DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution Patterns in Old-Age Assistance Payments Approved in 1938–39

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution Patterns in Old-Age Assistance Payments Approved in 1938–39 Distribution Patterns in Old-Age Assistance Payments Approved in 1938-39* THE DEGREE OF SECURITY provided by old-age need of the individuals who receive them. Various assistance and its availability to individuals in legislative and administrative standards and pro• need of it are matters of major concern both to cedures for defining eligibility, establishing need, recipients and to administrators of old-age assist• and determining payments, however, influence the ance. Neither the degree of security nor the amounts of payments as do also the financial equity with which it is provided can be appraised resources available to the agencies. Distribution except in relation to the varying requirements and patterns for the various States permit examina• resources of individual recipients. Comprehen• tion of the effects of such legislative, administra• sive data on the circumstances of recipients are not tive, and financial factors upon amounts of assist• ance payments. Analysis of these patterns sug• Chart 1.—Distribution of monthly payments initially gests further stops which will be required if the approved for recipients accepted for old-age assistance programs of old-age assistance in the States are in the United States, fiscal year 1938-39 1 to achieve more fully their objective of supplying adequate aid on an equitable basis to needy aged persons. Information on the distribution of payments to all recipients is not available, but the distribution of the amounts initially approved for new recip• ients accepted for old-age assistance during 3 complete fiscal years has been reported to the Social Security Board by State agencies.1 This article presents information on the distribution of initial monthly payments in the various States for the fiscal year July 1938 through June 1939. available, but in their absence amounts of assist• ance payments and their distribution patterns Chart 2.—Distribution of monthly payments initially contribute certain useful information bearing on approved for recipients accepted for old-age assistance these points. in New York, fiscal year 1938-39 Comparisons of assistance in the various States and localities are generally drawn from data on average monthly payments per recipient. Such averages for the various jurisdictions are presented currently in publications of State administrative agencies and in the Bulletin. It is recognized, however, that these averages furnish only rough measures of the assistance provided, and do not reveal the underlying dispersion, the points at which payments cluster, or the extent of concen• Certain changes in legislation since June 1939 are tration at these amounts. The distributions of discussed at the end of the article. In the main, amounts of assistance payments are therefore the characteristics of assistance revealed in the more significant than the average amounts of initial payments during 1938-39 still apply and these payments. give current significance to this discussion. Assistance payments under the Social Security 1 Data on the distribution of old-age assistance payments approved during Act are intended to correspond to the established 1937-38 were summarized in the Bulletin for November 1938. Similar data for the fiscal year 1939-40 will be presented later. The distribution of the * Prepared in the Division of Public Assistance Research, Bureau of Re• payments to all recipients in November and in May of each year is to be search and Statistics. reported beginning with November 1940. Chart 3.—Range, interquartile range, and median of initial monthly payments to recipients accepted for old-age assistance, by State, fiscal year 1938-39 1 1 Excludes Alabama and Colorado, for which amounts of initial payments were not reported. Distribution for the United States payments to recipients during 1938-39 is shown During the fiscal year 1938-39 approximately for each State in chart 3 by the total length of the 377,000 recipients in the United States were bar. Striking differences in the range for various accepted for old-age assistance for the first time. States are immediately noticeable. The ratio of recipients accepted during the year to the total case load as of June 30, 1939, was Table 1.—Extreme, quartile, and median monthly about 1 to 5. The amounts initially approved for payments initially approved for recipients accepted for old-age assistance, by State, fiscal year 1938-391 assistance payments represent the amounts of the first full monthly payments and also payments in Lowest First Third Highest Region and State Median2 subsequent months, unless reinvestigation by the amount quartile 2 quartile 2 amount agency or a change in funds available led to 4 $94 61 States $1 3 $12 3 $18 3 25 changes in amounts of payments. Region I: The distribution of the monthly payments ini• Connecticut 8 21 28 80 80 Maine 4 15 20 26 80 tially approved for these recipients, by $5 intervals Massachusetts 3 22 30 80 91 New Hampshire 4 16 22 80 80 up to $40, was as follows: Rhode Island 6 18 18 28 80 Vermont 5 10 15 20 80 Percentage Region II: Monthly amount distribution 1 New York 1 16 21 27 86 Region III: Total 100.0 Delaware 5 8 10 14 35 New Jersey 2 15 20 28 80 Under $5 8 Pennsylvania 1 15 20 25 80 Region IV: 5-9 13.2 Dist. of Col 6 19 26 30 89 10-14 20.2 Maryland 8 10 15 21 80 15-19 21.7 North Carolina 5 7 8 11 80 Virginia 5 6 8 12 20 20-24 17.9 West Virginia 4 10 12 15 80 25-29 10.9 Region V: 30-34 8. 6 Kentucky 5 6 7 8 15 Michigan 1 10 18 16 80 35-39 5.3 Ohio 4 18 21 25 80 40 or more 1.4 Region VI: Illinois 5 16 20 25 80 1 Numbers of recipients accepted in the various States were weighted to Indiana 2 18 17 21 80 give each State same proportionate representation in cases accepted as in Wisconsin 8 15 20 25 80 total case load of June 30, 1939. Region VII: Alabama 5 8 9 14 20 111 Florida 5 9 12 15 80 Georgia 1 5 7 9 80 One-half of the monthly amounts initially Mississippi 8 5 7 8 15 South Carolina 4 5 7 9 20 approved during the year were between $12 and Tennessee 4 8 10 12 25 Region VIII: $25, one-fourth were $12 or less, and one-fourth Iowa 1 15 20 22 25 Minnesota 2 15 20 24 80 were $25 or more. The median initial payment Nebraska 5 12 15 19 80 North Dakota 3 13 17 22 80 was $18. Relatively small proportions of the new South Dakota 8 14 18 22 80 Region IX: recipients received payments under $5 or over $40. Arkansas 6 6 6 9 12 Kansas 1 12 16 22 94 Less than 1 percent received under $5, and only Missouri 1 15 18 22 80 Oklahoma 2 13 16 22 80 about 1.1 percent received more than $40. Region X: Louisiana 2 8 10 12 46 The contour of the distribution curve for the New Mexico 8 7 11 16 42 Texas 5 11 14 17 30 United States showing payments by $1 intervals Region XI: Arizona 4 22 28 30 30 (chart 1), although relatively smooth as compared Colorado 5 4 85 40 45 45 Idaho 3 15 20 25 30 with the curves for most of the States, reveals Montana 4 15 19 23 30 Utah 2 16 22 24 47 some irregularities that are more pronounced in Wyoming 4 18 22 26 30 Region XII: many of the State patterns. The comparative California 1 28 85 85 85 Nevada 7 25 80 80 80 smoothness of the curve for the country as a whole Oregon 8 15 20 26 80 Washington 5 15 20 25 80 results from the fact that circumstances which Territories: Alaska 10 20 20 35 45 influence the distributions in the separate States Hawaii 3 9 11 15 80 are counterbalanced when data for all States are 1 Except for Alabama and Colorado, amount initially approved represents combined. Similarly, factors producing differences also amount of initial monthly payment and payment in subsequent months unless reinvestigation by the agency or change in funds available led to in the distribution in local units may somewhat changes in amounts of payment. See footnote 5. Data relate to recipients accepted for the first time, except approximately 1,000 recipients in Louisiana, offset one another in State patterns representing whose cases were reopened. 2 Figure is lower limit of dollar interval in which measure falls. large numbers of recipients, such as that for New 3 Computations based on data weighted to give each State same propor• tionate representation in cases accepted as in total case load of June 30, 1939. York (chart 2). 4 Excludes Alabama. See footnote 5. 5 In Alabama and Colorado, payments in most instances were lower than The range in the amounts of initial monthly amounts reported as approved. Chart 4.—Distribution of monthly payments initially approved for recipients accepted for old-age assistance The range in the amounts of assistance payments is reduced both by minimums and by maxi• in Illinois and Iowa, fiscal year 1938-39 mums. A few States set minimums for monthly payments as a device for simplifying administra• tion through the elimination of payments when only very small amounts of assistance are needed. By June 1938, Delaware, Florida, and Nebraska had set legal minimums of $5, and Mississippi a $3 legal minimum. Administrative minimums were apparently in effect in other States. Abrupt termination of the size of payments at fixed upper levels was a characteristic in many States during 1938-39 and affected much larger numbers of recipients than did fixed minimums.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Germans: "An Antisemitic People” the Press Campaign After 9 November 1938 Herbert Obenhaus
    The Germans: "An Antisemitic People” The Press Campaign After 9 November 1938 Herbert Obenhaus The pogrom of 9-10 November 1938 gave rise to a variety of tactical and strategic considerations by the German government and National Socialist party offices. The discussions that took place in the Ministry of Propaganda - which in some respects played a pivotal role in the events, due largely to its minister, Josef Goebbels - were of particular significance. On the one hand, the ministry was obliged to document the "wrath of the people" following the assassination of Ernst vom Rath; on the other hand, it was also responsible for manipulating the population by influencing the press and molding opinion. Concerning the events themselves, the main issue was what kind of picture the press was conveying to both a national and an international readership. In the ministry, this prompted several questions: Could it be satisfied with the reactions of the population to vom Rath's murder? What explanation could be given for the people's obvious distance to the events surrounding 9 November? Should the press make greater efforts to influence the opinions prevalent among the population? Should special strategies for the press be developed and pursued after 9 November 1938? Moreover, since the pogrom proved to be a turning point in the regime's policies towards German Jews and marked the beginning of a qualitative change, how should the press react to these changes ? Press activity was also conducted on a second level, that of the NSDAP, which had its own press service, the Nationalsozialistische Partei- Korrespondenz (NSK).1 As was the case with Goebbels' ministry, the 1 It was published in 1938 with the publisher's information, "Commissioned by Wilhelm Weiss responsible for the reports from the Reichspressestelle: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Nazi Germany and Anti-Jewish Policy
    NAZI GERMANY AND ANTI-JEWISH POLICY The Nazi Party rose to power with an antisemitic racial ideology. However, the anti-Jewish campaign was not conducted according to a blueprint, rather it evolved. Before the outbreak of the war, political and economic factors, as well as public opinion both inside and outside Germany influenced the evolution of Nazi anti-Jewish laws and measures. The main purpose of the anti-Jewish policy between 1933 and 1938 according to the racial theory was to isolate German Jewry from German society and ultimately encourage them to leave their homeland. Through 1938 and into 1939, more and more force was used to push Jews out of German territory. In addition to the fact that the laws and decrees were issued chronologically, they should also be understood for how they affected different spheres of life. They affected personal status, the interaction of Jews with general society, and their economic situation. The restrictions affected individuals and the Jewish community as a whole. Jews were not only limited by the SA soldier near a Jewish-owned store on the day of the boycott, Germany. flurry of laws and decrees, they also frequently felt deeply humiliated Yad Vashem Photo Archive (1652/11) by them. BUILD UP OF ANTI-JEWISH POLICY (1933-1938) 1933 1934 marked by boycotts against Jews and the exclusion of Jews from all government - related jobs, including serving as judges and teachers. 1935 marked by the Nuremberg Laws which classified Jews according to racial criteria and deprived them of German citizenship. 1937 1938 marked by increasing anti-Jewish violence, confiscation of Jewish property, - and the forbidding of Jewish ownership of businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perpetrators of the November 1938 Pogrom Through German-Jewish Eyes
    Chapter 4 The Perpetrators of the November 1938 Pogrom through German-Jewish Eyes Alan E. Steinweis The November 1938 pogrom, often referred to as the “Kristallnacht,” was the largest and most significant instance of organized anti-Jewish violence in Nazi Germany before the Second World War.1 In addition to the massive destruc- tion of synagogues and property, the pogrom involved the physical abuse and terrorizing of German Jews on a massive scale. German police reported an official death toll of 91, but the actual number of Jews killed was probably about ten times that many when one includes fatalities among Jews who were treated brutally during their arrest and subsequent imprisonment in Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen.2 Violence had been a normal feature of the Nazi regime’s anti-Jewish measures since 1933,3 but the scale and intensity of the Kristallnacht were unprecedented. The pogrom occurred less than one year before the outbreak of the war and the first atrocities by the Wehrmacht against Polish Jews, and less than three years before the Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, and other units began to undertake the mass murder of Jews in the Soviet Union. Knowledge about the perpetrators of the pogrom, therefore, pro- vides important context for understanding the violence that came later. To be sure, nobody has yet undertaken the extremely ambitious project to identify precisely which perpetrators of the Kristallnacht eventually would participate directly in the “Final Solution.” There certainly were many such cases, however, perhaps the most notable being Odilo Globocnik, who presided over the po- grom violence in Vienna in November 1938 and less than three years later was placed in charge of Operation Reinhardt, the mass murder of the Jews in the General Government.4 1 Many of the observations in this chapter are based on cases described and documented in the author’s book, Kristallnacht 1938 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • An X-Ray of Chilean Right-Wing Attitudes Toward Jews, 1932–1940
    chapter 3 Indifference, Hostility, and Pragmatism: an X-Ray of Chilean Right-Wing Attitudes toward Jews, 1932–1940 Gustavo Guzmán 1 Introduction Convened to discuss the issue of Jewish refugees, the Évian Conference (July 1938) raised two main positions in Chilean politics. While leftists and centrists sympathized with Jews, asking President Alessandri to increase their immigration quotas, rightists remained indifferent to the Jewish plight, reject- ing any attempt to expand their numbers. A leading voice in this regard was Conservative senator Maximiano Errázuriz Valdés, according to whom Chile did not need traders or intermediaries but farmers. “Sadly,” he said, “Jews are not farmers but traders who will come to compete [with our businessmen] and become intermediaries.” Additionally, echoing a discourse that was com- mon at the time in other countries as well, their religion made them “elements difficult to assimilate” and likely “to create a hitherto unknown ethnic prob- lem.” Indeed, the ultimate responsibility for Jew-hatred, he stressed, lay with “the Jews themselves,” as “they create problems where previously they did not exist.” Consequently, Errázuriz Valdés asked the government “to restrict as much as possible the arrival of Jews and not to increase their quotas.”1 Similarly, after Kristallnacht (November 1938), while the leftist and centrist press largely condemned the pogrom, speaking of “barbarism” and “savagery,”2 influential right-wing media such as El Mercurio and El Diario Ilustrado embraced a less sympathetic approach. Although it might be “painful from a human point of view,” El Mercurio stressed, “the reasons that led the German government to expel members of the Jewish race are not for Chileans to dis- cuss because they belong to the right of every nation to govern itself.”3 El Diario 1 Senado de Chile, Boletín de sesiones ordinarias 1938, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Events 1918 – 1938
    Chronology of Events 1918-1938 1918: Czechoslovakia is established after the fall of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire following the First World War. The country is made up of two groups of Slavic peoples, the Czechs and the Slovaks. 1920: The Treaty of Versailles, in which Germany is held responsible for World War I and its consequences, is signed. The treaty deals harshly with a defeated Germany and includes territorial, military, financial and general provisions, including the demilitarization and 15-year occupation of the Rhineland (area between France and Germany), limitations on German armed forces and reparations of 6,600 million pounds. 1921: Adolf Hitler becomes leader of National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party. 1923: Beer Hall Putsch (Hitler’s attempt to overthrow regional government in Munich) is unsuccessful and Hitler is jailed. 1925: Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler’s book, is published. 1933: Japan attacks China. The Nazi party gains majority in the German Reichstag and Hitler is named Chancellor. The Reichstag building burns in a “mysterious” fire and all other political parties are abolished. Hitler denounces the Treaty of Versailles. There are public book burnings in Germany. Anti-Jewish laws are passed in Germany: no kosher butchering, no Jewish Civil servants, no Jewish lawyers, quotas for Jews in universities. Any Germans holding non-Nazi political meetings are subject to arrest and imprisonment in concentration camps (the first is Oranienburg, outside of Berlin). Dachau is built as concentration-work camp (specific death camps not yet built, but elderly, those who were very young, disabled or sick have difficulty surviving harsh conditions of camps).
    [Show full text]
  • Station 1: Polling Data / Roosevelt's Response
    Handout Station 1: Polling Data / Roosevelt’s Response Polling Data, Part 1 Directions: Read this November 1938 polling result of the American people following the events of Kristallnacht. Then respond to question 1 independently. Discuss your response to question 1 as a group before moving on to Part 2 of this handout. Poll: Do you approve or disapprove of the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany? American Institute of Public Opinion, November 1938 American Institute of Public Opinion, 94% Disapprove 6% Approve 1. In 1938 poll, respondents were asked a follow-up to the question above: Should we allow a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live? What percentage of Americans do you predict answered yes? Write your prediction and an explanation in the space below. Then examine the results on Part 2 of this handout to see if you were correct. facinghistory.org ushmm.org 1 Station 1: Polling Data / Roosevelt’s Response (continued) Polling Data, Part 2 Directions: Compare your prediction from Part 1 to the actual poll results below. Then answer question 2. Poll: Should we allow a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live? American Institute of Public Opinion, November 1938 American Institute of Public Opinion, 71% No 21% Yes 8% No Opinion 2. Was your initial prediction accurate? Explain the thinking behind your initial prediction. What conclusions can you draw by comparing the poll above with the poll from Part 1? facinghistory.org ushmm.org 2 Station 1: Polling Data / Roosevelt’s Response (continued) Roosevelt’s Response Directions: Read and annotate the following document, and then answer the question that appears below the reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Shuang Wu
    British Press Coverage of Nazi Antisemitism, 1933 - 1938 Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Shuang Wu, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2018 Thesis Committee: Robin Judd, Adviser Jennifer Siegel Copyright by Shuang Wu 2018 !2 Abstract From Adolf Hitler’s seizure of power in March 1933 until the Kristallnacht in November 1938, the British press provided a comprehensive narrative concerning the anti-Jewish persecutions in Germany. The staff of the Times, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist and the Spectator condemned the Jewish persecutions and expressed concern for the Jews in different degrees. When they discussed the Jewish refugees, they were aware of Britain’s national interests, and revealed their hesitation to accept the Jews through the press. A close examination of the reportage also shows that the editors and correspondents of these publications held different perspectives towards Nazi Germany, which influenced their narratives and attitudes towards the antisemitic events. !3ii Vita June 2011…………………………….High School Affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University May 2016…………………………….B.A. History, University of Wisconsin-Madison Fields of Study Major Field: History iii!4 Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………......ii Vita…………………………………………………………………………………………....iii Essay…………………………………………………………………………………………...1 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..42
    [Show full text]
  • The Dutch NSB and Nazi Germany, 1933–1940
    Articles 29/3 7/6/99 12:58 pm Page 349 Dietrich Orlow A Difficult Relationship of Unequal Relatives: The Dutch NSB and Nazi Germany, 1933–1940 Until its recent reappearance in the guise of neo-fascism, European fascism had appeared to many as a transitory political phenomenon that was limited to a brief, albeit fateful, appear- ance on the modern historical scene. This conclusion contrasted strikingly with the attitude of fascism’s contemporaries in the 1920s and 1930s. For them — whether militants, sympathizers, or opponents — fascism was a serious challenge to liberal demo- cracy and Marxist socialism. The fascists themselves, of course, fully endorsed the idea that they represented an international, revolutionary vanguard, which would save European civilization from the forces of decadent bourgeois liberalism and the hordes of Marxist Bolshevism.1 As self-styled components of an international and revolution- ary phenomenon, individual fascist movements deliberately attempted to use the experiences of their ‘sister’ parties to advance their own cause. This was particularly true if the neighbouring movement had already succeeded in establishing a national fascist regime. The following analysis of the relations between the Dutch Nationaal Socialistische Beweging (NSB) and the German Nazis in the 1930s is a case study that demonstrates vividly the illusionary promises and inherent contradictions of fascist internationalism. From its beginnings the NSB looked upon itself as an integral part of the coming fascist revolution in Europe. Although like all fascist movements, the NSB was fiercely nationalistic, the party presented no original ideology of its own; all of its programme was adapted, or better copied, from the Italian fascists and the German Nazis.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Justice, and Theholocaust
    LAW, JUSTICE, AND THE HOLOCAUST 1 2 LAW, JUSTICE, AND THE HOLOCAUST 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Authors William F. Meinecke, Jr., Historian Alexandra Zapruder, Consultant This volume was originally created as a complement to the presentation“How the Courts Failed Germany,” delivered by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum at the 2009 annual Conference of Chief Justices and State Court Administrators. The Museum wishes to thank the following individuals for their advice and support: Advisory Committee Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court David Byers, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona Supreme Court Jerry Landau, Director of Government Affairs, Arizona Supreme Court John Meeks, Vice President, Institute for Court Management, National Center for State Courts Denise M. Neary, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center Sheila Polk, Yavapai County Attorney, Arizona Distinguished Panelists Hon. Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge, New York State Court of Appeals Hon. Ruth V. McGregor, Chief Justice (Ret.), Arizona Supreme Court Hon. Jean Hoefer Toal, Chief Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court Hon. Eric T. Washington, Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals This publication was made possible through the generous support of Dr. Donald and Sue Hecht. July 2014 Cover Photo: Criminal court judges display their loyalty to the Nazi state. Berlin, Germany, October 1936. Ullstein bild/The Granger Collection, NY 2 CONTENTS ABOUT THE MUSEUM .....................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Early Warning Signs
    National Days of Remembrance EARLY WARNING SIGNS Austria, ca. 1938: A woman sits on a park bench marked “For Jews Only,” after German authorities implemented anti-Jewish laws. US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of The Wiener Library In the pivotal year before Nazi Germany invaded Poland and launched World War II, intervention could have saved many lives. Why did so many fail to respond to the warning signs and what lessons do their actions hold for us today? 1 National Days of Remembrance earlyWARNIN warningG SIGN: T SIGNSerritorial: TERRIT EXOpanRIALS IONEXP ANSI ON Anschluss March 11 – 13 German troops enter Austria, which is incorporated into the German Reich. This is known as the Anschluss. German authorities quickly implement anti-Jewish legislation that encourages an atmosphere of hostility toward the Jewish population. The Anschluss accelerated persecution and violence against Jews in the Reich. As a result, Hilde Kraemer’s parents, living in Germany, encouraged her to emigrate from France, where she was in boarding school. With relatives in New York as sponsors, Hilde immigrated to the United States in the summer of 1938. In 1942, her mother and stepfather were deported to Auschwitz, where they perished. Hilde’s half-brother Alfred obtained passage to the United States in 1941 with the aid of a Swedish nurse and Jewish and Quaker aid organizations. Hilde and Alfred reunited in the United States. German troops cross the border from Germany into Austria at the Kiefersfelden crossing. Dokumentationsarchiv des Hilde Kraemer (far left) and her friends, Österreichischen Widerstandes Germaine and Dee Dee, at school in France, ca.
    [Show full text]
  • HCPO: Nazi Laws Summary
    Nazi Laws 1. Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service – April 7, 1933 As part of the Nazi "coordination" (Gleichschaltung) of all public offices, the Reich Ministry of the Interior under the leadership of Wilhelm Frick (1877-1946) issued the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” (also known as the Civil Service Law) on April 7, 1933, a week after the nation-wide boycott of Jewish businesses. This law excluded all racial and political “enemies” of the regime from the civil service. The “Aryan Clause” established a racial criterion for continued employment in the civil service, effectively banishing Jews from government and administration; it also set a model that would soon be followed in other professions. Several days later, a law was passed that defined “non-Aryan” to mean descent from one or more “non-Aryan” grandparents; the law implies that grandparents are to be considered Jewish if they practiced the Jewish religion. A short-lived exception was made for veterans of the Great War (the “Hindenburg Exception”) and for civil servants who lost a father or a son at the front. Subsequent orders related to this law terminated the services contracts of non-salaried Jewish employees of the state, expelled “non-Aryan” honorary professors and untenured junior professors, and forbade any advancement of Jews protected under the “Hindenburg Exception.” Those married to “non-Aryans” were also not granted admission to civil service positions. 2. Law on Admission to Legal Practice – April 7, 1933 The admission of lawyers of “non-Aryan” descent to the Bar was prohibited.
    [Show full text]
  • Kristallnacht: a Nationwide Pogrom, November 9–10, 1938
    Kristallnacht: A Nationwide Pogrom, November 9–10, 1938 Kristallnacht, literally, "Night of Crystal," is often referred to as the "Night of Broken Glass." The name refers to the wave of violent anti-Jewish pogroms which took place on November 9 and 10, 1938, throughout Germany, annexed Austria, and in areas of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia recently occupied by German troops. Instigated primarily by Nazi Party officials and members of the SA (Sturmabteilungen: literally Assault Detachments, but commonly known as Storm Troopers) and Hitler Youth, Kristallnacht owes its name to the shards of shattered glass that lined German streets in the wake of the pogrom—broken glass from the windows of synagogues, homes, and Jewish- owned businesses plundered and destroyed during the violence. In its aftermath, German officials announced that Kristallnacht had erupted as a spontaneous outburst of public sentiment in response to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, a German embassy official stationed in Paris. Herschel Grynszpan, a 17-year-old Polish Jew, had shot the diplomat on November 7, 1938. A few days earlier, German authorities had expelled thousands of Jews of Polish citizenship living in Germany from the Reich; Grynszpan had received news that his parents, residents in Germany since 1911, were among them. Initially denied entry into their native Poland, Grynszpan's parents and the other expelled Polish Jews found themselves stranded in a refugee camp near the town of Zbaszyn in the border region between Poland and Germany. Already living illegally in Paris himself, a desperate Grynszpan apparently sought revenge for his family's precarious circumstances by appearing at the German embassy and shooting the diplomatic official assigned to assist him.
    [Show full text]