Since 2015, the Universities of Potsdam and Haifa have been working together to produce the Ashkenazic Studies exchange programme for their students. A series of strong relationships between professors from both these institutions has grown out of this cooperation, and together they produced a fantastic on conference on timely issues that have not yet been dealt with sufficiently. As the title of the conference suggests, Jewish Responses gave voice to Jews developing strategies for dealing with antisemitism, in its appearance as an intellectual phenomenon and the physical violence that arose from hatred and prejudice.
One of the conference conveners, MAGDALENA MARSZAŁEK (Potsdam), was the first to the podium where she offered justifications for the event. The strongest is that we should be turning our focus away from the toxic antagonism of nationalists, who have garnered plenty of attention, toward the targets of their ire, in order to show how Jews had agency and what strategies they used to counter harmful rhetoric and violent action.
GUR ALROEY (Haifa) then gave the opening address on Jewish self-defence units during the Ukrainian civil war (1919-1920). His main argument was that the stereotype of Jewish passivity does not match up with the historical record. The popular memory of pogroms and anti-Jewish violence in eastern Europe has been that Jews simply fled, leaving behind their lives in the shtetlach. But this is not the whole story. In response to the massive rise in anti-Jewish violence during the chaos of multiple overlapping conflicts, cities with large Jewish populations organized armed units to discourage banditry and punish those who failed to maintain order. Another important point Alroey emphasized that Jewish men served in the imperial armies during the First World War, and returned home with knowledge and skills to defend themselves and their property. In the town of Bohoslav, near Kyiv, the largest unit formed and local insurgents nicknamed it the “Jewish Fortress”. The experience of self-defence participants was then taken to Palestine, where some of the same men responded to Arab riots in Palestine in 1920-21 with similar armed initiatives. Thus the attitudes and actions of Jewish self-defence units played a key role influencing the Zionist movement and served as a strong message against those wished to do Jews harm.
During the first panel session, ELISABETH GALLAS (Leipzig) presented a nuanced reinterpretation of the Schwarzbard trial in interwar France. In May 1926, Sholem Schwarzbard assassinated Symon Petliura, the most prominent leader of revolutionary Ukraine during the aforementioned civil war. In the eyes of many Jews, Petliura bore the brunt of the blame for the massive pogroms that resulted in thousands of deaths. Gallas argued convincingly that the trial transformed into an indictment of those who committed acts of violence against Jews or those who failed to protect them. The jury acquitted the assassin after an 8-day trial because the jury was convinced by the overwhelming evidence from pogrom victims and their families. Schwarzbard’s act, then, was a solution to the problem of impunity in a world without an international war crimes tribunal. What seemed like “revenge” on the surface, was actually a means to provide retribution in a makeshift legal response to the lack of accountability for pogrom perpetrators.
The second presentation of the first panel provided deeper context for a particular Ukrainian city during the Russian Imperial period. ANDRII PORTNOV (Frankfurt an der Oder) gave a closer look into the social dynamics of Ekaterinoslav (today Dnipro), the site of Jewish armed resistance at various points in history. Portnov emphasized how some Jewish thinkers in Dnipro were hopeful there was a place for assimilated Jews in Russian society, but they became disillusioned when Russian liberals refused to criticize pogroms and anti-Jewish violence. In the late 19th century, mass pogroms spurred the popularity of Jewish organizations, especially Zionism and Bundism. Portnov somewhat challenged Alroey’s claim in his talk that Jewish self-defence had its roots in the 1903 Kishinev pogrom, by showing that it actually first developed in Ekaterinoslav in 1901 and appeared again in 1905. In particular, the growth of the ethnic Russian movement the Black Hundreds created an atmosphere of racists violence that threatened the safety of Jews and non-Jewish dissenters.
On the next day, the first two panels turned our attention to German nationalism and the methods Jews employed to both work against it and organize within antisemitic environments. CHRISTOPH SCHULTE (Potsdam) pointed out how in the context of Napoleonic French occupation, Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s famous nationalist speeches contained the seeds of racist anti-Jewish thought. Fichte claimed that even baptism would not change the nature of the Jew because his lineage would never be Germanic. A contemporary German Jew, Saul Ascher, argued that the French occupation had turned German intellectuals in “Germanomaniacs”. Joseph Wolff, another contemporary, responded to the “Hep Hep” Riots of 1819 with an attempt to psychologize the society and understand why certain people turned to anti-Jewish prejudice. In his conclusion, Schulte connected these early examples with the prejudice inscribed in German nationalism today, arguing these original sins lived on well into the future.
This was followed by a nicely complimentary presentation by ULRICH SIEG (Marburg) on German-Jewish intellectuals from the 1880s, responding to growing political antisemitism around them. At this time, some emerging figures managed to combine traditional anti-Jewish tropes with new ‘scientific’ antisemitism. One big question Sieg raised that is relevant today was whether intelligentsia figures should even dignify prejudice with a rational answer. In other words, by debating with antisemites in an official tone, did they elevate the irrational to a space where it did not belong? Or should they not dignify it with such an answer? In general, Sieg argued that liberals underestimated the strength and importance of antisemitism as a political force, and rather considered it an issue of the “mob” alone.
In the next panel, REBEKKA DENZ (Bamberg) then gave an overview of the role of women in the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith (Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens), probably the most important civil-political organization for German Jews. Rhetorically the group argued that they did not differ in any way from German Catholics or Protestants who could resolve their loyalty to an extraterritorial Church while also remaining loyal German subjects (and then citizens after 1918). Though founded in 1893, women were not officially involved in the institution until a legal change in 1908 allowed as such, and the declaration of a republic allowed for universal suffrage and by extension much more active participation. Denz focused on two figures in particular Else Dormitzer and Eva Reichmann-Jungmann as influential figures. The Centralverein expended considerable resources researching antisemitism in Germany, but even up to 1934 remained somewhat hopeful that there would space for Germans “of Jewish Faith” in the future.
This was followed by CEDRIC COHEN SKALLI’s (Haifa) paper on the anarchist intellectual Gustav Landauer. Cohen Skalli began his exploration with a reminder that we are living through multiple challenges to the liberal order, sometimes termed the “twilight of democracy”. He then argued implicitly that in diagnosing the aetiology of these disfunctions we can productively turn to Landauer’s cultural criticism. Landauer explored the suppressed trauma forged in centuries of feudalism and capitalism, and the ills of individualism and secularism that separated life from the spirit. In response to antisemitism, Landauer proposed that Jews cultivate a strong Jewish identity, rather than cowering behind assimilation.
Session 4 opened with a presentation by JAN RYBAK (London) who introduced a fascinating case study with broad implications for the study of nationality in the late Habsburg Empire. In 1915, after a relatively brief Russian occupation in Austrian Galicia, Kaiser Franz Josef’s subjects wanted to emphasize their loyalty. Jewish groups writing to a Zionist organization in Vienna highlighted how Poles showed themselves to be disloyal and willingly collaborated with the Russian occupiers, especially in their willingness to do harm to Jews. In this way, the Jews argued that Polish civil servants were “truly Russian” and not Austrian like the Jews. Rybak argued that this ever-present antisemitism was supposedly antithetical to Austrianness in the Jewish discourse, but in fact was part and parcel of the imperial legacy in the Habsburg lands.
The following presentation from EUGENIA PROKOP-JANIEC (Kraków) explored the interwar Polish publication Jewish Monthly (Miesięcznik Żydowski) to investigate what the definitions of nation, nationalism and nation-state were at the time. What she finds is that history was at the heart of understanding the nation. Jews working in the Polish-language publication adapted a constructivist vision of nationalism, arguing that everyone needs to learn about their membership in this “primordial” community. One writer in particular argued that their loss of statehood millennia ago was the root of Jewish suffering in the present. This very clearly mirrors the Polish national discourse in the 19th century when the partitions weighed heavily on Polish elites who mourned the loss of their beloved republic.
Session 4 brought together two presentations on Jewish responses to very public displays of antisemitism. MARC VOLOVICI (London) spoke about the first attempt to form a World Jewish Congress in order to finally have a supranational authority that would be able to speak for the Jews. Abraham Schomer, a Pińsk native who moved to New York City, led this movement, but was widely criticized by mainstream Jewish elites because many believed that the formation of such an institution would only fuel the stereotypes that Jews are unrooted cosmopolitans with designs for global domination. Volovici therefore highlighted fundamental questions about how to respond to antisemitic conspiracy theories. Should one hold back in order not to give propagandists more ammunition? Or should the goal of Jewish self-determination and legal protection rise above the potential risks?
GRZEGORZ KRZYWIEC (Warsaw) gave a talk on the rhetorical responses to a violent incident in 1936 between peasant Poles and merchant Jews in Przytyk, a small market town. The Polish mainstream promoted the idea that Jews, as monopolisers of the merchant class, needed to emigrate in order to resolve the tensions that plagued the country. As one commentator put it, “the market stall is the consulate of the Jewish capital”. A few dozen agitators were put on trial with both sides claiming self-defence. Ultimately the Polish actors were much more lightly punished than the Jewish ones, if at all.
The next panel featured two young scholars embarking on groundbreaking research. MARIUSZ KAŁCZEWIAK (Potsdam) developed a portrait of how Jewish athletes responded to stereotypes of weakness and femininity. Through the popular figures of Zishe Breitbart (strongman) and Shapsel Rotholz (boxer), Kałczewiak showed how these men could be heroic symbols for Jews in Poland and abroad, while for Catholic Poles they had to respond to the potentiality that their stereotypes about Jews were incorrect. Polish newspapers accused Breitbart of being a scammer or tries to belittle him by comparing him to a prostitute. When Rotholz emerged as a champion boxer, the Polish press responded by calling him the “new Samson in the eyes of Nalewki,” a street in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood of Warsaw. So it would seem that mostly Jews admired these men for their strength and manliness. Rotholz was even able to provide a sort of athletic justice to Polish Jews by taking on German boxers in the ring, punching the Nazi swastika with his Jewish fist.
EMMA ZOHAR (Oxford) followed with an exploration of emotions that are not often associated with Jews in 1930s Poland, namely joy and pleasure. Through the lens of social practice, Zohar is trying to understand not necessarily what people felt, but how their emotions were expressed. And since modern life is generally about avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, this is no doubt an important social practice. She uses the seasons and the Christian holiday calendar to give shape to her investigation, seeing how at each time of the year different activities can be sought out for pleasure and leisure. In wintertime, ice skating and skiing became popularized. During the summer Polish Jews found pleasure in picking fruits, nuts and berries, and spending time in nature. Zohar argued that these activities were signs of acculturation and westernization, assimilation into Polish society, but that this too was an emotional process. In other words, as they sought out pleasure in sports, leisure and secular festivals, they became more integrated into wider society.
The penultimate panel continued the theme of pleasure with interventions in the fields of entertainment and humour as responses to antisemitism. MARCOS SILBER (Haifa) worked with recorded songs and cabarets to extract how interwar Polish Jewish performers and songwriters integrated the discrimination of the moment into their art. In songs and jokes, the words reflect the environment and show the resilience of these people in the face of hate. Even the antisemitic slogan “Jews to Madagascar” found its way into song, with both Jewish and Polish versions. While many artists created in Yiddish, their fame led them to crossover and record versions in Polish. The popularity of Polish tango in particular bred concerns from nationalist Poles that there was “judaizing” of Polish culture underway. Silber argues here that mass culture allowed for symbolic revenge on the oppressing power and created a discourse of opposition in the face of the antisemites.
MARIA ANTOSIK-PIELA (Warsaw) then presented on two interwar Jewish writers, Samuel Jacob Imber and Roman Brandstaetter, and their humorous responses to antisemitism in Poland. Their use of language distinguished their works, since they employed sophisticated Polish to show that their Polish was just as good as the Christian Poles to fight against the stereotype of a bastardization of Polish language by Jews. They also utilized German words to emphasize how some Poles were fascinated with Nazi antisemitic propaganda, and created neologisms such as Jew-eater (Żydożerca) and Jew-beater (Żydobijca). Imber, in particular, flung the accusations of homosexuality and femininity at Nazis to disarm them and to claim that Germany was full of depraved individuals. Antosik-Piela argued that Polish Jews used the weapons of the oppressors against their opponents, essentially turning antisemitism on its head.
The final panel moved the conversation into the postwar period, to uncover the fate of Jewish identity after the Holocaust. MAGDALENA MARSZAŁEK explores autobiographical texts of four prominent communist figures with Jewish backgrounds Aleksander Wat, Zygmunt Bauman, Julian Stryjkowski, and Stanisław Wygodzki. Marszałek discovered that these texts fit into the genre of confession. The narratives follow a similar pattern: at first they are enchanted, seduced by foolishness, then they come to a realization and admit their mistake. Communists were unable to speak of their political involvement in any other way. For Jews in particular, communism was an escape from being Jewish in the first place. In this way, Marszałek argued that there was an attempt to disarm the nationalist discourse by claiming that when coming of age, they became communists to leave Judaism or Jewish identity.
YEICHEL WEIZMAN (Ramat Gan) uncovered Jewish political strategies in the years after the so-called “anti-Zionist” campaign of 1968. In order to do so, Weizman focused on the controversy over the potential removal of "Ohel" Naftali Horowitz tsadik's grave in Łańcut in 1968. Polish Jews called upon their coreligionists in other countries to put pressure on the Polish government. In their rhetoric, Jews connected this act of “vandalism” to the crimes of the Nazis, and played on Polish sensitivity to such connections. At the same time, Jews offered the Polish government a way out, to redeem themselves from their bad behaviour. Meanwhile American Jews who visited Poland spread accusations that the cemeteries were in a terrible state and that they needed to make changes in their treatment of these heritage sites. Aided by Jews from around the world, the anti-Polish campaign seems to reinforce the stereotypes that they were already operating within. Polish communist leadership believed in a global Jewish conspiracy that could do them harm. Thus, Weizman argues that Jews in Poland were able to exploit antisemitism to win concessions.
Taken together these presentations and papers brought forth a wealth of evidence on how Jews, mostly in Germany and Poland, reacted to antisemitism and discrimination. The discussions that followed each panel session showed that the interest in the subject is enormous and that scholars of various disciplines can fruitfully come together to formulate conclusions about the past, while informing our present. The main takeaway from the event was that more research in the vein of Jews (or other oppressed groups) responding to their persecution is needed and should be pursued using this conference as a model for how it can be approached from many different angles.
Conference overview:
Opening Address
Gur Alroey (Haifa): “Brothers in Arms”: Jewish Self-Defense during the Civil War in Ukraine
Session 1
Chair: Magdalena Marszałek / Christoph Schulte
Elizabeth Gallas (Leipzig): An Assassination against Silence: Scholem Schwarzbard’s Indictment of the Anti-Jewish Pogroms in the Ukraine 1918–1920
Andrii Portnov (Frankfurt an der Oder): Jewish Political Life in Late Imperial Ekaterinoslav: Between Ukrainian Nationalism, Russian Empire and Temptations of Zionism
Session 2
Chair: Cedric Cohen Skalli
Christoph Schulte (Potsdam): Germanomanie! Jewish Voices against Early German Nationalism
Ulrich Sieg (Marburg): Liberal Jewish Intellectuals and their Reactions to Anti-Semitism in the Bismarck Empire
Session 3
Chair: Christoph Schulte
Rebekka Denz (Bamberg): Perspectives of Jewish Women on Völkisch Nationalism around 1900
Cedric Cohen Skalli (Haifa): Gustav Landauer, German Völkisch Nationalism and WWI
Session 4
Chair: Dorota Burda-Fischer
Jan Rybak (London): National Anti-Semitism and Imperial Loyalty? Jewish Interpretations of Anti-Semitism in WW1 Galicia
Eugenia Prokop-Janiec (Cracow): Nations – National States – Nationalisms. 1930s’ Europe in Polish-Jewish Journalism
Session 5
Chair: Marcos Silber
Marc Volovici (London): Between Self-Determination and Self-Censorship: Anti-Semitism and the Dilemmas of Jewish Nationalism
Grzegorz Krzywiec (Warsaw): Jewish? Polish-Jewish? or Universal Human? The Jewish Strategies against Anti-Semitic Violence. The Case of the Radom Trial (August 1936)
Session 6
Chair: Natasha Gordinsky
Mariusz Kałczewiak (Potsdam): Polish-Jewish Athletic Champions and Performing the (Anti-)Nationalism
Emma Zohar (Oxford/Berlin): United by Pleasure: Overcoming Ethnic Divide in Interwar Poland
Session 7
Chair: Mariusz Kałczewiak
Marcos Silber (Haifa): Staging Anti-anti-Semitism? Confronting Exclusion in Polish, Jewish, and Polish-Jewish Mass Culture in Interwar Poland
Maria Antosik-Piela (Warsaw): Mocking Anti-Semitic Narratives in Interwar Texts by Samuel Jacob Imber and Roman Brandstaetter
Session 8
Chair: Marcos Silber
Magdalena Marszałek (Potsdam): The Post-National Communist Project as Reflected in Polish-Jewish Autobiographic Narratives
Yechiel Weizman (Ramat Gan): Exploiting the Nationalistic-Communist Complex: Jewish Political Strategies in post-1968 Poland