Between "Germans" and "Jews." How Individuals Navigated the Language
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Between “Germans” and “Jews” How individuals navigated the language of categorization in Nazi Germany, 1933–1941 Émilie Duranceau Lapointe A Thesis In The Department Of History Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts (History) at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada August 2018 © Émilie Duranceau Lapointe, 2018 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY School of Graduate Studies This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Émilie Duranceau Lapointe Entitled: Between “Germans” and “Jews” How individuals navigated the language of categorization in Nazi Germany, 1933–1941 And submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (History) Complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality, Signed by the final Examining Committee: ________________________________________ Chair Prof. Dr. Ted McCormick ________________________________________ Supervisor Prof. Dr. Max Bergholz ________________________________________ Examiner Prof. Dr. Barbara Lorenzkowski ________________________________________ Examiner Prof. Dr. Matthew Penney Approved by _________________________________________________ Chair of Department or Graduate Program Director ____________________ 2018 ________________________________________ Dean of Faculty ABSTRACT Between “Germans” and “Jews” How individuals navigated the language of categorization in Nazi Germany, 1933–1941 Émilie Duranceau Lapointe This thesis examines requests for exemption submitted by German citizens, whom the Nazi regime categorized as “Jews” or “Mixed breeds,” between 1933 and 1941. The petitioners’ vocabulary developed alongside Nazi propaganda; they adopted the regime’s definitions of categories, increasingly defining themselves and their fellow German citizens in racial terms. This thesis seeks to understand and explain how the Nazis defined and enforced racial categories; how petitioners responded to the imposed categorization through legal means; how they used the Nazis’ racial categories as tools to assure their survival; and how their use of the state’s rhetoric impacted the Nazis’ system of racial categorization. Petitioners not only attempted to contest the categories imposed upon them, but they were also able to strategically use the state’s rhetoric to their advantage. Their objectives were not to question or transform the system⎯over which they had no power⎯but rather to maneuver within its constraints. However, to engage the state in a dialogue, they had to pretend to adhere to the Nazis’ “Aryan” state and work within its logic. In their attempts to circumvent state-led persecution by resisting and negotiating their status using the state’s rhetoric, the petitioners might have contributed to the crystallization of categories and the system of racial classification, and they might have unintentionally enabled the authorities to redefine the population along certain categorical lines. This sheds light on how categories are created and maintained in an interactive process between “top” and “bottom” and how and why state-imposed categories can gain traction on the ground. iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Max Bergholz. More than just a dedicated professor, an inspirational academic, and a devoted supervisor, he has also been a mentor to me. He encouraged me to believe in my own academic abilities, to push my limits, and to be creative in my research. He taught me skills and provided me with tools that will be useful to me during my entire academic career. I will never be able to thank him enough for his support! A special thank you to my professors and committee members at Concordia University, Prof. Dr. Barbara Lorenzkowski and Prof. Dr. Matthew Penney, for their patience and support during my Master studies, as well as for their assistance and encouragement in pursuing my academic studies at the doctoral level. I would also like to thank the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, the Jüdisches Museum Berlin, and the Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, particularly the archivists⎯Thomas Fritz, Regina Kieseler, Markus Müller, and Dagmar Wienrich in Hamburg, Aubrey Pomerance in Berlin, and Dr. Klaus A. Lankheit and Esther-Julia Howell in Munich⎯who warmly welcomed me into their archives and generously helped me in my research. Den Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Jüdisches Museum Berlin, und Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, und hier speziell die Archivisten⎯Thomas Fritz, Regina Kieseler, Markus Müller, und Dagmar Wienrich in Hamburg, Aubrey Pomerance in Berlin, und Dr. Klaus A. Lankheit und Esther-Julia Howell in Munich⎯danke ich für ihren herzlichen Empfang und ihre Hilfe bei meinen Forschungen. A warm thank you to Prof. Dr. Franz Bajohr, Prof. Dr. Marion Kaplan, Prof. Dr. Gregor Thum, Prof. Dr. Michael Studemund-Halévy, Anna Ullrich (M.A.)⎯and particularly to Prof. Dr. Beate Meyer, whose book on the “Jüdische Mischlinge” has been a source of great knowledge, as well as of inspiration during this project⎯for generously offering their time and sharing their iv knowledge of German archives. Their guidance was invaluable. I am extremely grateful for their support! Ein warmer Dank geht an Prof. Dr. Franz Bajohr, Prof. Dr. Marion Kaplan, Prof. Dr. Gregor Thum, Prof. Dr. Michael Studemund-Halévy, Anna Ullrich (M.A.)⎯und besonders an Prof. Dr. Beate Meyer, wessen Buch über “Jüdische Mischlinge” eine Quelle großen Wissens war und viele Inspirationen für dieses Projekt gaben. Sie alle haben großzügig ihre Zeit angeboten und ihre Kenntnisse über die deutschen Archive vermittelt, wodurch ihre Beratung unverzichtbar für mich wurde. Ich bin sehr dankbar für ihre Unterstützung! I would like to thank John F. Lemieux, the Azrieli Foundation, the Concordia Institute for Canadian Jewish Studies, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies and the Zaglembier Society in Toronto, as well as Concordia University for their financial support. I am immensely grateful for their generosity! Last, but not least, I would like to thank all of my family members and friends in Montreal and abroad, as well as colleagues and professors at Concordia University and the University of Michigan for their help, patience, and support throughout this process! v Table of Contents Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1 I. “A Jewish Type does not exist!” ______________________________________________ 12 “Non-Aryan” German citizens fighting for equality, 1933–1934 _______________________ 12 II. “[…] she never felt like a member of the Jewish race; in fact, she rather abhorred it and fought against it.” ___________________________________________________________ 30 “Jewish” and “Mixed breed” German nationals fighting for their “Germanness,” 1935–1937 30 III. “My attitude towards State and People is absolutely positive; it is not only learned, but also genetically inherited.” ____________________________________________________ 54 “Jewish” and “Mixed breed” German nationals fighting for their “Aryanness,” 1938–1941 _ 54 Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 82 References _________________________________________________________________ 91 vi 1 Introduction In 1933, following the Nazis’ rise to power, Walter Levy experienced discrimination at work and harassment from his neighbors. He believed this was due to his “Jewish” name.1 Therefore, he requested permission to change it to “König.” He saw no reason to bear a “Jewish name,” as he, as well as his wife, daughter, and mother were Evangelical Lutheran. While his father had been born Jewish, he later converted to Christianity, and was buried by an Evangelical Lutheran pastor. Most importantly, Levy believed he deserved to bear a “German name,” because “[his] family [was] Christian and German,”2 and he was more than a German citizen, he was a “German at heart.”3 In 1937, Max Boddien petitioned the German authorities for permission to marry his fiancée, Erna Gericke. Following the adoption of the Nuremberg laws of 1935, Boddien had been categorized as a “Mixed breed,” while his fiancée was a “German citizen of German blood”; therefore, they were not allowed to marry. He explained that his grandmothers were Jewish, but he was baptized Evangelical Lutheran at the age of five and had no relationship to Judaism. While he might be considered partly “racially Jewish,” his family members were German nationalists. In fact, his brother joined the NSDAP in 1930 and was even in the SA.4 In October 1939, Emilie Cantor wrote to the police headquarters in Mainz, where she resided, arguing that blood should prevail over religion, and thus her categorization was based on a mistake. She wrote, “My father was of pure Aryan descent and belonged to the Evangelical 1 Please note that the terms “Jew/Jewish” will be within quotes when referring to a category and without quotes when referring to a self-identification. 2 “[...] meine Familie ist christlich und deutsch denkend [...]” Siegfried Levy, “Bescheide auf Namensänderungsanträge : Levy in König,” 1933, 241-1 I_881, Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg. Please note that I have translated all German-language archival sources. 3 “[...] deutschfühlender Staatsbürger [...]” Levy, “Bescheide.” 4 NSDAP⎯Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei⎯National Socialist German Workers' Party⎯also known as the Nazi Party. The SA—Sturmabteilung⎯Storm