not yet commenced the emigration process 7 . Parallel to the rise in the number of 'inquiries' and 'requests' for information in February/March, a particular kind of actual emigrant can be noted during these months, mostly academic or professional. These were the Jewish intellectuals (writers, artists, journalists, etc.), who had previously been active in the two main Left-wing parties, e.g. the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD), and who had become, as a result of their activity or of Pacifist principles, enemies of the new regime. These people, who were in fact political refugees, were threatened at this period (especially after the Reichstag fire at the end of February) with death or imprisonment in a concentration camp. They therefore escaped secretly across the border to Western European countries close to Germany (France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.), leaving behind them their jobs, their property and generally their families as well 8 . This flight by Jews, endangered, like Gentile political refugees, by their political affiliation, was completely different from the Jewish emigration of April onwards. An anonymous report on emigration from Germany to Belgium in 1933-1938 illustrates the significant differences between them. It states that: At the outset most of them were political refugees opposed to the Nazi regime and trying to escape the measures taken against them. [Their] number was rather small... But after the anti-Semitic trend of the German government, a new afflux arrived at the Belgian frontier. Now whole families arrived and not only men.' 9 Indeed, April 1933 brought about a major turning point in the extent of Jewish emigration from Germany and in its character, as reported in both German and Jewish sources. An anonymous report on the activities of the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden in Berlin during 1933 states that Der erste gross Andrang waram 29. Maerz. Taeglich kamen dreihundert und manchmal mehr Petenten zu uns. Schon in den ersten Apriltagen zeigte es sich, dass wir mit unserem staendigen Beamtenapparat (11 Personen) die staendig wachsende Arbeit nicht zu bewaeltigen in der Lage sein wuerden.' 10 The Jewish Press in Germany also reports mass emigration during the last few days of March and the first days in April. On 7th of April 1933 the Juedische Rundschau reported that during the previous week about two thousand Jews from Germany had arrived in Holland, half of them in Amsterdam. On 13th April 1933, the same newspaper reported an announcement from the management of HICEM in Paris that hundreds of German Jews had approached their office in the past few days. Lawyers, doctors, engineers and architects were especially prominent among them 11 . Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen , which handled emigration on behalf of the German authorities, described a similar situation. A report from the central office of the Bureau in Berlin states 12 : Der Auswanderungsdrang der Juden setzte schlagartig im April ein und hat im Mai und Juni an Staerke noch zugenommen.' The writers of the report continued to illustrate the turning-point of April by comparing the number of people expressing interest in emigration to Palestine in the first quarter of 1933 with the number in the second. Ihre Zahl hatte im 1. Kalendervierteljahr 417 betragen, sie stieg im April auf 830, und im Mai und Juni auf 1074 bzw. 1062, so dass in der Berichtszeit insgesamt 2926 Auskuenfte ueber Palaestina erteilt [wurden]...' 13 The report gave the following details of the occupation and the last place of residence of Jewish emigrants. Ganz besonders stark trat die Judenauswanderung in Berlin, Frankfurt a.M., Breslau und Koeln in Erscheinung... 14 Unter den juedischen Rechtsanwaelten, Aerzten, Beamten und Gelehrten, die bisher keine grossen Existenzsorgen hatten, herrscht gross Rat- und Ziellosigkeit.' 15 The report added that the emigration of Jewish professionals and doctors drastically increased the representation of this occupational sector among the emigrants 16 . Another report by the district bureau for emigration affairs in Cologne provides more specific information on the link between the type of emigrant and the exact timing of emigration. According to the report, the first to emigrate were Zionist Jews who wanted to go to Palestine. Afterwards came lawyers, doctors, officials, whereas now (the report was apparently written in July/August) business people were coming. The writers of the report add that in May there was a particularly strong impetus towards emigration among Jewish lawyers, doctors and medical students 17 . In view of the data presented up to that point, it may be asked why Jewish academics and professionals chose to emigrate en masse during the spring months of 1933, and especially during May. The answer to this question may be found in the national day of boycott held on 1st April, and in the anti-Semitic legislation of the same month, directed against Jews in the academic and other professions, and especially those of them working in the public sector. In the instructions of the Nazi Party (printed in the Nazi Party organ, on 29th March 1933) for the organisation of the 1st of April boycott it was stated 18 that action committees were to be set up immediately in order to plan and carry out the boycott of Jewish-owned shops, Jewish doctors and lawyers. Similarly, the committees were ordered to demand quotas in the employment of Jews in all the professions, according to their relative numerical strength in the population. In order to increase the force of the campaign, it was stated that the demand should be limited temporarily to three fields: attendance at secondary schools and higher education institutions; the medical profession; the legal profession. These instructions illustrate the central importance placed on the attack on academics and professional people in the framework of the 1st of April boycott. The members of the SA who carried it out fulfilled their instructions, displaying signs with the slogan Meidet juedische Aerzte und Rechtsanwaelte' 19 . The economic and psychological effects of the boycott on Jewish academics and professionals were aggravated during April and the following months by a series of anti-Semitic laws and regulations which expressed the Nazi desire to reduce Jewish employment in these occupations, especially in the public sector, and led to the dismissal of thousands of Jews. The Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (law for the restoration of the professional civil service) of 7th April 1933 (paragraph 3) declared that: Government officials who are non-Aryans will be retired. Officials who already held their positions 1st August 1914, or who fought at the front for the German Reich during the Great War or whose fathers and sons fell in the war are exempt from this provision.' 20 Similar regulations, containing the same exceptions were published on 22nd April 1933 and on 2nd June 1933 relating to doctors and dentists working in public hospitals and for sickness benefit schemes 21 . In order to strike at Jews hoping to engage in these professions in the future, a numerus clausus law was passed on 25th April 1933 limiting the numbers of new non-Aryan pupils and students permitted to study in schools and universities according to the relative proportion of non-Aryans in the population (1.5%) 22 . All these laws and regulations undermined the livelihood of thousands of Jews and served as a major factor encouraging and hastening their emigration. According to one contemporary observer, the fact that they were generally not property owners also influenced the tendency of Jewish academics and professional people adversely affected by the anti-Semitic legislation to emigrate, sometimes at extremely short notice. He claimed that the professional person is generally mobile, needing to take with him or her only the knowledge and skill he or she has acquired. On the other hand, the trader of craftsman had to sell shops, stock and tools, generally at a loss, before emigration 23 . However, it emerges that the effects of the legislation were not uniform. A differential examination of some of the occupations included in the definition 'academic and other professionals' shows that emigration patterns varied from occupation to occupation. The data given in the reports of the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany 24 shows that the Nazi legislation of spring 1933 brought about the dismissal of about 1,200 Jews holding academic posts in German universities. Of these, about 550, i.e. about 45%, left Germany during 1933; the other 650 remained in Germany. The relatively high percentage of emigrants (nearly 50%) among dismissed academics can be explained by the absence of real possibilities of alternative employment: a Jewish professor or lecturer dismissed from the university, who wanted to stay in Germany, had to undergo some form of retraining, which inevitably led to a major drop in status, social standing and wages. In most cases, he was unable to continue working in his profession in the private sector or among Jews, as could some of his professional colleagues, for example. As a result, he preferred to emigrate. A further major factor, which made it very easy for Jewish academics to decide on emigration, and which has been referred to earlier, was the intensive organisational activity around their settlement in Western countries. The reports collected by the A.A.C., which dealt with the activities of all organisations engaged in settling Jewish academics from Germany, show 25 that about 380 of these ¯ about 70 % of all Jewish academics leaving Germany ¯ found permanent or temporary posts abroad (between April 1933-April 1934). The A.A.C. alone helped directly or indirectly to settle 173 Jewish academics and place them in posts in Britain. As to finances, the organisations succeeded in raising $ 1,232,000 for the settlement of academics up to the beginning of 1935 26 . The successful organisational activity on behalf of the ÉmigrÉ academics arose also, of course, from the fact that among them were many famous scientists, even several Nobel Prize winners. The Western states, headed by Britain and the U.S.A., viewed this addition of scientific manpower favourably, and it is therefore not surprising that, unlike other professional people, who were scattered among many countries, including developing countries, academics tended to emigrate to developed Western countries, especially Britain and the U.S.A. A similar pattern to that of the dismissed academics is found among Jewish chemists and engineers. At the beginning of 1933 there were about 1,000-1,200 Jewish chemists and engineers in Germany, to whom about 200 'non-Aryan' chemists and engineers should be added. About 400-500 of them, i.e. about 40%, emigrated during 1933 and the first half of 1934. The explanation for the high percentage of emigrants among chemists and engineers is apparently to be found in the great demand for these professions in the host countries. In this respect the chemical and engineering professions were in sharp contrast to the other professions for which there was only a limited demand in countries of refuge. The Jewish chemists and engineers dismissed from their jobs in Germany could easily find a new job abroad, and this fact made the decision to emigrate easier 27 . At the opposite end of the continuum with regard to emigration patterns was the teaching profession 28 . At the time of Hitler's rise to power, there were about 1,200 Jewish teachers in Germany, some 600 of them in Jewish schools. The Nazi legislation of Spring 1933 thus affected only half of the Jewish teachers, i.e. those who worked in the general schools. Furthermore, one of the typical reactions of the German Jews, after the Nazis came to power and the first anti-Jewish legislation was enacted, was to extend the economic, cultural and educational activity within the Jewish community 29 . As part of this process, the network of Jewish schools was expanded and absorbed within a short time, 300 teachers expelled from the general school system. The dismissed Jewish teachers thus found an acceptable employment alternative, with no fall in status and social standing, within the expanding internal Jewish educational system. As a result, most of them tended to stay in Germany and the percentage of emigrants among them was low, almost negligible 30 . On the other hand, the situation of the 500 Christian 'non-Aryan' teachers who had lost their source of income was extremely difficult. Unlike their Jewish colleagues, they could not be absorbed in the Jewish educational system, and it is not surprising that some 40% of them (200 out of 500) were forced to emigrate 31 . Between the two extreme patterns described above can be found the rest of the professions. Members of these professions (e.g. doctors, dentists, lawyers, artists, writers, journalists) had, at least in part, possibilities of satisfactory alternative employment in the private and/or Jewish sectors. At the same time, their settlement in the countries of refuge was certainly not as sure. These two factors operated together in the direction of a limited tendency to emigrate, expressed numerically at about 20-30% of all those engaged in these professions and affected by the Nazi legislation 32 . Two professions, medicine and law, will be discussed individually in view of the special problems arising from their importance. The relative proportion of Jews among German medical doctors and lawyers was far higher than their proportion in the German population as a whole. Jewish doctors and lawyers formed a very high proportion of all Jewish professionals. At the beginning of 1933 some 5,000 Jewish and 'non-Aryan' lawyers and notaries were active in Germany 33 . About a third of them (1,650) were dismissed as a result of the anti-Semitic legislation of April 1933. Among the latter about 300 (a little less than 20%) left Germany during 1933 and the first half of 1934. However, the position of those who were not dismissed was also extremely difficult: about 55% of them (1,850 out of 3,350) earned less than the minimum required to support their families. This situation arose out of the drop in the number of both criminal and civil cases during 1933, by about 60% in comparison to 1932, as a result of the rise in power of the totalitarian Nazi regime. In addition, about 50% of the remaining cases were included in the category of cases where the state paid the lawyer's fees. Naturally Jewish lawyers were excluded from dealing with these cases. If these two figures are added it will be seen that, in comparison to 1932, only about 20% of the legal cases in Germany were open to Jewish lawyers. Moreover, as a result of the Nazi rise to power, Jewish also lost private clients (companies, corporations and private individuals) who preferred, for obvious reasons, 'Aryan' lawyers. The employment situation of Jewish lawyers was thus very hard, and it is easy to understand why the ranks of the 300 lawyers who emigrated on being dismissed were swelled by another 300 who also decided to leave Germany. In all, about 600 Jewish lawyers emigrated during the period between April 1933 and June 1934. However, it should be emphasised that despite the severity of employment conditions for the Jewish lawyers in Germany, the number of emigrating was not high. The explanation may be found in the difficulty of settling in the host countries. Unlike the doctor, the lawyer needed not only a perfect grasp of the language but also of the local legal system, which could not be quickly acquired. As a result many lawyers were forced to change their profession in the countries where they settled, a factor which deterred them from emigration on a large scale 34 . An important sub-group among the Jewish lawyers, which was even more severely affected than were the lawyers as a whole, was that of the notaries, who were closely linked to the public legal system. As a result they were doubly affected by the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums of 7th April 1933. It might be expected that this fact would increase the notaries' tendency to emigrate, in comparison to other lawyers. In fact, the quantitative data available confirm this assumption 35 : during one year from 7th April 1933 to 1st April 1934 the number of 'non-Aryan' lawyers in Prussia fell by 39%, whereas the number of 'non-Aryan' notaries fell by 56%. In Berlin alone their number fell by 56.5% and in Kassel it reached its lowest point of 73%, a phenomenon not found among lawyers anywhere else. Two sets of data are available with regard to the total number of Jewish medical doctors in Germany on the eve of Hitler's rise to power, the number of them affected by the Nazi legislation and the number of doctors who emigrated. According to the 'maximalistic' numbers given in McDonald's reports 36 , in January 1933 there were in Germany some 9,000 Jewish and 'non-Aryan' doctors. About 4,000 of them were affected by the Nazi legislation: 3,000 were expelled from the Krankenkassen (sickness benefit schemes) and another 1,000 were dismissed from the public hospitals. About 1,100 of those losing their jobs (about 27%) left Germany during the April 1933-June 1934 period. Other, more 'minimalistic' figures appear in the German doctors' journal, Das deutsche Aerzteblatt . They were based on a census held among doctors in Germany and were quoted in the general German and the German-Jewish press 37 . According to these figures, on the eve of the 'Nazi Revolution' there were 6,488 Jewish doctors in Germany. Their relative proportion among the total population of doctors in Germany (50,000) reached about 13%. As a result of the April 1933 legislation 1,667 'non-Aryan' doctors were dismissed from the Krankenkassen and of these about 500 (30%) emigrated during that year. Despite the difference in absolute numbers between the two sources, it may be noted that the percentage of those emigrating among the dismissed doctors is almost identical in both of them, 27% and 30% respectively. The second, German, source provides further information on the effect of the anti-Semitic legislation on the emigration of Jewish doctors. According to this source, a total of 578 Jewish doctors emigrated of Jewish doctors. Five hundred of them were, as stated above, doctors emigrated in 1933. Five hundred of them were, as stated above, doctors who emigrated as a result of their dismissal from the Krankenkassen . The emigration of these doctors was especially noticeable in the large cities, in which the relative proportion of 'non-Aryan' doctors was much higher than the national average, which was 26% of all the Krankenkasse doctors in the Reich . For example, in Berlin the percentage of 'non-Aryan' Krankenkasse doctors on the eve of the Nazi legislation was 43%, in Breslau 39.8%, and in Frankfurt am Main 38.7%. It will be remembered that these three cities were the 'main suppliers' of Jewish emigrants in the April-June 1933 quarter 38 . A more exact figure on the relatively high proportion of doctors from the large cities among the total number of doctors emigrating may be found in another German source ¯ the Berlin doctors' journal 39 . According to this journal 86% of all doctors emigrating were residents of the large cities in Germany. About 70% of all doctors emigrating came from Berlin alone, where 40% of all the Jewish doctors in Germany lived 40 . These quantitative figures thus indicate that the vast majority of doctors emigrating came from those dismissed from the Krankenkassen , mainly in the large cities: from Berlin, Breslau and Frankfurt am Main. This shows the link between the Nazi legislation against the Jews and their decision to emigrate. However it should be noted that only 30% of the doctors dismissed actually did emigrate. An important explanation for this is found, as in the case of the other professions discussed above, in the ability of those dismissed from the Krankenkassen to continue to support themselves by relying on the demand of the private sector. For the Jewish doctor affected by the Nazi legislation the move from the public to the private sector was relatively easy, especially in Germany. The public medical system there was based on the traditional pattern of private medicine; the German-Jewish doctor working for a Krankenkasse was not a salaried employee. He received patients, both private and Krankenkasse members, in his private surgery, and the insurance funds did not dictate his work conditions. The Krankenkassen in Germany did not maintain independent medical institutions. They merely served as agents for health insurance, covering the costs of treatment, medicines and hospitalisation provided by private institutions and doctors with whom they had signed contracts 41 . McDonald's report quoted above 42 also shows the importance of private practice as a factor encouraging Jewish doctors to remain in Germany. In the section dealing with the medical profession, the High Commissioner states that the employment situation of the dismissed doctors was not so serious, able as they were to engage in private practice, enabling them to maintain themselves economically. The same conclusion is reached from the study of an autobiographical source 43 , using a specific case to demonstrate some of the wider emigration patterns. The writer, a lawyer, describes how in 1930 he joined the firm of a relative who had been active in the Unabhaengige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (USPD) in the early years of the Weimar Republic. At the end of February 1933, only one night after the Reichstag fire, his partner fled to Paris, because he was now considered an 'enemy of the German people'. The writer himself, who was not yet either physically or economically threatened, continued to work in the office for several months. He left Germany only in June 1933, as a direct result of his disbarment. His brother, a doctor by profession, remained in Germany even longer. Most of his patients continued to attend his private surgery and he had an income sufficient even to support his elderly mother. Differential examination of the various academics and the professions as we have shown thus proves that among those injured by the Nazi legislation the tendency to emigrate or to remain in Germany depended largely on two factors: the existence of realistic possibilities of alternative employment in the Jewish/private sector which did not involve a drop in status, social standing and income (Jewish teachers, doctors, journalists, artists) or the absence of such an alternative (university professors and lecturers, notaries, Christian 'non-Aryan' teachers); good chances of economic absorption in another country (engineers and chemists, university professors and lecturers) or prospective difficulty in economic absorption in those countries (lawyers). To these should be added another important factor affecting all academics and professional people ¯ the degree of vulnerability to the Nazi legislation of members of different age groups among Jews belonging to these professions. As stated, the dismissal of civil servants, lawyers, doctors and dentists did not apply to Jews who had held their posts since before the First World War, who had fought at the front in that war or whose relatives had been killed in it. Thus the younger age groups (20-35) were more exposed to Nazi legislation than the older age groups. It would therefore be expected that a greater incidence of emigration would be found among the young than among their older colleagues. In fact, the sources do suggest such a trend; for example, in an article in a German-Jewish newspaper on emigration from East Prussia 44 it is stated that young academics affected by the Nazi legislation are the leading group among the emigrants. A similar picture is obtained from the memoirs of contemporaries. Liselotte Kahn, the wife of a Nuremberg Jewish doctor, writes that her husband was able to continue to work since he had served as a doctor in the First World War and had been wounded 45 . However a young doctor whom she met in the street told her that he was forced to emigrate since he had lost his job; he was too young to have served in the war. The writer goes on to make a generalisation that the Jewish doctors who were too young to have seen war service were the first to be affected by the Nazi legislation. To conclude her discussion of this issue, Liselotte Kahn quotes another young doctor who told her that 'It is probably better to be forced out of the country than to be able to continue working like Ernst and having the torture of making the decision to leave on your own.' A survey of the 'German case files' of the Joint 46 also confirms this impression. The younger doctors had found it difficult to build up an extensive private practice within the relatively short time since they had completed their studies. Thus they did not have alternative employment in the private sector which would support them decently. Quantitative confirmation of the over-representation of the younger age groups among the emigrants in the academic and professional category can be found, at least in part, in the data referring to emigration of Jewish doctors in the first two years of Hitler's regime 47 : 66% (860 out of 1307) of all doctors emigrating in those years were aged 30-45, and a further 10% were still younger. Up till now the emigration of academics and professionals has been examined mainly at the sectoral level. However, in order to trace the decision to leave or to stay, the choice of timing and destination, examination must be made at the level of the individual. The main sources for this are the 'German case files' of the Joint and the memoirs of emigrants of the period. An important factor, already mentioned in the discussion at the sectoral level, was dismissal or disbarment. Expulsion from their workplace, which generally struck Jewish academics and professionals as bolt from the blue, is frequently mentioned in the 'case files' of the Joint as an immediate cause of emigration. Furthermore, the proximity in time between the date of job loss and the decision to emigrate is often striking 48 . Another important factor, which affected those not dismissed, and was therefore influential after 1933 as well, was a fall in income. This affected mainly doctors and dentists who could continue to practise in the private sector, but who felt, subjectively, that their income was no longer sufficient, to provide a decent living 49 . Jewish students who had just completed, or were about to complete, their course of study, especially in medicine or law, were affected by another economic aspect. They assumed that as a result of the anti-Semitic legislation of April 1933, they had almost no chance of finding a livelihood in Germany in their field of study in the future. As a result, they were inclined to emigrate in order to finish the remaining years of study, or to begin their specialisation, in another country where they could continue working in that field 50 . It is known that 44% (3,500 our of 8,000) of the Jewish students expelled from German universities in 1933 as a result of the law against 'overcrowding of German schools and institutions of higher learning' emigrated 51 . The relatively large extent of emigration among the students is similar to that of the university lecturers and of the engineers and chemists. The main explanations for this were the relatively promising economic prospects in the host countries set against the inability of finding future employment in Germany; the youth of the students, which made professional retraining easy if it became necessary; the fact that many of them held leftist views, i.e. they were political refugees; the students' unwillingness to become a burden on their parents 52 . Until now mainly 'push' factors have been discussed. We will now discuss 'pull' factors attracting people to the countries of refuge, which had a decisive effect on the direction of emigration and its timing. The prospects for economic integration and obtaining employment in the host countries have already been mentioned as an important catalyst for emigration in the case of academics, engineers and chemists. However, it was also important for members of other professions. One of the earliest examples was connected with emigration attempts by doctors and lawyers to go to Egypt, which met with no success: at the beginning of May 1933 the English newspaper The Daily Telegraph followed by the Germany-Jewish press 53 reported that the Egyptian government had decided to grant rights of settlement and employment to about 200 lawyers and doctors from Germany, victims of the Nazi legislation. As a result of the publication of this information the number of Jewish lawyers and doctors who sought to emigrate to Egypt rose considerably during May 54 . However, about a week later it turned out that the rumour was incorrect 55 . The Egyptian government denied it completely, and the Jewish doctors and lawyers who had hoped to settle in Egypt were disappointed. This unsuccessful attempt illustrates the importance that information on employment opportunities in the host countries, or, on the other hand, on limitations of employment, held for the decision to emigrate to those countries and for the timing. A similar case with regard to the link between a government measure concerning the employment of emigrants and the timing of their arrival occurred in connection with the emigration of doctors to Palestine some two-and-a-half years later, in the summer and autumn of 1935. On 25th July 1935 the Mandatory Government of Palestine published a draft law limiting the number of work permits to be given to doctors reaching Palestine after 1st December 1935, by setting annual quotas. As a direct result of the publication of the proposed law, in the summer and autumn of 1935, mainly during October/November, about 400 doctors, mostly of German origin, arrived in Palestine in order to obtain a work permit before the quota law came into force 56 . The reports of the Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen 57 show that those doctors who were already preparing their emigration brought their plans forward and carried them out during the summer and autumn of 1935, in order to anticipate the target date. These reports show that in the first quarter of 1936 there was a drastic fall in the number of German-Jewish doctors requesting to emigrate to Palestine. The reason is clear: the promulgation of the quota law considerably reduced employment prospects for doctors in Palestine from the beginning of 1936 and made Palestine, from that time on, an unattractive destination for them 58 . Another important factor deciding the destination and timing of emigration was the emigrant's ability to transfer property, capital and pension rights to a particular country 59 . A clear example of the dependence between the possibility of transferring pension rights and the destination and timing of emigration was the attempt of the Central Bureau for the Resettlement of German Jews in Palestine to effect the emigration of Jewish civil servants in Palestine 60 . As cited above, as a result of the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (paragraph 3) thousands of Jewish civil servants were retired. About 100 of them expressed to the Bureau representatives their willingness to emigrate to Palestine. However they would actually emigrate only if their pension rights from the Ministries which had employed them (the Ministries of Justice, Interior, Culture) were transferred to them in Palestine. The economic prospects for finding employment in a particular host country were not linked only to special laws and regulations published on this or that date by the local government. One particular country would sometimes have a consistently favourable reputation as to its ability to provide employment for members of a specific profession. It may be assumed that this was based on the experience of previous emigrants. Thus for example Italy was considered to be a country where historians, dealers and students of art had a good chance of finding employment in their field. Indeed, emigrants of this type formed a prominent group among the total number of emigrants to Italy during 1933-1934 61 . A similar image was created for Britain as a country suitable for the settlement of doctors. Jewish doctors emigrating to Britain could obtain a doctor's license after supplementary studies and examinations. This opened up to them by the possibility of continuing to work in their profession not only in Britain itself but also in all the countries of the British Empire. Furthermore, as bilateral agreements had been signed between Britain, Italy and Japan, doctors with a British diploma could find work in these countries too. It is, therefore, not surprising that Jewish doctors tended to emigrate to a country which opened up for them such a variety of employment opportunities. Nevertheless, the attraction of Britain for Jewish academics, professionals and students pertained only during 1933 and the beginning of 1934 62 . The reason for this was the new regulations (from spring 1934) which limited the export of capital from Germany. As a result of the Haavara Transfer Agreement these regulations did not apply to emigrants to Palestine. Academics and professional people therefore preferred Palestine to Britain from the second half of 1934 onwards 63 . In this case it can be seen that the consideration of ability to transfer capital and property outweighed the consideration of a varying employment possibilities. For the members of certain professions such as the performing arts, writing and journalism, the German language was an important condition for professional success. It may be assumed that such people hoped wherever possible to emigrate to countries such as Austria, Czechoslovakia or Switzerland, where they could continue to work in a German-speaking environment. A general census held among the academic and professional emigrants registered with relief organisations in Europe 64 shows that such a tendency did exist: of 117 emigrants listed in Austria 72 (61 performing artists and 11 writers and journalists), i.e. over 60%, clearly belonged to professions based on the use of the German language. Further more, the number of performing artists, enumerated for Austria (61) was even greater than the number for France (55), then the most popular destination for the German Jews. A similar trend is found when examining the destinations of writers and journalists. Apart from France (where 64 members of these professions had settled) all the other important countries of refuge for writers and journalists could offer a German-speaking audience. Thus for example, a small country like Switzerland received 43 writers and journalists (2/3 of the number received by France), Czechoslovakia 20, Austria and the Saar region 11 each. Altogether German-speaking countries received over 50% (85 out of 167) of all the writers and journalists enumerated in the census in Europe. Discussion of the emigration of Jewish academics and professional people, at both the sectoral and individual level, reveals the importance of economic motives and considerations. These factors worked in both directions, from the country of origin on the one hand, and from the host countries on the other. They largely determined the tendency to emigrate or to stay, the timing and the choice of destination. References: * This article is part of a wider research project (Ph.D. dissertation) entitled Emigration Patterns of German Jews 1918¯1938 , which attempts to determine a typology of the emigrant at the group and individual level. Motives for emigration or remaining in Germany will also be traced in order to reach conclusions about the decision to emigrate, its timing and the choice of host country. 1. The basic post-war research on the problem of German-Jewish emigration is Werner Rosenstock, 'Exodus 1933¯1939. A Survey of Jewish Emigration from Germany', in LBI Year Book I (1956), pp. 373¯390. This pioneering research presents a quantitative analysis of the scope of emigration, its chronological course and direction. Along with Rosenstock's analysis, there are works on emigration from the political and organisational point of view. Two representative works are: Shalom Adler-Rudel, Juedische Selbsthilfe unter dem Naziregime 1933¯1939. Im Spiegel der Berichte der Reichsvertretung der Juden in Deutschland , Tuebingen 1974 (Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts 29), pp. 72¯120; Abraham Margaliot, 'The Problem of the Rescue of German Jewry during the Years 1933¯1939. The Reasons for the Delay in their Emigration from the Third Reich', in Yisrael Gutman and Efraim Zwolff (eds.), Rescue Attempts During the Holocaust , Jerusalem 1977, pp. 247¯266. Both authors deal with the activity of the Jewish Organisation in Germany and abroad in regard to the Jewish emigration from Germany, and the Nazi attitude and policy towards it. The most comprehensive and updated contributions to this subject are Herbert A. Strauss's two detailed articles: 'Jewish Emigration from Germany. Nazi Policies and Jewish Responses', Part I, in LBI Year Book XXV (1980), pp. 313¯363; Part II, in LBI Year Book XXVI (1981), pp. 343¯411. This large-scale synthesis covers the spectrum of all organisational and political aspects of the problem. Although Strauss touches also on the economic factors in the first part of his article (pp. 338¯346), it cannot serve as a systematic analysis, and this paper answers the call for such an analysis. This research is novel also in the choice of sources. In contrast to the previous works, depending on Jewish source material, the present author uses in this paper also German and other, non-Jewish sources. 2. Data on the occupational distribution of the Jewish bread-winners in Germany can be found in the tables appearing in Esra Bennathan, 'Die demographische und wirtschaftliche Struktur der Juden', in Entscheidungsjahr 1932. Zur Judenfrage in der Endphase der Weimarer Republik . Ein Sammelband herausgegeben von Werner E. Mosse unter Mitwirkung von Arnold Paucker, Tuebingen 21966 (Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts 13), pp. 105¯106. It should be noted that among the 13% given by Bennathan are included 'those engaged in public and private services'. Most, but not all of these are included in the category 'academics and professionals'. This means that the proportion of the latter was almost certainly even lower. The data on the relative proportion of academics and professionals among all Jewish emigrant bread-winners from Germany in 1933 are found in Statement of J. G. McDonald, High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, made at the Opening Session of the Governing Body', Lausanne (5th December 1933), p. 4, Leo Baeck Institute Archives, New York (LBA, N.Y.), AR¯7162. An identical figure (20%) also appears in the anonymous report 'The Effects of the German National Socialist Policy', p. 1, YIVO Archives, New York, RG 348, Box 6, File 130. 3. See, for example, High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany: 'Report of the Representative of the High Commissioner, on Activities during the Period May to July 1934' (4th to 5th July 1934), p. 1, LBA, N.Y., AR¯7162, Box 7; 'Report on Activities of the Organisations Dealing with Academic, Professional and Student Emigrants' (April 1934), p. 1, LBA, N.Y., AR¯7162, Box 6. Ibid. , pp. 1¯2. 4. High Commission for Refugees Coming from Germany, 'Report on the Present Position of the Refugees' (not dated), p. 11, LBA, N.Y., AR¯7162, Box 8. 5. The detailed lists of all Jewish organisations active outside Germany on behalf of academic, professional and students emigrants can be found in High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, 'Report of the Representative...(4th to 5th July 1934)', loc. cit. , pp. 1¯8. 6. Ibid. The censuses and reports produced by these organisations provide much data, both quantitative and qualitative, on the migration patterns of emigrants according to their occupations. These data will be presented and analysed below. 7. On the phenomenon of people 'making inquiries' during the first months of Nazi rule, see report of the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden (untitled), p. 1, YIVO Archives, New York, RG 116, Folder 4; Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Muenchen, Vierteljahresbericht, Januar-Maerz 1933, p. 2, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Ministerium des Innern (BAYHSTA, MInn) 74182; Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin ¯ Stand der Auswanderungsbewegung im 1. Kalendervierteljahr 1933, p. 2, BAYHSTA, MInn 74165. 8. For two typical examples of such political refugees see: A letter from William Pickens to Dr. Hyman concerning Dr. Arnold Kalisch (30th April 1935), Joint-German Case Files, AR¯7196, Box 10, Folder 7, LBA, N.Y., and the memoirs of Rudolph Sachs, A German-Jewish Refugee', LBA, N.Y., Memoirs Collection, p. 11. 9. A report (untitled and undated) concerning the immigration to Belgium 1933¯1939, YIVO Archives, New York, RG 116, Folder 5, p. 1. 10.Report of the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden from 1933 (see note 7), p. 1. 11. Juedische Rundschau , Nos. 28/29 (7th April 1933), Juedische Rundschau , Nos. 30/31 (13th April 1933). 12.Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin ¯ Stand der Auswanderung im 2. Kalendervierteljahr 1933, BAYHSTA, MInn 74165, p. 1. 13. Ibid. 14.Ibid. , p. 3. 15. Ibid., p. 2. 16. Ibid. , p. 7. 17.Taetigkeitsbericht fuer April, Mai, Juni 1933 der oeffentlichen Auswanderungsberatungsstelle, Koeln, Hauptstaatsarchiv Duesseldorf, Reg. Aachen, 18467, pp. 7¯8. 18. Voelkischer Beobachter (Sueddeutsche Ausgabe), Nr. 88 (29th March 1933). 19.Martin Broszat, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Helmut Krausnick, Anatomie des S.S.-Staates , Band II, Freiburg 1965, p. 313. 20. Reichsgesetzblatt , I, 1933, p. 175. A translation from the Hebrew version appearing in Yitzhak Arad, Yisrael Gutman, Abraham Margaliot (eds.), Ha'Shoah Be'Teud , Jerusalem 1979, p. 44. 21. Reichsgesetzblatt , I, pp. 222, 350. 22. Reichsgesetzblatt , I, p. 225. The summary of the law is taken from Joseph Walk (Hrsg.), Das Sonderrecht fuer die Juden im NS-Staat , Heidelberg-Karlsruhe 1981, pp. 17¯18. 23.Georg Flatow, 'Zur Lage der Juden in den Kleinstaedten', Juedische Wohlfahrtspflege und Sozialpolitik , 4 (1933/1934), pp. 237¯245. 24.'Report of the Representative of the High Commissioner', loc. cit. (July 1934), p. 3; Report on Activities of the Organisations..., loc. cit. (April 1934), pp. 1, 3. 25. Ibid. , p. 3. 26.High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany: Report on Present Position of the Refugees (undated, circa 1935/1936) LBA, N.Y., AR¯7162, Box 8, p. 12. 27.'Report of the Representative...(4th to 5th July 1934)', loc. cit. , p. 7. 28. Ibid. , p. 6. 29.On this matter see Abraham Margaliot, 'Megamot veDrachim Be'Ma'avaka HaKalkali Shel Yahadut Germania Be'Tekufat Ha'Redifot Ha'Naziot', Uma Ve'Toldoteha , Part 2, The Modern Period, Shmuel Ettinger, (ed.), Jerusalem 1985, pp. 339¯357. 30.'Report of the Representative...', loc. cit. (July 1934), pp. 6¯7. 31. Ibid. 32.Ibid. , pp. 5¯7. 33. Ibid. , p. 5. This report gives the data on lawyers brought below. 34.Taetigkeitsbericht fuer April, Mai, Juni 1933... loc. cit. , p. 7; Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin, loc. cit. , p. 2. 35. Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 17 (26th April 1934), p. 3. It should be emphasised that the drop in the number of lawyers and notaries in Prussia does not necessarily coincide with the number of emigrants, since it includes emigration plus internal migration plus those undergoing professional retraining and remaining in Germany. However, this does not detract from the importance of these data, since they are presented here only for purposes of comparison of the decrease in the number of notaries to that of lawyers, and not as absolute numbers. 36.High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, 'Report of the Representative...(4th to 5th July 1934)', loc. cit. , pp. 5¯6. 37.The data given below, quoted from Das deutsche AErzteblatt are found in Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 2 (10th January 1935); Juedische Rundschau , No. 2 (4th January 1935); Berliner Tageblatt , No. 614 (31st December 1934). 38.Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin, loc. cit. , p. 3. 39.The data quoted from the Berlin journal for doctors are found in Der Innsbrucker , No. 26 (31st January 1934), BAYHSTA, Praslg 3924. It should be noted that according to this source 412 Jewish doctors emigrated from Germany in 1933 as against the 500 given in Das deutsche AErzteblatt . 40. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs , Band 451, Heft 5 ¯ Die Glaubensjuden im Deutschen Reich (Volkszaehlung, 16.6.33), Berlin 1936, p. 98. 41.Ludwig Preller, Sozialpolitik in der Weimarer Republik , Duesseldorf 1978, pp. 284, 329. 42.High Commissioner for Refugees... loc. cit. (July 1934), pp. 5¯6. 43.Sachs, 'A German-Jewish Refugee', loc. cit. , pp. 2, 11¯16. 44. Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 3 (18th January 1934), p. 10. 45.Liselotte Kahn's Memoirs, LBA, N.Y., Memoirs Coll., pp. 15¯16. 46.A letter by Frida Mansbacher concerning her son (23rd December 1936), Joint-German Case Files, AR¯7196, LBA, N.Y., Box 15, Folder 5; A letter by Otto Rubens and John Lanzkron (17th November 1933), Joint-German Case Files, AR¯7196, Box 12, Folder 5. 47. Juedische Rundschau , No. 44 (31st May 1935), p. 2. The data are quoted from Das deutsche AErzteblatt . 48.Joint-German Case Files, AR¯7196, LBA, N.Y.; 1. A letter by the lawyer E. Loewenthal (July 1933), Box 14, Folder 6; 2. A letter concerning Dr. Zeuner, palaeontologist (6th November 1933), Box 5, Folder 1; 3. A letter by Otto Rubens and John Lanzkron (17th November 1933), Physicians, Box 12, Folder 5; 4. A letter concerning Willy Israel, engaged in the film industry (13th June 1933), Box 9, Folder 3; 5. A letter concerning the lawyer Dr. Hirschfeld who left Germany just two days after he lost the right to practice law (7th February 1936), Box 8, Folder 5. 49.Joint-German Case Files, AR¯7196, LBA, N.Y.; 1. A letter by Richard Lefkowitz, a dentist (29th January 1934), Box 13, Folder 1; 2. A letter concerning Mrs. Freund's daughter, a pediatrician (13th January 1936), Box 4, Folder 3; 3. A letter by Frida Mansbacher concerning her son, a pediatrician (23rd December 1936), Box 15, Folder 5. 50.High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany, Memorandum on Refugees Employment (undated), pp. 1¯2, LBA, N.Y., AR¯7162, Box 6; Joint-German Case Files, AR¯7196; 1. A letter concerning the student Jacques Malkiel (12th September 1933), Box 15, Folder 5; 2. A letter by Heinz David (6th November 1933), Box 1, Folder 3; 3. A letter by Hans Krefeld (6th November 1933), Box 13, Folder 4. 51.According to a report of the International Student Service (May 1933¯August 1937), pp. 6¯7. Central Zionist Archives , Section A¯255, File 860. 52. Ibid. 53.Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 19 (11th May 1933), p. 2. 54.Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin, loc. cit. (April¯Juni 1933), p. 5. 55. Israelitisches Familienblatt , No. 20 (18th May 1933). 56.A letter from Moshe Brachmann to Fritz Noak (Chairman of the Health Committee of the Vaad Leumi) (16th December 1935), Central Zionist Archives JI/2456; S. Kanowitz, 'Ein verfehltes Gesetz', Mitteilungsblatt der Hitachdut Olej Germania (1st January 1936), pp. 10¯12. 57.Die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Muenchen, Vierteljahresbericht Juli¯September 1935, p. 9, BAYHSTA, MInn 74182; Taetigkeitsbericht der oeffentlichen Auswandererberatungsstelle, Koeln fuer Juli¯September 1935, p. 2. Hauptstaatsarchiv Duesseldorf, Reg. Aachen, 18957. 58.Taetigkeitsbericht fuer Januar¯Maerz 1936, ibid. , pp. 3, 15. 59.The question of transfer of property and capital as a deciding factor for the timing and destination of emigration is worthy of separate systematic discussion elsewhere. One example from the academic and professional sector will be presented. 60.A letter from the Central Bureau for the Resettlement of German Jews to Foley, the British Passports Office in Berlin (28th June 1933), Central Zionist Archives S7/64. 61.Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Berlin¯Stand der Auswanderung im 3. Kalendervierteljahr 1934, p. 14, BAYHSTA, MInn 74165; die Reichsstelle fuer das Auswanderungswesen, Muenchen, Vierteljahresbericht fuer Juli¯September 1934, p. 6, BAYHSTA, MInn 74182. The reports emphasise that the emigration to Italy of art historians, students and dealers was striking in previous periods as well. 62.Taetigkeitsbericht der oeffentlichen Auswanderungsberatungsstelle, Koeln, fuer Januar¯Maerz 1934, p. 6, Hauptstaatsarchiv Duesseldorf, Reg. Aachen, 18467. 63. Ibid. (April¯Juni 1935), p. 2. 64.Partial results of this census, held in 1934, were published in High Commission for Refugees Coming from Germany, Central File of Professional Refugees, London (4th¯5th July 1934), LBA, N.Y., AR¯7162, Box 7, p. 2. It should be emphasised that this census was problematic for two reasons: a) Britain, Holland and Belgium had not completed it by the date for returning results. The findings for these countries are therefore partial only. b) It included only people registered with the national and international relief and welfare associations, and not all academics and professional immigrants from Germany living in Europe. As a result it will be used only to suggest trends, ignoring the absolute numbers which are, as stated, fragmentary only. Back to the top