The Transfer Agreement (63 page)

Mapai was equally determined that its 44 percent control be used to expel the entire Revisionist community—about one-fifth of the Zionist movement—and then to transform the whole Zionist Organization into a mere
extension of Mapai itself. To achieve this, Mapai would have to block any public debate of the Hitler threat that could sway the other delegates into a sudden emotional coalition with the Revisionists.
⁶

A strong minority of Zionists were motivated by religion, but the others were motivated by a history of anti-Semitism. The overwhelming majority were common people: cobblers, teachers, doctors, journalists, clerks. They had held the hands of tortured refugees, and had read smuggled letters from those still within the Reich. Like all other Jews, Zionists were enraged. The strongest boycott movements were in heavily Zionist communities in Palestine, Poland, Egypt, and France. This anti-Hitler devotion cut across all party lines—Mapai, Revisionist, Mizrachi, General Zionist, Radical Zionist.

But the cobblers and shopkeepers of the Zionist movement followed leaders. In many instances, these leaders, particularly the Revisionists and the religious Mizrachi, had concluded that Zionism was obligated to join with Jews throughout the world and combat Nazism. But the leaders of Mapai and their allied factions had concluded that Zionism's only
realistic
response was to work with the German regime and save Jewish wealth for the future of the Jewish nation, so Palestine could quickly become strong enough to commence the true in-gathering. These Mapai leaders were implementing a painful decision in the face of monumental popular resistance. Mapai was in fact leading a war of salvation. They would do what was necessary with the same vigor and ruthlessness as anyone fighting a war of bullets, bombs, and boycotts. This ruthlessness would include silencing the opposition.

At Prague it became obvious that silencing the widespread opposition would be a major challenge. The dominant Zionist community in America—New York—had sent a definitive demand that the Prague Congress publicly endorse and join Samuel Untermyer's boycott movement.
⁷
Similar sentiments were pouring in from local Zionist bodies around the world. In many ways, the Zionist Organization was facing the identical crisis the American Jewish Congress was facing. In both cases, rank-and-file membership and local leaders demanded boycott; in both cases key influential leaders stymied and frustrated the decision.

From the beginning, the Third Reich had seen the Eighteenth Zionist Congress as the dramatic moment when the international Jewish conspiracy, all according to established Nazi myth, would consolidate and finalize the economic demise of Germany. A prime Reich motivation in cooperating with the German Zionists and the Zionist hierarchy was to divide the movement, bribe it into submission, and rob it of this moment of consolidation. The Amsterdam Conference had been explained away by Zionists and establishment Jewish leaders as an unauthorized and meaningless meeting of dissidents without power. Stephen Wise's upcoming Geneva conference was being dismissed in the same vein. Zionist leaders assured the Reich that the
Prague Congress was the pivotal Jewish meeting, the only conference with the power to declare and implement Jewish policy—and that policy would reject boycott in favor of transfer cooperation.

But the Nazi mind had always visualized Zionist congresses as the birthplace of Jewish conspiracies. Consul Wolff had appealed to this fear in early July when he promised Berlin that Mr. Sam Cohen and associates were doing all possible to cancel the Congress "because they expect the speeches and resolutions ... will cause increased hostility and anti-Gem tan boycott."
⁸
And indeed, since spring, the German Zionists had been pressuring the Zionist Executive in London to cancel or postpone the event. Their final attempt, a collective petition written from Strassburg on August 4, warned:
"It
is absolutely clear to us, that today no Zionist Congress will convene without raising a sharp protest against the German government. The German government in turn ... will be forced to react to this protest by prohibiting the Zionist organizations ... and organized
aliyah
...
and by making it impossible to free Jewish capital from Germany; it should also not be ignored that this reaction could mean considerable danger for body and life of a large part of the German Zionists .... We demand that you ... postpone the Congress .... We beg of you that this last warning, which comes from responsible people of the movement in Germany, be taken into serious consideration."
⁹

Much as the Zionist Executive in London sympathized with the plight of German Zionists and accepted their rationales, the Executive could not stop the Congress. Any attempt to do so would demonstrate a clear capitulation to Hitler's threats.
If
the Executive did not convene the Congress, someone else would, no doubt the Revisionists, who would then have the working proof that the Zionist Organization was no longer serving the interests of Jews. London insisted the Congress be held.
¹⁰

Unable to postpone the Prague Congress through pressure on German Zionists, the Nazis gambled that the Transfer Agreement, sealed on August 7, would force the Zionist movement to silence the rank and file. Hans Hartenstein expressed as much in an August I0
letter to Schmidt-Roelke, explaining the Transfer Agreement: "It seems to me that this way really affords the best guarantee of the strongest possible effect on Jewish boycott measures."
¹¹

However, Nazi hopes of an innocuous Eighteenth Zionist Congress soon dissolved. The very day the Transfer Agreement was sealed, August 7, Samuel Untermyer returned to America to rally Jews, non-Jews, and loyal Zionists to boycott. On August II,
German charge d'affaires in Washington Rudolf Leitner brought Cordell Hull a
New York Times
transcript of Untermyer's national "call to boycott" broadcast, and protested in the sternest terms. Hull was himself a strong advocate, perhaps the architect, of FDR's noninterference policy. But by now even Hull had been caught up in the national outrage and answered Leitner with a rather unrestrained castigation of Nazism. He recited a litany of German atrocities, asking what Leitner realistically expected anyone to do. "The best remedy," Hull said, "will be for the German people or the German government or both to stop whatever may be their activities against the Jews. [Only] This will enable us to make suitable appeals to discontinue the boycott."
¹²

Convinced the Prague Congress would not be canceled, the Reich began a sequence of highly visible warning shots to convince
it
to abstain from the anti-German crusade. Pressure on the German Zionists escalated. Leaders were suddenly arrested, meetings were inexplicably broken up, and ZVfD records were arbitrarily confiscated.
On
August
I
6,
in a public appeal, the ZVfD's newspaper
Juedische Rundschau
declared, "It is not the duty of the Congress to declare war, but in a Zionist spirit, through practical measures to bring about spiritual encouragement and relief in the situation .... This is why German Zionists urged that the present Congress should not be held. . . . Since, however, the Congress was not postponed, it is the duty of the ... [Zionist] Executive to establish a spirit of creative responsibility ... to enable mass Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine."
¹³

Of course, no one even tried to organize Zionist elections in Germany. When it became obvious that the Congress might declare war against Hitler, German Zionists decided against sending an appointive delegation. Even German Zionists wholly unconnected with the Congress were beseeched to leave Prague prior to the opening session to avoid any mistake. Although newspaper accounts around the world repeatedly emphasized the German Zionist nonpresence, in truth, Martin Rosenbluth would secretly attend as the ZVfD observer and do his best to curtail boycott activities.
¹⁴

The ZVfD's highly visible disassociation from Prague did not matter to the Nazis. On August I7, Hitler's personal newspaper,
Volkischer Beobachter,
published its lead article on the Eighteenth Zionist Congress, written by Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler's philosopher and the NSDAP's chief foreign policy official. Insisting that the boycott was coordinated by "Zionists," Rosenberg promised retribution against all those "guilty of conspiracies and against all their accomplices"—a clear reference to German Zionists. The fact that Lord Melchett had assumed a renewed leadership position in the Zionist movement and was expected to playa major role at Prague was proof to Rosenberg that "the London castle of the Zionist leader, Melchett, is actually the center of world Jewry for the anti-German boycott." In an unmistakable warning, Rosenberg wrote, "Germany will watch Congress developments closely in the conviction that while the real intentions will
not be disclosed in the public speeches, secret resolutions
will
be adopted along the lines laid down by
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
. . .
Actual decisions will result from secret discussions between gentlemen from New York, Amsterdam, Paris, and London."
¹⁵

Germania,
the Catholic newspaper controlled by Deputy Chancellor Franz von Papen, similarly warned, "We shall have to follow the dealings of this Congress closely, for international Jewry, as we have often experienced in the past, will not itself openly join battle, but will make other forces work for it."
¹⁶

New York Times
correspondent Hugh Jedell summed up German apprehension in a report filed from Berlin on August
I
8:
"The Zionist Congress ... is probably of more lively interest to the new Germany than was the World Economic Conference." Jedell explained that the Prague convention held the power to stimulate the anti-Nazi boycott.
¹⁷
What would be decided by the Zionists in Prague would probably have more impact upon Germany's economic recovery than all the trade accords the Reich could negotiate. And Germans knew it.

In response to the accusatory columns of Alfred Rosenberg and other Nazi spokesmen,
luedische Rundschau
published an uncommonly defiant editorial denying that the Prague conference would join the boycott but explaining why those same conferences would almost certainly denounce the Nazi ethic. "Surely not even the Nazis expect us to agree that the Jews are an inferior race,"
Juedische Rundschau
declared. The Nazis promptly suspended
Juedische Rundschau
for six months.
¹⁸
This was yet another warning shot. The Zionist privilege in Germany could be rescinded with the scrawl of a pen.

The constitution of the Zionist Organization called for its General Council to convene just before each Congress. This council, commonly called the Actions Committee, was comprised of several dozen officials, proportionately drawn from the various parties. The Actions Committee's duty was to decide all policy, including the management of the Congress itself.

If
the Revisionists were allowed their minority rights on the Actions Committee, they would demand that the Congress debate the German crisis and vote on the boycott. And they would block Mapai's supremacy on other issues. Mapai could count on the support of substantial elements of the General Zionist and Radical Zionist parties. But other groups, particularly the religious Mizrachi, could be expected to align with the Revisionists to stymie Mapai intentions. So Mapai knew it was imperative to exclude the Revisionists from their rightful place on the Actions Committee.
¹⁹

The Actions Committee's first session was scheduled for late on August
I5.
That same day, while en route to Prague, Vladimir Jabotinsky received notice that he would not be granted a visa to enter Czechoslovakia. The alleged reason: Jabotinsky did not request his visa through the Eighteenth Zionist Congress Bureau, which automatically issued them. Instead, in a deliberate act of disassociation, Jabotinsky applied through normal consular channels.
It
was refused, allegedly as an oversight. In truth, the Czech Home
Office feared Jabotinsky's presence might lead to violence.
²⁰
Consequently, Jabotinsky could neither assume his place on the Actions Committee nor lead his supporters through the political obstacle course Mapai was planning.

Jabotinsky's supporters quickly demanded their seats on the Actions Committee nonetheless and began pressuring the Czech Foreign Ministry to grant the visa.
²¹
Mapai countered by trying to cancel the Actions Committee altogether through their coalition majority. At the last minute, Leo Motzkin, chairman of the Actions Committee, was forced to announce a postponement of the opening meeting. The General Zionists, however, broke with Mapai on the issue, reasoning that Mapai's hegemony could eventually extend to other parties as well.
²²
The General Zionists, controlling almost
25
percent of the delegates, could have teamed up with the Revisionists and Mizrachi to overwhelm Mapai's unilateral move. So Mapai backed down.

On August
I
7,
at
4:30 P.M.,
the Actions Committee finally met. Chaim Weizmann, a General Zionist, boycotted the session and requested his name be removed from the Congress speaker list altogether because the Revisionists had been allowed to participate.
²³
After two hours of preliminaries, Revisionist Joseph Schechtman demanded that the Congress concentrate on the German Jewish crisis, emphasizing that ''the Congress must not remain silent on the boycott."
²⁴