Wolf Gruner, Joerg Osterloh, eds.. Das "Grossdeutsche Reich" und die Juden: Nationalsozialistische Verfolgung in den "angegliederten" Gebieten. Wissenschaftliche Reihe des Fritz Bauer Instituts. Frankfurt/New York: Campus, 2010. 330 pp. EUR 39.90, cloth, ISBN 978-3-593-39168-7. Reviewed by Catherine Epstein Published on H-German (March, 2011) Commissioned by Benita Blessing (Oregon State University) What happened to Jews in areas annexed to The volume examines each area in the order Nazi Germany between 1935 and 1941? In what in which it was annexed. Each essay then follows ways was their persecution similar or different the same three-part outline: a discussion of the from that of Jews in the old Reich? What do we situation of Jews before annexation, of Nazi poli‐ learn about the Nazi regime more generally by ex‐ cies during the initial period of annexation, and amining anti-Jewish policies in the annexed ar‐ then of antisemitic practices during the years of eas? This elegant volume explains how the unique occupation. As the contributions illustrate, each demographic, economic, and social situation in case had a unique aspect that shaped Nazi perse‐ each area annexed to the Third Reich played out cution practices and thus the Jewish experience in in antisemitic policies. For some areas, such as the given area and beyond. The peculiar situation Memel, Eupen-Malmedy, and Alsace, it offers the of each newly annexed area also gave the Nazi au‐ first overview of the persecution of Jews in a par‐ thorities in charge of the region considerable lati‐ ticular area. In other locations, such as Austria tude in initiating the persecution of Jews. and East Upper Silesia, the volume presents a stel‐ For the Saar region, Gerhard J. Teschner lar overview of areas of the Final Solution that shows how the League of Nations insisted that scholars have already well documented. But as Jews be given a one-year reprieve from anti‐ the editors' introduction underscores, the real semitic measures after annexation; that year (be‐ strength of the volume is that it examines the cas‐ ginning in March 1935) allowed many Jews to es together. This, in turn, reinforces insights into leave Nazi Germany with their property in tow. some of the fundamental dynamics of the Final Three years later, Austria provided the model for Solution, including the role of local initiative and the speedy dispossession and forced emigration of the transfer of Nazi persecution practices from Jews. As Albert Lichtblau expertly describes, the one area to another. "Vienna model" (p. 92) was possible not least be‐ H-Net Reviews cause of the widespread antisemitism among the and approximately 2,000 Jews in West Prussia. Austrian population. Jörg Osterloh shows how the Inge Loose explores the Wartheland, the area annexation of the Sudetenland was distinguished with the largest Jewish population--about 435,000 by the fact that Jews could (and did) fee to the re‐ individuals--of the annexed areas. He rightly situ‐ maining parts of the Czechoslovak Republic in the ates the story of the Final Solution there in the months following the German takeover. Popular brutal rule of Arthur Greiser, the Nazi Gauleiter antisemitic harassment, as well as the rapid who aimed to Germanize the area through a mas‐ Aryanization of Jewish property, convinced half sive demographic reordering. of the twenty-nine thousand Jews who lived in the In the Zichenau District, also annexed to Sudetenland to leave their homes within two Koch's East Prussia, roughly half of the eighty months of annexation. In the nearby Protectorate thousand Jews fed to Soviet-occupied Poland or of Bohemia and Moravia there was no similar an‐ the General Government in fall 1939; the remain‐ tisemitic consensus--until the onslaught of Jewish ing Jews were placed in ghettos. Andreas Schulz refugees from the Sudetenland prompted the embeds the Final Solution in Zichenau in the con‐ Prague government to order the expulsion of the text of attempted Germanization: once the Jews refugees (a despicable act that nonetheless saved were murdered at Auschwitz or Treblinka, Poles many Jews' lives). Here, as Wolf Gruner explains, were forced into ghetto buildings, and the better nationality politics, involving Czechs, Germans, Polish apartments were used by ethnic Germans. and Jews, complicated antisemitic measures after Likewise, Sybille Steinbacher shows how the Final annexation. The Germans, for example, used Solution in East Upper Silesia, the location of Aryanization to strengthen their economic pres‐ Auschwitz, was part of a broader Germanization ence in the protectorate; Emil Hácha, the collabo‐ story. In this region, the most important center for rationist Czech leader, protested against the "tool German military production after the Ruhr area, of Germanization under the guise of Aryaniza‐ the Nazis introduced the so-called Schmelt sys‐ tion" (p. 154). tem. It deployed Jews as slave laborers in the Ruth Leiserowitz describes the situation in weapons industry and in infrastructural projects Memel, where Jews enjoyed social mobility and a to Germanize the region. Unlike most other an‐ vibrant community life during the interwar years. nexed regions (but like the Warthegau), Jews "ca‐ In anticipation of German occupation, many Jews pable of work" were used for labor purposes until fled to neighboring Lithuania. Once Memel was well into 1943 and, in some cases, even 1944. In annexed in March 1939, Erich Koch, the Nazi the end, though, Schmelt's forced labor system Gauleiter of East Prussia, gave Jews fourteen days only prolonged Jews' agony; the vast majority of to leave the city--or face arrest. While Memel be‐ East Upper Silesian Jews also lost their lives in the came virtually Judenrein (free of Jews), its former Holocaust. Jewish residents who found refuge in Lithuania The fnal section of the volume addresses the were soon trapped. Unable to emigrate from Sovi‐ annexed areas in the western parts of the Reich. et-occupied Lithuania, many were among the ear‐ In a fne piece, Christoph Bruell shows how the liest victims of the Final Solution in summer 1941. absence of a native Jewish population in Eupen- In his piece on Danzig-West Prussia, Wolfgang Malmedy, in Belgium, shaped the local popula‐ Gippert focuses on the forced expulsion of Jews tion's reaction to Jewish refugees and to the intro‐ from Danzig in the late 1930s, when the Free City duction of Nazi antisemitic policies. Bruell specu‐ had a Nazi government, but was not yet part of lates that the absence of Jewish property available the German Reich. At the time of annexation, in for confiscation might explain the lack of anti‐ fall 1939, there were just 1,660 Jews in Danzig, 2 H-Net Reviews semitic zeal in the area. In Luxembourg, over Viennese staffs were eventually transferred to three thousand of the original four thousand Jews other newly annexed areas to deploy their perse‐ present in early 1940 left the country either as cution know-how. The volume also describes the part of a pre-invasion evacuation or through imitation of persecution practices: once Wagner forced expulsion shortly after annexation. As quickly expelled the Alsatian Jews, Bürckel fol‐ Marc Shoentgen suggests, once the area was a de lowed suit in Lorraine, and shortly thereafter in facto part of the Gau Koblenz-Trier, some Luxem‐ Saarpfalz. At the same time, there was a transfer burgers expressed their dissatisfaction with the of victim experience. Many Jews in annexed areas German regime by aiding the remaining Jews. Fi‐ had seen what had happened to their counter‐ nally, Jean-Marc Dreyfus describes the situation in parts in other regions annexed to the Reich. They Alsace-Lorraine. While Alsace went to Gauleiter thus knew to leave their native country as quickly Robert Wagner's Baden, Lorraine became part of as possible. Unfortunately, their fight often exac‐ Josef Buerkel's Saarpfalz. Wagner's treatment of erbated the precarious situation of their fellow Jews was also part of a larger Germanization Jews in the areas to which they fed--many of scheme: on July 14, 1940, Wager announced that which soon also came under Nazi occupation. all oppositional, "francophile" (p. 373), and Jewish Focusing on the annexed areas highlights individuals were to leave the region within twen‐ many other important aspects of the Final Solu‐ ty-four hours. Just a month later, he declared Al‐ tion. In the annexed areas, the dispossession and sace Judenrein. In August 1940, Bürckel similarly removal of Jews occurred much more rapidly expelled the few hundred Jews in Lorraine. In Oc‐ than in the old Reich. Tried and tested policies tober, these measures were imitated in the Ger‐ that took years to introduce in the old Reich were man parts of Baden and the Saarpfalz; for a time, put into place within weeks or months in the new‐ it seemed that Nazi authorities would solve their ly annexed areas. In most cases, this meant that "Jewish problem" through a westward deporta‐ the Jews in question fared worse: murder, rather tion of Jews. After the October deportations, how‐ than emigration, was more often their fate. The ever, the Vichy regime energetically refused to ac‐ fact that many of these areas were initially or cept any more Jews from the Reich; this fore‐ throughout ruled by a Chef der Zivilverwaltung closed the option of westward deportation. (head of civil administration, or CdZ)--directly The Alsace-Lorraine story is a good entry subordinate to Hitler or the military--meant that point into the many important connections that Reich ministries had little say; this allowed for ex‐ existed among the various annexed areas vis-à-vis traordinarily arbitrary rule in the annexed areas. the persecution of Jews.