Chapter III Laws of Russian democracy What laws do the Russian people live by? After all, it’s not according to what’s written current government and established by who knows who the State Duma consists of, approved by the oligarchic Federation Council, signed by stray presidents.

On September 15, 1935, at the Nazi party congress in Nuremberg (by that time only deputies from the NSDAP remained in the German parliament, so the Nazi party congresses were equivalent to meetings of the Reichstag), two racial laws were adopted: - “The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor” ( appendix 3) and “Reich Citizenship Law”. (add. 2)

These laws became the apogee of anti-Jewish legislative activity. They regulated three main issues:

3) How to regulate interpersonal (sexual) relations between Jews, mestizos and Germans.

Back in the summer of 1935, radical anti-Semites held a campaign in support of the ban sexual relations between Jews and Germans. Nazi publications such as "The Expert on the Jews" (Der Judenkenner), "The Attack" (Der Angriff), Rosenberg's " World battle with Jewry" (Weltkampf) and Streicher's "Stormtrooper" (Der Sturmer) published cartoons and reports about the "atrocities of the Jews." In April 1935, the “stormtrooper” was full of screaming headlines: “Ritual murder in Lithuania!”, “Jewish doctors are sexual maniacs and murderers,” “Passover! An annual holiday in memory of the most ancient ritual murder! Throughout Germany, gangs of stormtroopers beat up people of “Jewish appearance.” In an article that appeared in April 1935 in the new SS weekly Das Schwarze Korps,

it was stated that it was possible to stop the notorious outrages of the stormtroopers only by making “racial treason” a criminal offense.

Although there were significant contradictions in German society itself. Sopade's 1935 reports characterized anti-Semites as "primitive beings" and noted that four-fifths of the German population condemned the campaign to denigrate the Jews. Even some party members continued to buy from Jews, often placing orders by telephone to avoid detection. In 1935, a small scandal erupted in Berlin - an alert bank clerk discovered a paid check issued by the mayor Heinrich Salm in the name of a Jewish tailor.

And there were disagreements within the party leadership itself. They lay in the ideological contradictions that arose between Streicher and Schacht. On the one hand there was the “theory of impergence”, of which Dinter and Streicher were adherents. It received literary form at the height of the First World War. In 1917, the best-selling novel Sin Against Blood appeared, written by Arthur Dinter, one of the co-founders of the NSDAP. It said that every Jewish woman, in the event of contact with a Jew, was forever “infected with Jewry,” so that even the children she later conceived from a non-Jewish man were also Jews. This magical “Jewish influence” was called “telegony” or “remote conception.” Julius Streicher, Gauleiter of Franconia and publisher of the anti-Semitic pogrom leaflet Stürmer, would later call it “impergence” or “penetrating infection.” However, this theory completely fell out of the theoretical paradigm modern biology heredity, which was based on the theory of germ plasm put forward by August Weismann, as well as on the rediscovered hereditary laws of Mendel, and thereby corresponded to the modern level of knowledge about the process of human conception. This socio-biological movement subsequently adopted the “Nordic idea” of Hans Günther.

At the party congress, a sharp conflict broke out between supporters of both anti-Semitic theories. The new law would have to cool intra-party ideological conflicts and balance social contradictions, while creating a legislative basis for further anti-Jewish actions and activities.

The Reich Citizenship Law made a clear distinction between state subjects and Reich citizens. According to Article Two, a citizen can only be one who has “German or related blood and who by his behavior proves the desire and ability to serve the German people and the Reich.” That is, imperial citizenship was not automatically granted to all Germans or bearers of Nordic blood. Everyone was required to be loyal and willing to serve the German people and the Reich. Before receiving citizenship, a person had to prove by his behavior that he had fulfilled these essential conditions. In principle, these conditions could be considered fulfilled unless there is evidence to the contrary. This formulation actually meant the deprivation of German citizenship, first of all, of Jews and politically “unreliable” citizens (socialists and communists, opponents of the Nazi regime and ideology).

Particular debates have flared up around the content of the concept “Jew”. Thus, supporters of the theory of “impergence” provided for the assignment of the status of “Jew” to a German or “German by blood” if they were married to a Jew, as a result of which their children automatically became Jews. Lawyers from the Ministry of the Interior objected to this, citing in their support the argument that administrative structures that needed stable criteria for identifying individuals would not be satisfied with such a vague concept of “Jew.” Moreover, this would be dangerous from the point of view of the biology of heredity, because thereby the state would give up 50% of the valuable German hereditary mass.

That's why new law made distinctions between Jews, mestizos and persons with German blood. A distinctive feature of the affiliation of these groups was the nationality of the grandparents. A person of German blood was considered to be the one in whose family there was not a single Jew. A Jew in Germany was now considered to be someone who descended from three purebred Jews - grandparents. It turns out that in order to become a Jew, you had to have a Jewish father or mother, both of whose parents were Jews. Quite strict and clear criteria. Covering either the Jewish population or the part of the German population most related to them. The concept of “half-breed” was introduced - a person with an admixture of Jewish blood, who in the third generation descends from one or two pure-blooded Jews. This means that a person who had a Jewish grandmother on his mother’s side and, for example, a Jewish grandfather on his father’s side became ½ a Jew. If he had only one Jewish grandfather or grandmother, then he was considered ¼ Jewish. Further, depending on the ancestors of the Jews found in family tree, could become 1/8 or 1/16 Jewish. Also, some more concessions were made for supporters of the theory of impergance. For example, in paragraph 5, paragraph 2 of the “first order to the Reich Citizenship Law” additional criteria are introduced for identifying a person as a Jew:

1) A Jew is considered to be someone who, when the law was issued, belonged to the Jewish religious community or was later accepted into it.

2) Anyone who was married to a Jew when the Law was issued or married a Jew later.

3) One who is born from a marriage with a Jew in the sense of paragraph 1, which was concluded after the entry into force of the “law for the protection of German blood and honor” of September 15, 1935.

4) One who is born of an extramarital affair with a Jew.

Also, the laws contained moments that had symbolic meaning. For example, paragraph 4 of the “law for the protection of German blood and German honor.” He forbade Jews from raising the flag of the Reich and the lands and using the colors of the state flag. At the same time, paragraph 2 stipulated that they were allowed to use the colors of Jewish symbols. Perhaps the purpose of this addition was to simplify the identification of persons Jewish nationality V Everyday life, a kind of “forerunner” of the Star of David. Also, in paragraph 3 of this law, Jews were not allowed to hire female domestic servants of German or related blood from among subjects under 45 years of age. In Germany, it was believed that the limit of childbearing age was 45 years. People older than this age cannot have children.

It is worth noting that people who are “half-breeds” are full citizens of the Reich and can enjoy all rights (Paragraph 1 paragraph 1, paragraph 2 paragraph 1 of the “first order to the Reich Citizenship Law”). But marriage relations between them were strictly regulated. The whole point can be expressed in the fact that the only restriction was to prevent an increase in the amount of Jewish blood. And such marriages were concluded only with the permission of “the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Deputy Fuhrer or the authorities established by him” (paragraph 3 paragraph 1 of the “first order for the implementation of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor”), which certainly gave the administrative structures another mechanism impact on society.

Thus, on the one hand, the laws corresponded to the ideas of both supporters of the theory of impergence, and supporters of the Minister of Finance Schacht and lawyers from the Ministry of the Interior. But there was one more thing. Not all Germans were anti-Semitic. The attitude towards anti-Jewish pogroms and actions carried out by members of the SA was ambiguous. And the future Olympic Games, which were to be held in Germany in 1936, should not have been disrupted. And the world community did not at all encourage the anti-Jewish actions of Nazism. This explains the general neutrality of the laws. In fact, their wording did not stipulate increased persecution of Jews. All the norms that are indicated there existed in German society even before the adoption of the Nuremberg laws, even in the form of job descriptions and orders.

For example, before the adoption of the citizenship law, Jews were formally considered citizens of the Reich, but in fact their position was so oppressed that declaring them, according to the law, not citizens, but only subjects, was not a sudden infringement of their rights. They did not have political rights until 1935, since they were removed from all public posts by previous legislative acts. The same applied to the paragraph banning mixed marriages: in Germany, marriages were civil and took place with the consent of municipal authorities. Thanks to the Law on Professional Officials, the representatives of these municipal authorities were mainly members of the NSDAP, who were not at all eager to enter into mixed marriages. If the marriage took place between representatives of the “Aryan race and the Jewish race,” then the municipal authorities considered it their duty to explain what impact such a marriage could have on his economic status and personal freedom. As early as the summer of 1935, Interior Minister Funk recommended that marriage applications submitted by mixed couples be shelved. However, apparently this ban could not be introduced immediately, or it did not give the results that were expected. Perhaps that is why in August 1935, Himmler’s deputy Heydrich complained: “Officials who act according to the dictates of their conscience and prohibit mixed marriages often fail in the courts,” and demanded prohibition laws.

Analysis of the text of these laws shows that the main meaning that the authors put into them was not the actual intensification of persecution against Jews. The adoption of these laws was of fundamental importance. The racial principle, until then ideological, was now introduced into German legislation, becoming a generally binding state ideology and legislative norm. No other piece of legislation could contradict the provisions of the Nuremberg laws. This was especially true for issues of purity of race and blood. Paragraph 6 of the “first order to the Reich Citizenship Law” states:

(1) If the laws of the Reich or the regulations of the National Socialist Workers' Party and its subdivisions impose requirements for the purity of blood that go beyond the scope of paragraph 5, they remain unaffected.

(2) Other requirements for purity of blood that go beyond the scope of paragraph 5 can only be made with the consent of the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Deputy Fuehrer. If demands of this kind already exist, they are abolished as of January 1, 1936, unless they have been approved by the Reich Minister of the Interior in consultation with the Deputy Fuehrer. Applications for admission must be submitted to the Reich Minister of the Interior.

This could not mean anything other than the triumph of national socialist ideology in the country. The Nazis also had the opportunity to give legal justification to all anti-Jewish actions of Nazism in the future.

Chapter 4.

FATAL YEAR.

1938 became a key year in the history of Nazism. Its name - “the fateful year” - is taken from a document of the German Foreign Office dated January 25, 1939, or more precisely, from a circular of the German Foreign Office on government policy towards the Jews in 1938: “The ultimate goal of German policy towards Jews - this is the emigration of all Jews living within the Reich...” One of the first phrases in this document reads:

“Apparently, it is no coincidence that 1938, a fateful year, not only better revealed the concept of a great Germany, but also, at the same time, brought the solution of the Jewish question closer. German policy towards the Jews was both a cause and a consequence of the events of 1938.”

It is important to note that this document is dated January 25, 1939 - that is, it was released just five days before Hitler's speech in the Reichstag in honor of the sixth anniversary of his coming to power. In this speech, Hitler sets out his political concept regarding the general situation in Europe, including talking about the possibility of an imminent war and about policy towards the Jews. In the “Jewish part” of his speech, the Fuhrer for the first time publicly expresses an open threat towards the Jews: “And today I will again be a prophet: if international Jewish financiers in Europe and beyond are able to once again drag the peoples into world war, then the result of the war will not be the Bolshevization of the world and, therefore, the triumph of Jewry, but the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.”

A circular from the German Foreign Ministry, issued in January 1939, links anti-Semitic policy with the general course of events of that year and turns it into one of the factors of German foreign policy in 1938. Therefore, it would be logical to talk about the anti-Semitic policies of the Third Reich in the general context of the events of 1938.

Until 1938, the Nazis tried to avoid major anti-Jewish actions. Until 1935, this was explained by the youth of the new regime and the weakness of the German army and economy. The Nazis removed Jews from the sphere government controlled and public social life. In 1936, the country hosted the Olympic Games, and the Nazis had to create an image of a respectable and prosperous Germany, with which anti-Semitism did not fit in any way. But the situation changed dramatically with the entry of Wehrmacht troops into the demilitarized Rhineland on March 7, 1936 and the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in July of the same year. By mid-1937, the Western powers continued to pursue a policy of non-interference in Spanish events, as if not noticing the Italian-German intervention in the conflict on the side of General F. Franco. Gradually, the policy of non-intervention transformed into a policy of appeasement of fascist dictators on the European continent. At the same time, the Nazis, having assessed the situation, decided to go on the offensive. On November 5, 1937, a meeting was held at the Imperial Chancellery in Berlin, which went down in history as the “Hosbach Meeting,” at which Hitler announced his desire to annex Austria and part of Czechoslovakia. On March 13, 1938, the territory of Austria was annexed by Germany. The Anschluss was the first extension of Nazi power beyond the borders of Germany. After the Anschluss, employees of the “Jewish” department of the Gestapo appeared in Vienna to implement the policy of forced emigration in relation to more than 200 thousand Austrian Jews. A document from the German Foreign Ministry states: “However, the need for a radical solution to the Jewish question also stemmed from foreign policy events that led to the addition of 200,000 professing the Jewish religion in Austria to the 500,000 Jews, residents of the former Reich...” The result of the annexation of Austria was a sharp aggravation of the Jewish question already in pan-European scale, leading to the emergence of Jewish refugees, or, as it is code-named, the “political refugee problem.”

The Nazi authorities' policies aimed at removing Jews from Germany and later from Austria forced tens of thousands of people to leave the countries where they were born and raised. However, the number of refugees grew and it became impossible to ignore them.

An international conference dedicated to the issues of Jewish refugees was held in the French resort town of Evian-les-Bains from July 5 to July 16, 1938. Roosevelt called on the leaders of democratic countries around the world to discuss the issue of providing asylum to political refugees. The Evian Conference was attended by representatives of the USA, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, and a number of countries Latin America. From a circular from the German Foreign Ministry: “American President Roosevelt, who, as you know, is surrounded by a number of “Jewish advisers,” already in 1938 called for the convening of an international conference to resolve the issue of refugees, which took place in Evian but did not bring real results... To the question , where Jewish emigration should be sent, there was also no answer at the Evian Conference, since each of the participating states, declaring its fundamental readiness to take part in solving the refugee problem, announced the impossibility of accepting a large number of Jewish migrants within its borders... Even emigration in the amount 100,000 Jews was enough for many countries to at least raise the issue of the Jewish danger."

The speeches of the participants showed a clear reluctance of the vast majority of countries to open their borders to persecuted Jews. Opening the conference, the US representative said that his country had already done everything possible, admitting 27,370 people in 1938, that is, having fully used the entry quota for refugees from Germany and Austria. A representative of the British government noted that the UK cannot accommodate refugees directly on its territory due to overpopulation and the large number of unemployed. True, then England announced that it was ready to accept a small number of refugees in its colonies in East Africa. At the same time, she categorically refused to revise the quota for the entry of Jews into Palestine, which was set at 75 thousand people over a five-year period. France said it had already accepted the maximum number of refugees. Belgium took the same position. The Netherlands was ready to become a transit point for refugees heading to other countries. Australia explained its refusal to let in refugees from Europe by saying that there are no conflicts on ethnic grounds in the country, and it does not want them to arise. Canada and a number of other Latin American countries have stated that due to the economic crisis and high unemployment they cannot accept refugees. Only one country, the Dominican Republic, has expressed its readiness to accept a large number of refugees, providing land for their accommodation.

Really, Western countries, despite their rhetoric aimed at protecting Jews, were by no means eager to “shelter” refugees in their country. Switzerland went the furthest. On June 24, 1938, the head of the Swiss Federal Police, Dr. Heinrich Rothmund, informed the German diplomatic mission in Bern that steps must be taken against the “dominance” of Viennese Jews in Switzerland. He assured the German minister that Switzerland did not need Jews any more than Germany did. On August 10, the Swiss ambassador to Germany called the Berlin office of the head of the political affairs department of the German Foreign Ministry. He reported that the number of Jews entering Switzerland had reached “extraordinary proportions,” that 47 Jews arrived in Basel in one day alone, and that the Swiss government was determined to prevent the “Jewification” of its country. At the same time, he demanded to stop the visa-free entry of Germans into Switzerland. However, there was one condition under which Switzerland agreed to waive this requirement: the Germans had to mark the passports of all their Jews so that they could be immediately identified. On September 29, Switzerland and Germany entered into a formal agreement in which Germany pledged to mark the passports of all its Jews. In the passports of all Jews, a large three-centimeter red letter “J” was placed next to their name. And a month and a half before that, on August 17, 1938, a decree was issued to change the names of Jews. Every Jewish man was required to add “Israel” to his name, and every Jewish woman was required to add “Sarah.” This was a legal means that singled out Jews and prevented them from hiding.

Thus, a twofold situation has developed in Europe. On the one hand there was Germany, which wanted to “expel” the Jews from the country by all means. On the other side was Western Europe and the USA. They criticized Hitler for his anti-Semitic policies, but they clearly did not intend to actually help German Jews, for example by providing them with “political” asylum. A situation arose when Nazi Germany received complete freedom of action, foreign policy, while European politicians of democratic states criticized, but did not provide any “active” opposition to the Nazis. This was most clearly demonstrated at the Munich Conference, held on September 28-29, 1938. The conference was attended by Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy. It was decided to satisfy Germany's claims to the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. The conference was held without the participation of Czechoslovakia.

It is worth noting that Germany tried with all its might to provoke the international community and force Western countries to accept Jewish emigration flows. On June 18, 1938, Jewish shops in Berlin were picketed for the first time since 1933, and Hugh Wilson, reporting from the American embassy that an additional 3,000 Jews had arrived from the provinces in Berlin in recent months, warned that dissatisfaction had been expressed in the German press with low the pace of Jewish emigration from Germany.

Throughout 1938, numerous events were carried out aimed at emphasizing the opposition of Jews to Germans. On July 16, 1938, security personnel were prohibited from spending the night in Jewish hotels and boarding houses. On July 23, Jews were required to carry an identity card with them at all times. On July 27, a decision was made to rename streets named after Jews. On August 31, restrictions were introduced on postal items for Jews; the inscription “not for Jews” appeared on the back of postal items intended for Germans. On September 5, the letter “J” was removed from Jewish foreign passports. But even taken together, all these actions did not cause economic or physical harm to the Jews. They were designed primarily to exert psychological pressure on the world community. All with one goal - to expel the Jews from the country.

On October 15, 1938, the Polish government decided to implement the law of March 31 of the same year, according to which persons who remained outside Poland for several years could be deprived of citizenship. This meant that the 55 thousand Polish Jews supposedly living in Germany could choose to remain there forever. And October 29, 1938 became the deadline for renewing Polish passports. The Germans began deporting Jews to Poland.

On October 27, about 16,000 Jewish German subjects with Polish citizenship were expelled to Poland, to the area of ​​​​the border town of Zabunshin. The Poles refused to accept them, and the exiles rushed between the two sides of the border. Among them was the Grinshpan family. Herschel Grynszpan (Appendix 4), one of the sons, was not among them, since he lived in Paris. On November 3, 1938, he received a postcard from one of the sisters, in which she described the current situation. The message did not contain any particular complaints. But one way or another, Grunshpan acted as he saw fit. On the morning of November 7, 1938, he shot Ernst von Rath. Von Rath died two days later, on November 9, 1938. It so happened that this day, by an incredible coincidence, coincided with the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich.

The German leadership reacted instantly. It was Gershal Grünspan's shot that became the pretext for the all-German pogrom of Jews. Actually, in Germany everything was ready for such a pogrom so long ago that an “explosion” only needed a pretext, no matter whether it was an accident or a planned provocation. It is impossible to confidently judge whether the Germans themselves planned this provocation, or whether this event occurred by chance, but it was extremely beneficial to the Nazis. The only thing we can talk about for sure is the necessity and logic of what happened. Traces of Grünszpan himself were lost after 1942.

On the night of November 9-10, pogroms swept across all of Germany, annexed Austria and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Provoked mainly by the leaders of the Nazi Party, members of the SA and the Hitler Youth Organization. Kristallnacht got its name from the shards of glass that covered the streets of Germany and marked the beginning of the pogroms. These were fragments of broken windows of synagogues, houses, shops and private institutions that belonged to Jews, destroyed or looted. According to the official report sent to Goering on November 11, 1938: 174 people were arrested for robbery. 815 stores destroyed, 29 department stores set on fire or destroyed, 171 residences set on fire or destroyed. 191 synagogues were set on fire and another 76 were completely destroyed. 11 houses of Jewish communities, houses of worship, etc. were set on fire. and three more were completely destroyed. About 20,000 Jews, 7 Aryans and 3 foreigners were arrested. The latter were taken into custody to ensure their personal safety. There were reports of 36 deaths and also 36 cases of serious injury. All those killed or wounded were Jews. The authorities allowed the crowd to riot, which created a sense of spontaneous unrest. But this feeling was wrong. Even if you take a quick look at Heydrich’s special orders, the opposite becomes clear.

1) It is allowed to take only such measures that would not threaten the life and property of Germans (for example: burning synagogues is permitted only if there is no danger to surrounding houses)

2) Shops and houses of Jews are only allowed to be destroyed, but not robbed. The police are ordered to monitor the implementation of this order and arrest the looters.

3) In shopping areas, care should be taken to ensure that non-Jewish shops are protected from damage at all costs.

4) Foreign nationals - even Jews - should not be disturbed.

“Provided that the instructions of paragraph 1 are carried out, the police should not stop the ongoing demonstrations and at the same time monitor the implementation of the instructions.

The events of Kristallnacht became one of the most important turning points in National Socialist anti-Semitic policy. Historians note that after the pogrom, the implementation of anti-Jewish policies began to be intensively concentrated in the hands of the SS. The Nazi regime expanded and entrenched measures aimed at ousting Jews from economic and social life, gradually moving first towards a policy of forced emigration and ultimately to the implementation of the plan for a “Jew-free Germany”.

The demonstration was followed by a new round of anti-Jewish laws and regulations. Immediately after the demonstration, a decree “On the atonement of their guilt by Jews - German citizens” was issued on November 12, 1938. There are two notable points in it. The first of them is that an indemnity of 1 billion marks in favor of the German Empire is imposed on all German Jews. And the second point is the reason that explains the fact of collecting indemnities - “the hostile attitude of Jews towards the German people.” Goering’s phrase, uttered at the imperial ministry meeting dedicated to the events of Kristallnacht, helps shed light on the reason for such a decision: “I am now of the opinion that these economic measures should be supported by a number of political actions. It is necessary to carry out cultural events so that everything becomes clear. And the Jews will scatter from Germany all over the world this week.” As can be seen from this phrase, the pogrom was not the goal of the Nazis - rather a means by which psychological pressure could be exerted on countries that acted in defense of German Jews, but did not want to “accept” them as emigrants. One more interesting point should be taken into account. This is Heydrich's statement: “I would also like, from a purely police point of view, to make several proposals in favor of isolation. These proposals are valuable because of their psychological impact on public opinion. For example, indicate that every Jew, according to the spirit of the Nuremberg laws, is obliged to wear a certain distinctive sign in order to distinguish Jews. This step will make many other things easier for us – I don’t see any danger in excesses – and, in addition, it will also make our relations with foreign Jews easier.” Then he will add: “A distinctive sign. Thus, it would be possible to avoid the losses that are caused to foreign Jews due to the fact that they do not differ in appearance from our Jews.” Perhaps the reason for such rhetoric is the fact that “among the killed Jews there were one, and among the wounded, two Polish Jews.”

It is worth paying attention to the wording “foreign Jews”. The Nazis made a clear distinction between “German Jews” and “foreign Jews.” On the one hand, this may seem illogical, especially if we consider the issue from the point of view of the ideological canons of National Socialism. Nazi ideologists made no distinction between “German” and “foreign” Jews. But the transcript of the meeting shows the opposite. Perhaps the Nazis did not want to spoil their relations with the governments of other states. But one way or another, this is an indicator of the Nazis' policy towards the Jews. Politics of moral, and in the case of anti-Jewish pogroms, direct physical impact. Impact, the purpose of which was to provoke the flight of Jews from Germany. How can this position be explained? Perhaps the Nazi leaders became hostages to their own ideology. On the one hand, they were under pressure from the party masses and adherents of anti-Semitism in Germany. Whether Germany was a totalitarian state or not, any political regime needs supporters. And any extreme radical political movement, unable to adapt to political realities, is forced to rely on a certain, narrow layer of the population that supports these political views. By the time the Nazis came to power, Jews were considered a powerful political opponent, of course, in the context of their connection with the Social Democrats and Communists. But by 1935 they were ousted from almost all spheres of public life and government. The enemy was defeated. The only possible option could be either the physical extermination of the Jews, or a policy of relative appeasement towards the Jews, since the complete cessation of all anti-Semitic actions directed against the Jews was contrary to the ideological canons of Nazism. On the other side were Europe and the USA. The policies pursued by the Nazis regarding the Jews did not cause delight among the international community. The only motive that could explain the tolerant attitude towards the Nazis was “anti-communism”. Even within German society there were divisions based on anti-Semitism. The only possible option to rid Germany of Jews, and not completely ruin your reputation, is to evict the Jews from Germany. A document can be cited as proof of this. Goering’s order on “preparing the organizational, business and material and technical base for the extermination of the Jews.” There is the following passage: “In addition to the order already transmitted to you on November 24, 1939, the task is to carry out a solution to the Jewish question in the form of emigration or evacuation, most suitable for modern conditions...”.

There is another document that provides confirmation of this theory. This is the protocol of the Wannsee Conference. “By order of the Reich Marshal, in January 1939, the Reich Office for the Emigration of Jews was created, the leadership of which was entrusted to the head of the Security Police and SD. The department had a special task:

A) take all measures to prepare for increased emigration of Jews

B) direct the flow of emigrants

C) speed up emigration in each individual case.

The purpose of all of the above is to legally clear the German living space of Jews.”

The transcript of the “Imperial Ministerial Conference” mentions another fundamentally important point. These are the words of Heydrich: “All these measures will almost inevitably lead to the organization of a ghetto. I must say that today there is no need to build a ghetto. But with all these measures, the Jews will automatically be forced into the ghetto, in the form as intended.” This was followed by proposals to take away the rights of Jews and prohibit them from visiting healing waters and hospitals.

From all of the above, we can conclude that the Nazis did not intend to physically destroy German Jews until 1938. The already mentioned circular from the German Foreign Ministry states: “The ultimate goal of the German authorities in relation to the Jews is the emigration of all Jews living within the Reich...”. Most likely, understanding that not all residents of Germany, not to mention European countries, are anti-Semites, they wanted to disperse Jews around the world, counting on the fact that local residents would not be happy with such neighbors, especially considering the number. The Foreign Ministry circular says so: “German interest is to continue the dispersion of Jewry. Those considerations that anti-German centers will be formed in this way do not take into account the phenomenon that can already be seen in all parts of the world, when the flow of Jews causes resistance from the local population, which serves as the best propaganda of German policy towards the Jews. In Northern and South America, in France, in Holland, in Scandinavia and in Greece - wherever the flow of Jewish emigration rushed, a significant increase in anti-Semitism can already be noted today.” Based on this formulation, the behavior of Western European countries and the United States during the Evian Conference does not seem irrational. Even if we consider “Hitler’s First Political Essay” (01/16/1919), it becomes clear that the Nazis did not initially intend to exterminate the Jews: “Anti-Semitism, which is purely emotional in nature, is reflected in pogroms... But rational anti-Semitism must take the form of a legitimate struggle, the purpose of which will be the elimination of the privileges for Jews, which they enjoy in contrast to all foreigners living among us. But the ultimate goal of rational anti-Semitism must undoubtedly be the total deportation of Jews.” The solution to the Jewish question before the start of the World War was only possible through “peaceful” means. Deportation was a measure that allowed the Nazis to rid Germany of Jews without ruining their reputation by avoiding responsibility for the physical extermination of Jews.