German(speaking)-Jewish Diaspora – Introduction

    Few con­cepts have had as pro­found an im­pact on the Jew­ish ex­pe­ri­ence of his­tory as the word ‘Di­as­pora’. Ever since the First Tem­ple in Jerusalem was de­stroyed in the sixth cen­tury BCE, ex­pe­ri­ences of es­cape, ex­pul­sion, and dis­place­ment, lost homes, plural ge­o­graph­i­cal affini­ties, and net­works of in­ter­na­tional re­la­tion­ships have char­ac­ter­ized Jew­ish his­tory, re­li­gion, tra­di­tion, and imag­i­na­tion. Along­side mi­gra­tion, which is the pre­req­ui­site for any di­as­poric com­mu­nity, Di­as­pora, from the An­cient Greek for ‘scat­ter­ing’, lies at the heart of Jew­ish ex­pe­ri­ence.

    The Di­as­pora Por­tal fo­cuses on his­tor­i­cal themes through the lens of in­di­vid­ual bi­ogra­phies and con­tem­po­rary doc­u­ments linked to Ger­manophone life­worlds. The por­tal is not lim­ited to Jews from Ger­many, how­ever. More than ques­tions of cit­i­zen­ship or na­tion­al­ity, the por­tal cen­ters on a mul­ti­fac­eted cul­tural and lin­guis­tic com­mu­nity with shared Ger­man(-​speaking) her­itage as a point of de­par­ture. Any at­tempt to pin down life­worlds in con­cep­tual terms risks nar­row­ing the di­ver­sity of so­cial prac­tice as it is ac­tu­ally lived. The label ‘Jew­ish’ comes with its own prob­lems, given that a num­ber of the fig­ures dis­cussed here did not iden­tify or de­fine them­selves as such. In some cases, they only be­came ‘Jews’ as a re­sult of their per­se­cu­tion under the im­posed clas­si­fi­ca­tion of Jude.

    Within German-​Jewish life­worlds and his­tor­i­cal ex­pe­ri­ences, the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of that term, ‘German-​Jewish’, is a core re­search ques­tion. Be­gin­ning in the era of the Haskalah, the Jew­ish En­light­en­ment, and then with the nascent legal eman­ci­pa­tion dur­ing the long nine­teenth cen­tury, Jews de­bated their iden­ti­ties as Ger­mans and/or Jews with their con­tem­po­raries. The two-​pronged term ‘German-​Jewish’ arose from that de­bate. Today, the term is em­ployed less as a nor­ma­tive value state­ment than as a cul­tural de­scrip­tor – and could be ren­dered more ac­cu­rately as ‘Germanophone-​Jewish’. For the sake of both read­abil­ity and con­ti­nu­ity with pre­vi­ous schol­ar­ship, we nev­er­the­less re­tain ‘German-​Jewish’ in most in­stances. Still, the hy­phen­ate is clunky – and we are well aware that read­ers will stum­ble over it. Through that hy­phen, we aim to carve out space for nu­ance, mul­ti­ple af­fil­i­a­tions, transna­tion­al­ism, and bi­o­graph­i­cal open-​endedness.

    The Di­as­pora Por­tal adopts a broad ge­o­graph­i­cal van­tage point and en­deav­ors to re­mem­ber the het­eroge­nous group of German-​speaking Jews whose roots stretch back not only to Ger­many, but also to Lithua­nia, Aus­tria, Slo­va­kia, Czechia, Hun­gary, and else­where. In these re­gions, the Ger­man lan­guage was often seen as a ‘lan­guage of up­ward mo­bil­ity’ in the sense of em­bour­geoise­ment; the lan­guage it­self fre­quently proved to be the most en­dur­ing marker of a mi­gra­tory bi­og­ra­phy that re­mained vis­i­bly or au­di­bly German-​Jewish. In many cases, di­as­poric con­texts only emerged by way of the long­ing for this lin­guis­tic home­land.

    What does Diaspora mean?


    ‘Di­as­pora’ is both a de­scrip­tive term and a schol­arly one. As an an­a­lyt­i­cal con­cept, it ide­ally cap­tures the man­i­fold, dy­namic, and com­plex na­ture of German-​speaking Jews’ mi­gra­tions and the processes by which they made them­selves at home. The word Di­as­pora may be em­ployed in two re­lated ways. On the one hand, it cat­e­go­rizes a set of in­di­vid­u­als be­long­ing to the same eth­nic and/or re­li­gious group who have been com­pelled to leave their coun­try of ori­gin yet main­tain a strong and last­ing con­nec­tion to its cul­ture and her­itage – some­times for mul­ti­ple gen­er­a­tions.

    On the other, Di­as­pora also con­tains an in­her­ent spa­tial imag­i­nary: it des­ig­nates the ex­pe­ri­en­tial realms of such a set of in­di­vid­u­als from the same eth­nic and/or re­li­gious group who are liv­ing out­side their orig­i­nal cen­ter, yet main­tain an at­tach­ment to that Old Coun­try, which they were forced to leave under duress, through tra­di­tions and mem­ory. In both vari­ants, Di­as­pora pre­sup­poses the mi­gra­tion and com­mu­nal life of a group – held to­gether by real or imag­ined ties.

    Ac­cord­ing to Jew­ish tra­di­tion, Eretz Yis­rael – the ‘Land of Is­rael’ – is this sym­bolic cen­ter, which has long been the ref­er­ence point of re­li­gious prac­tice and has as­sumed a new role since the found­ing of the State of Is­rael. Di­as­pora is a dy­namic and ever-​evolving prac­tice, but also a so­cial and sym­bolic space.

    The orig­i­nal Jew­ish un­der­stand­ing of Di­as­pora, con­veyed through the He­brew terms galut or tfut­zot (exile, dis­per­sion) emerged after the ex­pul­sion from an­cient Is­rael and was thus linked to a con­tin­ual long­ing for a re­turn to Zion.

    On 14 May 1948, the found­ing of the State of Is­rael seem­ingly ren­dered a con­cep­tu­ally mean­ing­ful Jew­ish Di­as­pora ob­so­lete. And yet, Jew­ish life con­tin­ued to exist be­yond the new state’s bor­ders. Even today, the ma­jor­ity of Jews live in the United States, not Is­rael; hence, we must ac­knowl­edge the ex­is­tence of at least two ge­o­graphic cen­ters. Notwith­stand­ing, the es­tab­lish­ment of a (re­newed) ter­ri­to­r­ial cen­ter with sov­er­eign state­hood in Is­rael raised the ques­tion of whether this marked the end of the Jew­ish Di­as­pora – long con­noted neg­a­tively as galut (exile).

    The an­cient Greek con­cept of Di­as­pora (διασπορά), roughly mean­ing ‘dis­per­sion,’ is it­self a prod­uct of Jew­ish di­as­poric com­mu­ni­ties. It first ap­pears in the Sep­tu­agint – the ear­li­est Greek trans­la­tion of the Torah, which was cre­ated by Jew­ish schol­ars, mostly in Alexan­dria. At the time, more than 2,200 years ago, the ma­jor­ity of Jews were al­ready liv­ing out­side Eretz Yis­rael, and the term did not yet hold the same neg­a­tive as­so­ci­a­tions that would later cling to it. After the de­struc­tion of the Sec­ond Tem­ple in 70 CE and the sub­se­quent ex­pul­sions of many Jews under the Roman oc­cu­pa­tion, the term Di­as­pora be­came wide­spread. It was given a neg­a­tive (re­li­gious) in­ter­pre­ta­tion, fore­most as­so­ci­ated with ex­pul­sion, dis­place­ment, en­slave­ment, and co­er­cion, with pow­er­less­ness and ter­ri­to­r­ial home­less­ness.

    In the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, even be­fore the found­ing of Is­rael, the Jew­ish mean­ing of the term Di­as­pora un­der­went a fur­ther trans­for­ma­tion. The his­to­rian Simon Dub­now (1860–1941), born in what is now Be­larus, to­gether with other Jew­ish in­tel­lec­tu­als in East­ern Eu­rope, de­vel­oped the no­tion of a ‘Di­as­pora na­tion­al­ism’ that con­sciously em­braced a na­tional project in the Di­as­pora, adding po­lit­i­cal agency to the con­cept and demon­strat­ing that Jew­ish iden­tity can exist with­out a sov­er­eign state as its cen­ter. In this con­text, Di­as­pora was no longer viewed merely as the re­sult of dis­per­sion, but also as a space of cul­tural and so­cial agency.

    The term Di­as­pora has passed through a range of mean­ings in aca­d­e­mic re­search, in­clud­ing the fields of Jew­ish his­tory and his­to­ri­og­ra­phy. Since the 1980s, it has seen a re­vival across dis­ci­plines, not only as a de­scrip­tive term but also as an an­a­lyt­i­cal cat­e­gory, after pre­vi­ously being un­der­stood pri­mar­ily in a re­li­gious and usu­ally neg­a­tive sense, as a con­di­tion of forced exile. Our ap­proach, too, seeks to move be­yond galut and exile, fo­cus­ing in­stead on the con­crete so­cial prac­tices and dy­namic processes of group for­ma­tion among his­tor­i­cal ac­tors.

    The his­to­rian Steven M. Lowen­stein (1945–2020), him­self a New York-​born child of Jew­ish refugees from Ger­many, coined the phrase ‘German-​Jewish Di­as­pora’[1] for the com­mu­ni­ties that formed from 1933 on­ward. We have adopted his ar­tic­u­la­tion from the epi­logue to the fourth vol­ume of German-​Jewish His­tory in Mod­ern Times (1997) as a sys­tem­atic tool for con­tin­u­ing that his­tory in a dual sense.

    In doing so, we will first seek to broaden the exile-​based un­der­stand­ing of Di­as­pora by ex­am­in­ing how Jew­ish ex­iles de­vel­oped a sort of di­as­poric re­la­tion­ship to their Ger­man or German-​speaking com­mu­ni­ties of ori­gin. Sec­ond, we will pon­der the ex­tent to which Ger­man/ophone-​Jewish cul­ture re­mained salient for these in­di­vid­u­als. Thus, we are also pre­oc­cu­pied with the col­lec­tive main­te­nance of a German-​Jewish iden­tity out­side the German-​speaking world. Other Jew­ish groups, too, have de­vel­oped a sim­i­lar kind of dual Di­as­pora, no­tably the Sephardi Jews, whose com­mu­nity for­ma­tion and con­tin­u­ing ori­en­ta­tion to­ward the ex­pul­sions from the Iber­ian Penin­sula in 1492 from Spain and in 1496 from Por­tu­gal are still re­flected today in a shared lan­guage (Ladino) and in re­li­gious cus­toms.

    Schol­arly dis­cus­sions of di­as­poric mi­nori­ties have pro­posed var­i­ous de­f­i­n­i­tions for what con­sti­tutes a di­as­poric iden­tity. Some of the com­mon threads across these de­f­i­n­i­tions, al­beit with dif­fer­ing em­phases, in­clude the fol­low­ing.

    A tem­po­rally well-​defined start­ing point, typ­i­cally as­so­ci­ated with the ex­pul­sion or forced dis­place­ment of large num­bers of peo­ple or en­tire com­mu­ni­ties, con­sti­tutes the ori­gin of a Di­as­pora. At the same time, the set­tle­ment of this group out­side the re­gion of ori­gin es­tab­lishes a ge­o­graph­i­cal point of ref­er­ence. These as­pects are ac­com­pa­nied by ef­forts to pre­serve, or even cre­ate, community-​building prac­tices in the coun­try of exile – such as through landsmanshaft-​style or­ga­ni­za­tions – along­side a con­tin­ued, often tense re­la­tion­ship with the new liv­ing en­vi­ron­ment and a con­tin­ued emo­tional at­tach­ment to the ‘lost home­land’. This at­tach­ment is often ac­com­pa­nied by a vague long­ing for a past in­flected by the Old Coun­try, linked to hopes of tran­scend­ing the pain of ex­pul­sion – even if only in the imag­i­na­tion.

    This first overview of the German-​Jewish Di­as­pora draws on ex­ist­ing re­search and new archival find­ings to in­ves­ti­gate the his­tor­i­cal cir­cum­stances that led to German-​Jewish mi­gra­tion, and the ways in which Ger­manophone Jews sought to pre­serve their cul­tures of ori­gin and af­fil­i­a­tion(s) in var­i­ous coun­tries of refuge – and to safe­guard them as part of a German-​Jewish cul­tural her­itage. Given the hy­brid and often frag­mented na­ture of the re­sult­ing af­fil­i­a­tions, we are par­tic­u­larly in­ter­ested in the ex­tent to which this group de­vel­oped shared iden­ti­ties in each ‘New Coun­try’ – iden­ti­ties shaped not only by dis­tance, home­sick­ness, and loss, but also by prox­im­ity, ar­rival, and a sense of be­long­ing.

    Such processes of group for­ma­tion also bring into focus the re­la­tion­ship to the ma­jor­ity so­ci­ety and to other mi­nori­ties (in­clud­ing other Jew­ish groups). These re­la­tion­ships were often riven by ten­sions, which in turn en­cour­aged the in­sti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion of ded­i­cated spaces, or­ga­ni­za­tions, and rep­re­sen­ta­tive bod­ies. Along­side this group-​specific mul­ti­plic­ity of cul­tural af­fil­i­a­tion, the an­a­lyt­i­cal cat­e­gory of Di­as­pora also makes it pos­si­ble to trace transna­tional net­works. The re­la­tion­ships among German-​speaking Jews, who viewed them­selves as part of a larger (imag­ined) in­ter­con­ti­nen­tal com­mu­nity, open up doors for an ad­di­tional, par­tic­u­larly rich field of analy­sis. This ap­proach of­fers two dif­fer­ent av­enues to a transna­tional turn in German-​Jewish his­tory, as it also con­sid­ers those who re­mained in the Old Coun­try.

    We re­flect afresh on the con­cept of Di­as­pora in each re­gion where sig­nif­i­cant num­bers of German-​speaking Jews set­tled. A sense of self dom­i­nated by rem­i­nis­cences and ties to the Old Coun­try did not al­ways emerge. This project also ad­dresses processes of de­tach­ment and de­cou­pling. It also ex­am­ines ques­tions of re­turn mi­gra­tion – in­clud­ing mi­gra­tion to one of the two post­war Ger­man states. After the Sec­ond World War, no more than five per­cent of the roughly 450,000 German-​speaking Jews ever re­turned to their re­spec­tive Old Coun­try. Nev­er­the­less, nu­mer­ous ex­am­ples at­test to how in­tensely those who had em­i­grated wres­tled with the pos­si­bil­ity of re­turn­ing to their coun­tries of ori­gin, often for years. In some cases, they went through with it, tem­porar­ily or on an ex­ploratory basis.[2]

    Be­sides ex­am­in­ing the po­lit­i­cal, so­ci­etal, and so­cial chal­lenges that new­com­ers en­coun­tered in each des­ti­na­tion, this project also ex­plores the op­por­tu­ni­ties avail­able to Ger­manophone Jews and the ex­tent of their par­tic­i­pa­tion in the main­stream so­ci­eties around them. At the same time, we ex­am­ine the emer­gence of a widely dis­persed German-​Jewish Di­as­pora and its transter­ri­to­r­ial con­nec­tions.

    By adopt­ing a transna­tional per­spec­tive that takes German-​Jewish his­tory out­side the German-​speaking re­gion as a premise, we bring new facets of Jew­ish ex­pe­ri­ence into view, and can dis­rupt the method­olog­i­cal fix­a­tion on the nation-​state. Un­der­stand­ing the German-​Jewish Di­as­pora, with all its par­tic­u­lar­i­ties, as in­her­ently part of the global mi­gra­tion move­ments that shaped the twen­ti­eth cen­tury – and con­tinue to shape our present – also re­veals points of con­nec­tion with Di­as­pora Stud­ies and (Global) Mi­gra­tion Stud­ies.

    The topic of Di­as­pora re­mains equally rel­e­vant today. Since the 7 Oc­to­ber 2023 at­tack by the Hamas ter­ror­ist or­ga­ni­za­tion and the en­su­ing war in Gaza, many Jews in the Di­as­pora – in­clud­ing de­scen­dants of German-​speaking refugees – have been re­think­ing their Jew­ish iden­ti­ties with re­gard to both Is­rael and their fam­i­lies’ Old Coun­try. This project high­lights the cen­tral role of mi­gra­tion and Di­as­pora in Jew­ish his­tory and af­firms their con­tin­u­ing rel­e­vance for cur­rent de­vel­op­ments. Grow­ing an­ti­semitism – which in the past was a major push fac­tor for mi­gra­tion – is now dri­ving an in­crease in mi­gra­tion, along­side po­lit­i­cal de­vel­op­ments such as the right­ward shift in Is­raeli pol­i­tics and the war in Ukraine. In 2024, the num­ber of peo­ple glob­ally who were forced to leave their homes as a re­sult to war, con­flict, and per­se­cu­tion reached an all-​time high. Mi­gra­tion – often in­vol­un­tary – is thus per­va­sive in our own present mo­ment, and new di­as­poric com­mu­ni­ties, both Jew­ish and non-​Jewish, are emerg­ing in its wake.

    What does ‘German(speaking)-Jewish’ mean?


    The term ‘German-​Jewish’ calls to mind the idea of a cul­tural sym­bio­sis in Ger­many dur­ing the late nine­teenth and early twen­ti­eth cen­turies – an idea that was rat­tled by Nazis’ tak­ing power in 1933 and then oblit­er­ated by the Shoah. The po­lit­i­cal the­o­rist and philoso­pher Han­nah Arendt (1906–1975) ad­dressed this prob­lem in her bi­og­ra­phy Rahel Varn­hagen (1938/1957). Arendt de­scribed the no­tion of a ‘German-​Jewish sym­bio­sis’ as an il­lu­sion, and showed how Jew­ish ef­forts at as­sim­i­la­tion in the nine­teenth cen­tury ul­ti­mately failed in the face of per­sis­tent an­ti­semitism. For Arendt, only the shared lan­guage of­fered some form of cul­tural con­ti­nu­ity. Many of the in­di­vid­u­als de­scribed on this por­tal did not view them­selves pri­mar­ily as ‘Ger­mans,’ but rather as part of a Cen­tral Eu­ro­pean, cul­tur­ally di­verse pub­lic sphere. The term ‘Ger­manophone’ points to this in­tel­lec­tual breadth – be­tween Prague, Vi­enna, Bres­lau (Wrocław), and be­yond.

    In the con­text of the di­as­poric lived re­al­i­ties doc­u­mented by the Di­as­pora Por­tal, this is not so much a mat­ter of the sub­jects’ iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with a na­tion­al­ity or a sov­er­eign state. After all, many fu­ture émigrés no longer iden­ti­fied with such af­fil­i­a­tions after the First World War, when the bor­ders of Cen­tral Eu­rope were re­drawn, or else dis­tanced them­selves from these newly de­mar­cated states fol­low­ing the Nazi rise to power and the An­schluss (an­nex­a­tion) of Aus­tria. For many, the Ger­man lan­guage was less a marker of na­tional iden­tity than a kind of cul­tural home­land. In the Di­as­pora, lan­guage, ed­u­ca­tion, re­li­gion, and cul­tural prac­tice be­came key el­e­ments of iden­tity, al­though per­sonal ex­pe­ri­ences and per­spec­tives var­ied widely. For the first gen­er­a­tion, at least, ‘Ger­man’ was often a fix­ture of every­day life – in the fam­ily, at school, and in re­li­gious and cul­tural con­texts. In many cases, the lan­guage was passed down for gen­er­a­tions.

    As seen from a bird’s-eye view, the German-​speaking Jew­ish Di­as­pora was char­ac­ter­ized by a di­ver­sity of bi­o­graph­i­cal back­grounds, ex­pe­ri­ences of mi­gra­tion, and self-​described iden­ti­fi­ca­tions. Cities of ori­gin such as Cz­er­nowitz (now Cher­nivtsi), Lem­berg (now Lviv), Vi­enna, Prague, or Bres­lau (now Wrocław) re­veal that ‘Ger­man’ often sig­ni­fied a cul­tural rather than a na­tional be­long­ing – a no­tion more ac­cu­rately con­veyed by the term ‘Ger­manophone’. Life tra­jec­to­ries that moved be­tween these places il­lus­trate the intra-​European en­tan­gle­ments within this di­verse com­mu­nity – for ex­am­ple, nu­mer­ous bi­na­tional mar­riages, often among Ger­man speak­ers, but with some­times pair­ing cul­tures known in Ger­man as ostjüdisch (East­ern Jew­ish, i.e., his­tor­i­cally Yiddish-​speaking) and westjüdisch (i.e., Ger­manophone).

    German-​speaking Jews in Manda­tory Pales­tine and later Is­rael shared a dis­tinct ex­pe­ri­ence. Many of them, es­pe­cially those born and raised in Ger­many, found refuge in Pales­tine from 1933 on­ward, bring­ing their lan­guage and cul­ture with them – as did all im­mi­grant groups – and con­tribut­ing to the local pub­lic sphere. The Ger­man lan­guage often re­mained a cen­tral el­e­ment of their iden­tity, al­though this went along with a par­tic­u­lar shame given its sta­tus as the ‘lan­guage of the per­pe­tra­tors.’ Those German-​speaking im­mi­grants, nick­named ‘Yekkes,’ had in com­mon their ex­pe­ri­ences of skep­ti­cism from other Jew­ish groups – who often asked them whether they had moved there “out of Zion­ist con­vic­tion or out of Ger­many.”

    When we use the phrase ‘Germanophone-​Jewish’ or ‘German-​speaking Jew­ish,’ then, we aim to high­light the ex­is­tence of linguistic-​cultural af­fil­i­a­tions be­yond the tax­onomies of sov­er­eign states. Lan­guage func­tioned as a cul­tural home­land, and the hy­phen­ate term Ger­manophone-​Jewish re­flects the spe­cific di­as­poric ex­pe­ri­ence at the heart of this por­tal. That ex­pe­ri­ence may also be shared by de­scen­dants who nei­ther speak the lan­guage nor per­son­ally iden­tify as Jew­ish.

    Where does a German-Jewish Diaspora emerge? Spatial scope


    The Di­as­pora Por­tal is de­voted to the life­worlds of German-​speaking Jews who, es­pe­cially from 1933 on­wards, built new lives in a range of coun­tries, both tran­sit stops and longer-​term des­ti­na­tions – from Ar­gentina to Aus­tralia. The most im­por­tant cen­ters of the German-​Jewish Di­as­pora, such as the United States and Pales­tine/Is­rael, have al­ready been the sub­ject of ex­ten­sive re­search as in­di­vid­ual lo­ca­tions, often show­ing their de­vel­op­ment over ex­tended pe­ri­ods. More re­cently, lesser-​known des­ti­na­tions such as Kenya, Shang­hai, the Caribbean, and the Philip­pines have also been ex­plored in in­sight­ful case stud­ies. How­ever, there has been no com­par­a­tive study to date of these highly di­verse tran­sit and des­ti­na­tion coun­tries. With this Di­as­pora Por­tal, we aim to shed light on the full ge­o­graph­i­cal scope of German-​Jewish dis­per­sion and to present a panorama of its transna­tional en­tan­gle­ments. In ad­di­tion to the ‘con­ven­tional’ des­ti­na­tions, in which a German-​speaking Jew­ish com­mu­nity suc­cess­fully took root, we also take into ac­count ‘tran­sit coun­tries’ – in­clud­ing waysta­tions such as Shang­hai – and the tem­po­rary di­as­poric struc­tures that de­vel­oped in such en­vi­ron­ments. Even in these waysta­tions, dis­tinct forms of com­mu­nity emerged which con­tinue to exist in col­lec­tive mem­ory as a ‘re­mem­bered Di­as­pora,’ even though the ex­iles them­selves have long resided else­where.

    The chief des­ti­na­tions for German-​speaking Jews out­side Eu­rope dur­ing the pe­riod of the Nazi regime were the United States, the United King­dom, and Manda­tory Pales­tine. Of the roughly one hun­dred coun­tries in which these refugees found per­ma­nent or tem­po­rary sanc­tu­ary, Ar­gentina also held core sig­nif­i­cance. Around 75 per­cent of German-​speaking Jews set­tled in these four di­as­poric cen­ters alone. After the out­break of the Sec­ond World War, op­por­tu­ni­ties to em­i­grate grew in­creas­ingly scarce, and des­ti­na­tions such as Cuba, Shang­hai, Turkey, and Iran be­came life-​saving havens.[3]

    What about Is­rael?

    In ad­di­tion to the three major cen­ters – the US, the UK, and Ar­gentina – we also con­sider Pales­tine/Is­rael. Be­tween 1933 and 1945, no ter­ri­tory re­ceived as many im­mi­grants from the German-​speaking world, rel­a­tive to the total pop­u­la­tion, as did Pales­tine under the British Man­date. This dif­fered fun­da­men­tally from all other coun­tries of im­mi­gra­tion in that mi­gra­tion to Eretz Yis­rael, ac­cord­ing to Jew­ish tra­di­tion, was in­ter­preted as an act of re­turn­ing. Thus, the con­cept of Di­as­pora can­not be read­ily ap­plied to Is­rael with­out qual­i­fi­ca­tion. Nev­er­the­less, the great hard­ships on the ground and the loss of a pre­vi­ous life in Eu­rope – which even most Zion­ists would not have will­ingly given up for a life in Eretz Is­rael – left many Ger­manophone Jews with feel­ings of alien­ation and dif­fer­ence. Tellingly, it was within a so­ci­ety dom­i­nated by Zion­ism – which ex­erted par­tic­u­larly strong pres­sure on new­com­ers to as­sim­i­late – that a pro­nounced sense of re­gional sol­i­dar­ity emerged, often an­chored in a sense of a shared German-​Jewish ori­gin.

    With the es­tab­lish­ment of the State of Is­rael in 1948, the imag­ined home­land – which be­fore had only man­i­fested in Hein­rich Heine’s (1797–1856) image of the Torah as a portable ‘fa­ther­land’ – be­came a real-​existing sov­er­eign state for Jews. As a re­sult, the con­cept of Di­as­pora un­der­went a Zion­iza­tion process that re­mains a sub­ject of lively de­bate among Jews. Pro­po­nents of the Zion­ist world­view spoke of an end to the Di­as­pora con­di­tion – and in some cases, ques­tioned the very le­git­i­macy of Jew­ish life out­side Is­rael. Non-​Zionist voices coun­tered this with the ar­gu­ment that an af­fir­ma­tive em­brace of the Di­as­pora con­di­tion could have world-​historical sig­nif­i­cance. Jew­ish un­der­stand­ings of Di­as­pora it­self di­ver­si­fied in re­ac­tion to its sup­posed con­clu­sion via the ‘re­turn to the home­land’ con­sti­tuted by the es­tab­lish­ment of state­hood.

    Ger­man Jews, known in Is­rael as ‘Yekkes’ to this day, left sig­nif­i­cant last­ing marks on the Jew­ish so­ci­ety of Manda­tory Pales­tine from the early twen­ti­eth cen­tury on­ward. Major cen­ters of their mi­gra­tion in­cluded the port city of Haifa, the north­ern town of Na­hariya, and the Jerusalem neigh­bor­hood of Re­havia – each of which has been the sub­ject of ded­i­cated re­search. German-​Jewish in­flu­ence made it­self felt in Tel Aviv, too, per­haps most vis­i­bly in the mi­gra­tion of ar­chi­tec­ture: the Bauhaus style.[4]

    When did the Germanophone Jewish Diaspora begin? Temporal scope


    The Di­as­pora Por­tal strives to paint a holis­tic pic­ture of the var­i­ous his­tor­i­cal phases of German-​Jewish mi­gra­tion, so as to lend vis­i­bil­ity to the his­tor­i­cal points of de­par­ture, con­ti­nu­ities, and rup­tures of the German-​Jewish Di­as­pora over an ex­tended pe­riod.

    Jews from Ger­many began mi­grat­ing to other coun­tries as early as the 1830s – long be­fore the Nazi seizure of power – pri­mar­ily to North Amer­ica. In ad­di­tion, most of the more than two mil­lion Jews who em­i­grated from East­ern Eu­rope to the United States be­tween 1881 and the 1920s also trav­eled via Ger­many as a tran­sit coun­try. As a re­sult, the United States had be­come the most im­por­tant cen­ter of Jew­ish life out­side Eu­rope by around 1900. New Ger­man Jew­ish im­mi­grants al­ready made up a sig­nif­i­cant pro­por­tion of Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ties in many places dur­ing the nine­teenth cen­tury.

    Exile and em­i­gra­tion: 1933–1945

    Start­ing in 1933, the German-​Jewish Di­as­pora bal­looned to a never be­fore seen di­men­sion. After con­trol of Ger­many was trans­ferred to the Nazi Party, be­tween 250,000 and 300,000 Ger­man Jews man­aged to em­i­grate – often after los­ing their pos­ses­sions, en­dur­ing long waits, and pass­ing through as­sorted Eu­ro­pean tran­sit points. A fur­ther 150,000 or so German-​speaking Jews fol­lowed suit in the wake of the ‘An­schluss’ of Aus­tria and the Ger­man oc­cu­pa­tion of Czecho­slo­va­kia in 1938 amidst the grow­ing rad­i­cal­i­sa­tion of Nazi poli­cies of per­se­cu­tion and forced ex­pul­sion.

    After the war began in Sep­tem­ber 1939, em­i­gra­tion be­came in­creas­ingly dif­fi­cult. Many Jews were caught up in the fight­ing in the coun­tries where they had sought a safe haven; in Oc­to­ber 1941, the Nazis fi­nally out­lawed all em­i­gra­tion.

    Be­tween 1933 and 1941, around 400,000 to 430,000 Ger­manophone Jews were forced to leave their Cen­tral Eu­ro­pean Old Coun­tries due to grow­ing an­ti­se­mitic dis­crim­i­na­tion and per­se­cu­tion. There is still no way of pre­cisely cal­cu­lat­ing the total num­ber of women, chil­dren, and men who were forced to es­cape the coun­tries and re­gions where they were raised. Es­ti­mates sug­gest that in ad­di­tion to the 270,000 to 300,000 Jews from Ger­many, roughly 130,000 came from Aus­tria and around 25,000 from the ‘Sude­ten­land’ and the Pro­tec­torate of Bo­hemia and Moravia, now in the Czech Re­pub­lic.[5] In all of these re­gions, they were un­pro­tected and at the mercy of Nazi tyranny, which came to an end in May 1945 with the un­con­di­tional sur­ren­der of the Wehrma­cht.

    The role of the Nazi pe­riod as a turn­ing point in Jew­ish his­tory is a vis­i­ble focus of the Di­as­pora Por­tal, but we do not re­strict the project to the pe­riod of Nazi rule. Where it is his­tor­i­cally ac­cu­rate and sup­ported by sources and re­search, we also ex­am­ine German-​Jewish life­worlds be­yond the German-​speaking world both be­fore 1933 and after 1945. In doing so, we seek to make pro­duc­tive use of and draw in­sights from the in­ter­gen­er­a­tional pos­si­bil­i­ties of Di­as­pora by con­sid­er­ing mul­ti­ple gen­er­a­tions in their re­spec­tive his­tor­i­cal de­vel­op­ments and in­ter­con­nec­tions.

    This broader time frame can­not be ap­plied equally to all coun­tries. Nev­er­the­less, we also in­clude places where no German-​speaking Jew­ish com­mu­nity had taken root be­fore 1933 and where no last­ing one de­vel­oped af­ter­wards. In order to doc­u­ment the German-​Jewish Di­as­pora – which was shaped in many cases by trans­mi­gra­tion, as a transna­tional his­tory of en­tan­gle­ments and re­la­tion­ships across time and space – we also make a point of in­clud­ing di­as­poric struc­tures that were short-​lived.

    Miriam Rürup

    Further Introductury Reading


    Lil­iana Ruth Feier­stein, “Di­as­pora,” in: Christina von Braun/Micha Brum­lik (ed.), Hand­buch Jüdische Stu­dien, Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, 2017, 99-109.

    Sheer Ganor, Some­where from Long Ago: The Global Dis­place­ment of German-​Speaking Jewry (forth­com­ing).

    Grit Jilek, Na­tion ohne Ter­ri­to­rium. Über die Or­gan­isierung der jüdischen Di­as­pora bei Simon Dub­now, Baden-​Baden: Nomos, 2013.

    Steven M. Lowen­stein, “Epi­logue: The German-​Jewish Di­as­pora,” in: Michael E. Meyer, ed., German-​Jewish His­tory in Mod­ern Times, vol. 4: Re­newal and De­struc­tion, 1918-1945, New York: Co­lum­bia UP, 1998, 393–402.

    Miriam Rürup (ed.), Prak­tiken der Dif­ferenz. Di­as­po­rakul­turen in der Zeit­geschichte, Göttingen: Wall­stein 2009.

    Notes

    [1] Steven M. Lowenstein, “Epilogue: The German-Jewish Diaspora,” in: Michael E. Meyer, ed., German-Jewish History in Modern Times, vol. 4: Renewal and Destruction, 1918-1945, New York: Columbia UP, 1998, 393–402. Published in German as “Epilog: Die deutsch-jüdische Diaspora,” Avraham Barkei and Paul Mendes-Flohr, eds., Deutsch-Jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit, vol. 4, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2000, p. 372-381.
    [2] Sheer Ganor, Somewhere from Long Ago: The Global Displacement of German-Speaking Jewry, 4 (forthcoming).
    [3] Lowenstein, “Epilogue: The German-Jewish Diaspora,” 372 in the German edition.
    [4] For the case of Haifa, the comprehensive volume edited by Anja Siegemund, Deutsche und zentraleuropäische Juden in Palästina und Israel. Kulturtransfer, Lebenswelten, Identitäten. Beispiele aus Haifa (Berlin: Neofelis, 2016). For Nahariya, see Klaus Kreppel, Nahariyya und die deutsche Einwanderung nach Eretz Israel: Die Geschichte seiner Einwohner von 1935 bis 1941 (Tefen: Das Offene Museum, 2010), and Nahariyya – das Dorf der “Jeckes”: Die Gründung der Mittelstandssiedlung für deutsche Einwanderer in Eretz Israel 1934/1935 (Tefen: Das Offene Museum, 2005). For Rehavia, see most recently Thomas Sparr, Grunewald im Orient: Das deutsch-jüdische Jerusalem, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Berenberg, 2018) and Christian Kraft, Aschkenas in Jerusalem: Die religiösen Institutionen der Einwanderer aus Deutschland im Jerusalemer Stadtviertel Rechavia (1933–2004) – Transfer und Transformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). On the history of Tel Aviv, and beyond, see research by Joachim Schlör and Ita Heinze-Greenberg, among others.
    [5] Sheer Ganor, Somewhere from Long Ago, 4.