Transforming Berlin's Urban Space. East European Jewish Migrants in Charlottengrad and the Scheunenviertel, 1918-1939. Berlin: Gertrud Pickhan, Osteuropa-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin; Verena Dohrn, Osteuropa-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin; Jüdisches Museum Berlin; Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft des Leo Baeck Instituts, 17.10.2009-19.10.2009. Reviewed by Ines Koeltzsch Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (December, 2009) Between 1880 and 1930 Berlin was a central urban space. In what ways did their experiences point of transit for most of the Jewish and non- help to develop a highly creative urban culture Jewish migrants from Eastern Europe on their and what impact did life in a big city have on way westwards. While before 1918 Berlin had their own orientations and values? been in the main a city through which these mi‐ In his sophisticated keynote lecture DAN DIN‐ grants passed, staying for a short time before ER (Hebrew University Jerusalem/Simon-Dubnow- moving on to another destination or returning to Institut Leipzig) characterized the period between their former countries, the metropolis of the 1918 and 1938 as a “short Jewish axial time”: The Weimar Republic became a not always voluntary increasing national homogenization in Eastern home for about 300.000 East European refugees – Europe and the fragility of the international secu‐ among them several ten thousands of Jewish ori‐ rity system contributed to an “existential constel‐ gin – in the 1920s, when the United States and oth‐ lation” which forced a rethinking of Jewish exis‐ er countries restricted their migration policy. Al‐ tence in the Diaspora by outstanding Jewish intel‐ though we already know much about East Euro‐ lectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Raphael pean migration at that time, above all about mi‐ Lemkin. The Jewish experience of the loss of legal gration policy, the perception of East European protection between the World Wars furthered na‐ Jews by German and German-Jewish society, the tional orientations and became universal in a neg‐ activities of Jewish and non-Jewish Russian intel‐ ative sense. lectuals, the experiences of the Jewish migrants In her introduction VERENA DOHRN (Freie themselves have not yet been a focus of research. Universität Berlin) asked why Berlin became an The conference, organized by the international re‐ important centre of migration, albeit an ephemer‐ search project “Charlottengrad and the Scheunen‐ al one. She ascertained an ambiguous “openness” viertel. East European Jewish Migrants in Berlin that distinguished the capital of Weimar Republic during the 1920/30s“ and the Jewish Museum from other centres of migration. While the weak Berlin, thus examined the various experiences of economic situation after the Great War had forced migration and its spatial dimensions. Bringing to‐ German society to accept migrants and made it gether scholars from various countries, the partic‐ easier for them to start a new existence, this open‐ ipants of the conference asked how the migrants perceived, made use of and (re)imagined Berlin’s H-Net Reviews ness became restricted under the growing influ‐ and work of the Hebrew author Micha Yosef ence of nationalist groups. Berdyczewski. In their convincing argumenta‐ In the frst panel on “topographies”ANNE- tions Neuburger and Caplan shared to some ex‐ CHRISTIN SAß (Freie Universität Berlin) dealt tent the idea that the respective authors were with the highly stereotyped Scheunenviertel in closely bound to German urban culture not de‐ Weimar Berlin. Reconstructing the topographical spite, but because of their position at its margins. structure of its different social networks and the The next panel was devoted to the negotia‐ various perceptions of the quarter by East Euro‐ tions between various political ideas. With refer‐ pean Jewish migrants, she represented the Sche‐ ence to the making of Di algemeyne entsiklopedye unenviertel as a transnational social space which by Jewish intellectuals of different nationalist and offered a wide range of new orientations as well socialist orientations, BARRY TRACHTENBERG as the possibility of maintaining traditional atti‐ (University at Albany) emphasised that Berlin was tudes. She also described the multiple ways in not only a “meeting place” between Eastern and which the migrants interacted with their German- Western Jewry and Hebrew and Yiddish cultures, Jewish and non-Jewish environment, thus de‐ but also between “once-warring” Jewish political bunking the cliché of an East European Jewish ideologies. TAMARA OR (Ludwig-Maximilians-Uni‐ shtetl. GENNADY ESTRAIKH (New York Universi‐ versität München) shed new light on the Hebrew ty) pointed out that although a significant group movement in Berlin. Or explained convincingly of East European Jewish journalists found a tem‐ that the encounter between East European and porary home in Berlin, the Yiddish press in com‐ German Zionists led to a new concept of a Hebrew parison with New York or Paris lacked “well-orga‐ Diaspora, which was advanced mainly by Simon nized civic organizations of Yiddish-speakers.” Ravidovitz and his circles. Together with the sup‐ SHACHAR PINSKER (University of Michigan, Ann port of many non-intellectuals who were attracted Arbor) analyzed the impact of the coffeehouses on by these ideas they established Berlin as the capi‐ the activities of Jewish artists and intellectuals. tal of the Hebrew movement for a short time at Pinsker described the cafés as “communicative the end of the 1920s. Or also underscored the im‐ spaces“ which not only helped to bridge linguistic portance of these almost forgotten ideas in con‐ and cultural differences, but also played a signifi‐ temporary post-Zionist discourse. cant role in the creation of Hebrew and Yiddish The following session dealt with the problem modernism. of identifications in exile. While ALBERT I. BAUM‐ The papers of the following panel concentrat‐ GARTEN (Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan) recon‐ ed on the literary and intellectual reflections of structed the “Russian identity“ of the head of the the urban space by East European Jewish writers. Patriotic Union of Russian Jews Abroad, Joseph While MIKHAIL KRUTIKOV (University of Michi‐ Bikerman, MARKUS WOLF (Europa-Universität Vi‐ gan, Ann Arbor) studied the “afterlives of Weimar adrina, Frankfurt/Oder) attempted to reinterpret Berlin” in the texts of several Yiddish writers and the activities of the Union as a contribution to the highlighted their different ideological points of fight against anti-Semitism. Both papers provoked view after the decline of Yiddish culture in Berlin, a controversial discussion where some scholars MARC CAPLAN (Johns Hopkins University, Balti‐ demanded a greater regard for the contemporary more) offered a close reading of Dovid Bergelson’s contexts of Russian and German conservative po‐ Boarding House Stories from the 1920s. KARIN litical thought. NEUBURGER (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) ex‐ The transfer of ideas of social welfare and amined the “artificial and real spaces” in the life knowledge was the topic of the next panel. 2 H-Net Reviews ALEXANDER IVANOV (European University of St. Korkowsky’s convincing interpretation, the one Petersburg) described the activities of the Berlin who walks by herself. branch of the world ORT Union. While ORT pri‐ In the panel on “transformations” RACHEL marily supported Jewish artisans and farmers in SEELIG (University of Chicago) discussed the work Eastern Europe, due to intensive contacts with of the Yiddish poet Moishe Kulbak during his German-Jewish society, it became a notable insti‐ Berlin years – “the loneliest and the most profilic tution for the professional training of German of his career”. Through the example of Kulbak, Jews at the beginning of the 1930s. ALEXANDRA Seelig showed that Yiddish modernist literature POLYAN (Moscow State University) analyzed the flourished because of the status of Berlin as a agenda of the Union of Russian Jews in Germany. “centre of periphery”. As a “transitional space”, She pointed out that the Union did not merely Berlin allowed the Yiddish poets to rethink their seek to provide practical help for migrants in cultural identities as Europeans and Jews, and to Berlin, but also had political goals such as for in‐ create new perspectives on homeland at a time of stance the promotion of a positive image of Jew‐ rampant nationalisms. ANAT FEINBERG ish migrants among the German public. ARNDT (Hochschule für jüdische Studien, Heidelberg) ENGELHARDT (Simon-Dubnow-Institut, Leipzig) presented the family story of Feiwel Grüngard, a discussed the contribution of East European Jew‐ Lithuanian Zionist, who migrated via Stockholm ish scholars to the Encyclopaedia Judaica pub‐ to the German capital. He founded a salon which lished by the Eschkol-Verlag in Berlin. In spite of became a “genuine cultural space” in Jewish lingering differences in the political thoughts be‐ Berlin of the 1920s. tween East and West European Jewish scholars, The fnal panel considered Berlin’s East Euro‐ the encyclopaedia fulfilled its aim of establishing pean Jewish migration in its broader contexts. In a transnational network of scholars to reconstruct his instructive paper, TABIAS BRINKMANN (Uni‐ a “national collective sense of belonging”. versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) explored OLAF TERPITZ (Simon-Dubnow-Institut, the different functions of Berlin as transit city be‐ Leipzig) investigated the cultural production of fore and after 1918. He also discussed the two ex‐ Russian-Jewish migrants and their extensive planations