The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy 1933-1945 (34 page)

BAVARIAN popular opinion concerning the 'Jewish question' towards the end of the first six years of the Nazi dictatorship was, according to a recent account, 'largely indifferent and infused with a latent anti-Jewish feeling'.'
There is good reason to believe that the rural Catholic (and especially Lower Franconian) population as a whole was among the slowest in Bavaria-and thus in all of Germany-to embrace the official line on the Jews. On the other hand, the Jews were a fairly numerous and highly visible minority in the area, and some people were likely to take advantage of the Nazi regime's teachings to demonstrate their commitment to Nazism or merely to reap personal rewards.

In some localities across Germany, even in Bavaria, there was practically no Jewish population to speak of, and so the Gestapo was not faced with enforcing rules concerning relations which crossed the ethnic border. Of course a person could still get in trouble with the law for expressing dissent with the anti-Semitism or some other policy of the regime. There was a greater expenditure of police resources in those areas which had large numbers of Jews, and also in areas like Lower Franconia, where Jews had settled in small clusters and for some time throughout the district. In Lower Franconia countless kinds of social relationships had taken root between Jews and nonJews, and the local representatives of Nazism took it upon themselves to destroy these bonds. While the general modus operandi of the Gestapo tended to be the same across the country, the extent of its efforts and 'success' in enforcing racial policy clearly varied from place to place, and hasty generalizations across the board should be avoided. In all likelihood, the Gestapo found it easier to achieve results in this sphere of its activity where there was a history of anti-Semitism, in smaller cities-even Catholic ones such as Wurzburg-and in the rural communities such as those in Lower Franconia. The big city tended to provide greater anonymity, hence some degree of protection from the prying eyes of neighbours. Keeping secrets and maintaining illicit liaisons or frowned-upon contacts are invariably more difficult in the society of a small town or village. Harassment drove many Jews from rural parts, and for some there was a hope that they could find refuge in the bigger cities.

With all due regard to these caveats, it is reasonable to assume that instances of accommodation to Nazi racial doctrine in the files of the Wurzburg Gestapo, if placed on a scale covering the whole country, would be towards the minimal end of the gauge. Embracing the official line-or co-operating with the authorities as if one embraced it-was almost certainly more enthusiastic, or at least more widespread, in areas which had supported the Nazis to a greater extent before 1933, and which had a more pronounced tradition of anti-Semitism in conjunction with large Jewish populations. Even in Lower Franconia, which had no such pronounced tradition, the readiness of a sufficient number of people to inform made it possible to enforce the policy. More and more people began to turn their backs on the Jews, as is indicated by one report for November 1936 from the Lower Franconian and very Catholic village of Bad Neustadt (population 995 in 1933, of which at least 120 were Jews):

In general the attitude of the population in regard to the Jews has almost completely changed. While earlier an unmistakable stand was taken in favour of the persecuted Jews, now one hears the remark, If only they would all soon be gone!' It is solely because of the danger of diminishing the taxable income and thereby damaging the communal finances that the departure of the Jews is regarded as inconvenient.'

Many people who had social contacts of one sort or another with the Jews gradually yielded to official and semi-official pressure to comply, and made the appropriate adjustments,;
not only inside Germany, but later on in the occupied countries of Europe as well.'
The Gestapo responded to any dissent with policies on the 'Jewish question' by redoubling its efforts in order to obtain compliance through police pressure, where necessary fulfilling its mandate with methods that gained a reputation for utter brutality. Word soon spread that anyone could be summoned to police headquarters or picked up, mistreated, held indefinitely; and, at the whim of the Gestapo, hapless suspects could be sent off to a concentration camp under 'protective custody' orders. When it came to enforcing racial policies designed to isolate the Jews, there can be no doubt that the wrath of the Gestapo knew no bounds, often dispensing with even the semblance of legal procedures. It is important to be reminded of the 'legal' and 'extra-legal' terror brought down on the heads of those who would not otherwise comply, and some of the results of the pressure.

1. YIELDING TO PRESSURE: BREAKING PERSONAL BONDS

The Gestapo files often suggest an extraordinary degree and variety of accommodation to the regime's doctrines on race. However, caution is advisable when interpreting such evidence. Understandably, most of those brought in for interrogation did what they could to sound like true believers. For example, when the elderly sister of Wurzburg's famous Bishop Ehrenfried was reported for helping an elderly Jewish woman, she denied it emphatically to the police, even though she had certainly provided some help.'
None the less, the antiSemitic message got through in countless ways.

Relationships going back many years were broken off. An unmarried clerical worker, Maria Zirkel (born 1907), had known her Jewish friend Karl Staff since the age of 17, and had had an intimate relationship with him which was terminated soon after the 'seizure of power'. In early February 1937 a member of the Nazi Party denounced the two to the Gestapo for allegedly spending a weekend together in the country house of Heinz Zell. Ordered to Gestapo headquarters to answer the charges, both people insisted that they no longer had a sexual relationship. The interrogations provided testimony that was utterly consistent with the couple's claims that since 1933 they had done no more than to greet each other in the street. After further surveillance and questioning, additional witnesses failed to prove the charge and the matter was dropped. Zirkel and Staff had been able to adjust to the new facts of life from the outset of the dictatorship.'

Those who had had business contacts with Jews before the 'seizure of power', or who had been employed in Jewish firms, continued to be watched closely. Some were reported for having had personal links before 1933, even where these had almost certainly now disintegrated.'
The charge of 'race defilement' was itself so grave, and the consequences so disastrous, that prudence dictated the end of some relationships of this kind. One would think that any non-Jew who dared to continue contacts with a Jew was an outand-out resister or staunch opponent. However, even here the Gestapo files dealing with 'race defilement', although they often reveal evidence of non compliance with the letter and spirit of the Nuremberg Laws, also show as much or more evidence of accommodation.

There are many cases in which long-term, intimate involvements were either terminated or deliberately kept short of sexual intercourse. The bookkeeper Klara Drehbock (born 1889) had been employed by the same firm, Klau and Sichel, in Wurzburg for more than thirty years. She had been on friendly terms with one of the Jewish owners, Alfred Weinstein, for almost as long, and had corresponded with him as far back as the years of the First World War. The two had seen each other outside business hours on occasion, but put a stop to this public display of their affection after the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in September 1935, perhaps until 16 March 1937, when they were seen together and promptly reported. Drehbock maintained that she was a virgin, and was willing to submit to a medical examination to prove that the 'race defilement' charges were without foundation. An examination was not carried out, but she was warned to avoid all contact with Weinstein. The couple either had no further meetings or were sufficiently discreet to avoid suspicion. The case reveals the ways in which people such as these, even as they resisted, had to come to some form of accommodation with the regime's teachings on race.'

On 18 May 1936 the Nazi party Kreisleitung in Wurzburg forwarded a detailed denunciation from the local economic department of the Schweinfurt NSDAP about the sausage firm of Karl Schubel in Wurzburg. Before 1933 the business had been bought out by Ludwig Frankental, a Jewish merchant, who was accompanied by Erika Muller, a non-Jewish associate, when he moved to town from Fulda. They were not well off and, trying to make the little firm prosper, they shared a room at the back of the store as a place to sleep at night. In keeping with business practice, the firm's old name was retained, while the new owners name was printed in small letters on the door. In 1936 Frankental was accused of 'camouflaging' the Jewish-owned business behind its former owner's name, and of having an affair with Muller. Surveillance was instituted immediately-as was usual in such cases, not by the Gestapo itself but by others designated by the police. Most damning was the charge that Muller and Frankental, when they were together outside the immediate neighbourhood, referred to themselves as man and wife and pretended to be an 'Aryan' couple by the name of Schubel (the former owner of the business).

Muller and Frankental were arrested briefly on 12 June 1936. Muller declared her innocence and insisted on a medical examination to verify that she was still a virgin. Tests by the health office supported her claim, and the most serious charge of 'race defilement' was dropped. As in the previous case,
this one combined elements of non-compliance with and adjustment to Nazi racism. Both couples had modified their behaviour, and sexual activity could not be proven. To be sure, even in cases where penetrative sexual intercourse did not take place, but it could be shown that couples obtained sexual satisfaction in other ways, charges were laid under the Nuremberg Laws, as (it was maintained) the laws were designed `for the protection of German blood and German honour'.'

Once the 'race defilement' charge against Frankental and Muller had failed, the other evaporated. Despite a warning, Muller continued to work in the store, a decision she justified by saying that she hoped to take it over eventually. During the 'night of broken glass' in November 1938, a private citizen called the Wurzburg Gestapo headquarters, and the two charges of camouflaging the Jewish business and 'race defilement' were renewed. Just how closely the couple had been watched is made clear in the letter which the Gestapo asked the caller to submit; it was claimed that Muller did Frankental's washing, including pyjamas and handerkerchiefs, and that they ate together. While Muller was arrested, and stayed in gaol until at least the end of the month, Frankental went missing. Some fourteen different witnesses were brought in for what was clearly a massive investigation of the charges against Muller. This time the denouncer was a competitor, a man (born 18go) who had worked for the old firm for eight years before it was taken over by Frankental. At the time of the take-over his position was given to Muller, whereupon he went off to start a rival firm. Material in the dossier indicates that he wanted the business and that he had tipped off the Gestapo when he got wind that Muller was about to take it over. In the end she was cleared. Frankental probably got out of the country.

As was shown in the last chapter, not all accommodation resulted from a direct brush with the terror apparatus. Some did, however, even when the encounter was a relatively minor one. NSDAP Kreisleiter Knaupp, in Wurzburg, was given information, which he sent promptly to the Gestapo, that in the Cafe Kies on 14 March 1938 at 16.15, when dance-music on the radio was interrupted for a speech by the Fuhrer, two men (names unknown) had turned it off. A `lady' immediately attempted to ascertain their names, whereupon the radio was turned back on. She was not satisfied with this, all the more as there was a suspicion that one or both might be Jewish. Though Maier, the cafe-owner, and his wife were interrogated, the identity of the men who had turned the radio off was never clarified. The rumour that Jewish persons frequented the cafe turned out, however, to be true, even though Maier had been in the NSDAP since 1932 and his future son-in-law was in the SS. On the day he was requested to appear at Gestapo headquarters he
placed in the window of his establishment the sign 'Entry to Jews Forbidden'. While there is evidence in this dossier of non-conforming behaviour, one can see how individuals gave in under pressure."'