1. Within the past decade, several scholars have written important monographs that analyze the reorientation of German Zionism and its consequences. The first major work to focus on this subject was Ismar Schorschs Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870–1914 (New York and Philadelphia, 1972), chap. 7. See also, the subsequent works of Jehuda Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land: The Dilemma of the German Jew, 1893–1914 (Ann Arbor, 1975), chaps. 3–5 and Poppel, Stephen M., Zionism in Germany, 1897–1914: The Shaping of a Jewish Identity (Philadephia, 1977), chaps. 2–4, 6.Google Scholar

2. Liberals, the vast majority of German Jewry, eschewed the extremes of orthodoxy and radical reform in matters of religion. In this regard, they differed little from Zionists in their personal ritual practices. But for political and ideological reasons, Zionists defended the interests of orthodox Jews when liberals sought to introduce reforms. See Reinharz, pp. 208 and 247, n. 45 for a brief discussion of the term liberal in the Jewish context. The works cited in n. 1 all refer to the ideology of Jewish liberals in Germany. On the activities of Jewish liberals in the German, rather than Jewish, political arena, see Lamberti, Marjorie, Jewish Activism in Imperial Germany (New Haven, 1978).Google Scholar

3. See the references in n. 1 for examples of this tendency. Jehuda Reinharz contends that until after World War I the Eroberung der Gemeinden [conquest of the communities] remained for the most part an ideological issue rather than a real threat to the rule of the notables (p. 137).

4. For a concise analysis of the structure and function of modern Gemeinden, see Kurt Wilhelm, The Jewish Community in the Post-Emancipation Period, Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 2 (1957): 47–75. Various state governments referred to the communities by different names: Judische Gemeinde, Synagogengemeinde, Israelitische Gemeinde, Israelilische Kultusgemeinde or Religionsgemeinde. Nevertheless, all of these bodies shared three common characteristics: 1. they were recognized public bodies; 2. membership in them was compulsory; 3. they had the right to levy taxes (Wilhelm, Community, pp. 47–48). It is, therefore, possible to refer to them generically as Gemeinden.

5. Herzl issued his charge at the Second Zionist Congress of 1898. The Hamburg Israelilisches Familienblalt (I.F.H.) provides a good survey of challenges to the electoral system (February 22, 1912, p. 2). On the Neue Judische Gemeindeverein, see Reinharz, pp. 189–90, 199–200. On events in Dessau: Frankfurter Israelitisches Familienblatt (F.I.F.), December 12, 1913, p. 3; Chemnitz: Central Zionist Archives, Harry Epstein Collection, AlOl/Box 7 (Memorandum to a Saxon official dated August 19, 1913). More information on the origins and nature of Zionist/orthodox coalitions, as well as on the use of the terms liberal and conservative is provided below.

6. Until now, scholars have virtually ignored the controversy over voting rights, an issue that sorely divided and troubled German Jewry. Shalom Adler-Rudel dismisses it in two paragraphs (Ostjuden in Deutschland [Tubingen, 1959], pp. 27–28). Other historians are under the erroneous impression that there were no voting rights to take away since aliens rarely possessed the franchise. Naomi Katzenberger is one of the first to appreciate the importance of this controversy in her brief introduction to several documents that she published in Dokumente zur Frage des Wahlrechts Auslandischer Juden in den Preussischen Synagogengemeinden, Michael 2 (1973): 191–203. As the present essay neared completion, my attention was drawn to a dissertation that concisely describes the general voting rights issue in order to place the particular controversy in Danzig into its proper context. See Elijahu Stern, The History of the Jews in Danzig from the Emancipation Until Their Deportation in the Nazi Era [Hebrew], Hebrew University, 1978, pp. 54–63. The present analysis of the voting rights issue is based on Chapter Nine of my doctoral dissertation, German Policy and Jewish Politics: The Absorption of East European Jews in Germany, 1868–1914, Columbia University, 1978. There, I discuss the participation of Eastern Jews in Gemeinde politics and the disenfranchisement movement that swept across Prussia between 1910 and 1914. (The Prussian Gemeinden of Bochum, Cologne, Danzig, Dessau, Dortmund, Duisburg, Hamborn, Hamm, and Munster, as well as the Saxon community of Chemnitz all revised their statutes during this period in a manner that stripped foreign Jews of their franchise.) See that chapter also for additional evidence to support my thesis that the disenfranchisement movement was an anti-Zionist, rather than an antiimmigrant, cause.

7. This account of the Duisburg Affair is based primarily on documents from the archives of two major participants–the Prussian district governor in Dusseldorf and the Zionist attorney, Harry Epstein. As the state official responsible for Gemeinde affairs in Duisburg, the Prussian Regierungsprdsident received memoranda from all concerned parties. His papers relating to the Affair are located in the Hauptstaatsarchiv Dusseldorf, Zweigarchiv Kalkum, Reg. Dusseldorf 30567 (hereafter Dusseldorf 30567), Synagogengemeinde in Duisburg, 1891–1916. Harry Epstein acted as the central spokesman for conservatives in Duisburg. His collected, but uncatalogued, papers contain numerous copies of memoranda and letters exchanged during the controversy–especially by the Zionists. This collection is located in the Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem (hereinafter C.Z.A. A 101/Box number).

8. The statistics on Jews in Duisburg are based on Heinrich Silbergleit, Die Bevolkerung und Berufsverhaltnisse der Juden im Deutschen Reich (Berlin, 1930), p. 24.

9. Judische Rundschau (J.R.), December, 1910, pp. 577, 587; F.I.F., December 10, 1910, p. 3. The terms liberal and conservative were employed by both Jewish and gentile contemporaries in characterizing these factions. For example, the district governor in Dusseldorf informed his superior, the provincial governor in Koblenz, that the Duisburg community was divided into two parties–the liberals and the conservatives [orthodox]. Dusseldorf 30567, Memorandum of August 19, 1913. See below for examples of Jews who employ these terms. We must note, however, that Zionists were not necessarily religiously conservative, and they were radical in regard to Jewish internal politics.

10. See Dusseldorf 30567 for a series of petitions and memoranda dated December, 1909-April, 1910. A memorandum from the mayor of Duisburg is especially useful in clarifying the major issues of contention (January 15, 1910). Additional memoranda on this election controversy are available in the archive of the Prussian Provincial Governor in Koblenz. See Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz, Oberprasidium der Rheinprovinz, Bestand 403 Nr. 16011, Bechwerden und Antrage in Verwaltungsangelegenheiten der judischen Synagogengemeinden, 1902–1929, pp. 365–96. Unfortunately, I could locate no material on the later Duisburg Affair in this collection.

11. On the liberals threat, see references in n. 9. Rabbi Neumarks appeal, Die Burgschaftspflicht. Ein Mahnruf an die Gemeinde, is in C.Z.A. A 101 Box 9.

12. On the election campaign see C.Z.A. A 101/ Box 4 (Epsteins memorandum of April 10, 1913) and a letter from the Mayor of Duisburg dated December 30, 1912 in Diisseldorf 30567. Although we lack a definitive reference to the political allegiances of the newly elected leaders, we can surmise their affiliations from the fact that they all signed conservative petitions that denounced not only liberals but also liberalism. (See nn. 17 and 18 for references to these petitions.)

13. A copy of the petition is in Dusseldorf 30567.

14. It is difficult to verify the statistics offered by the liberals. We do know, however, that successful candidates each received between 91 and 101 votes, whereas the losers each garnered between 72 and 83 votes. Thus, 40 Galician voters could well have swung the election. (See the mayors memorandum dated December 30, 1912 in Dusseldorf 30567 for vote tallies.) Let us note that in December 1910 there were 1,554 Jews in Duisburg, of whom 309 (19.88 percent) were aliens. Yet in the election of 1912 no more than 175 Jews exercised the franchise. (According to the Mayor of Duisburg, only 100 individuals voted; but on the basis of the election returns, this figure is below the actual tally. On the other hand, the JR. places the figure at 320 voters–an exaggeration. The statistics on Jews in Duisburg are in Heinrich Silbergleit, Die Bewlkerung p. 24 and Vierteljahreshefie zur Siatisiik des Deutschen Reiches, supplement to 1916, p. 86.

15. These developments were first reported in the F.I.F. on December 27, 1912, where mention is made of an attempt to introduce a three-tier voting system that clearly favored the wealthy. This system was not, however, proposed in the revised statutes. For more on the behind-the-scenes maneuvering, see C.Z.A. A 101/Box 7.

16. The memorandum dated December 28, 1912 is located in C.Z.A. A 101/Box 4.

17. The December 17, 1912 appeal by the conservatives is in C.Z.A. A 101/Box 4. See the texts of memoranda to the district governor in Dusseldorf and the provincial governor in Koblenz in C.Z.A. A 101/Box 7. Both are dated January 23, 1913 and signed by M. Kolsky and Max Levy.

18. The conservative petition, dated January 6, 1913, is in Dusseldorf 30567. We should note that if allegations of voter fraud were proven correct, far more than the election would be at stake. German law mandated imprisonment for up to two years and a loss of many rights for both buyers and sellers of votes {J.R., October 31, 1913, pp. 467–78). Foreign Jews found guilty of breaking the law faced immediate expulsion

19. Both the mayors letter to the Regierungsprasident (February 17, 1913) and the governors letter to the Gemeinde (February 24, 1913) are in Dusseldorf 30567.

20. On the meeting and its consequences for Rosenthal, see C.Z.A. A 101/Box 4 (legal correspondence between Epstein and his attorney) and J.R., February 6, 1914, p. 59. The liberal guidelines are translated in W. Gunther Plaut, The Growth of Reform Judaism (New York, 1965), pp. 68–74.

21. Rosenthals attorney threatened that Siegmund Epstein and Emanuel Lowe would testify against Harry Epstein. See letter dated April 10, 1913 in C.Z.A. A 101/Box 4.

22. For a few examples of the mild coverage of this affair before the J.R.s expose, see JR., December 27, 1912, pp. 504–5; October 31, 1913, pp. 467–68; and F.I.F., December 27, 1912. The Shame of Duisburg appeared on the front page of the November 21, 1913 issue (pp. 501–2).

23. For some examples of this criticism see: Der Israeli!, December 24, 1913, p. 3; F.I.F., December 5, 1913; J.R.. December 5, 1913, p. 526; December 19, 1913, p. 348; February 6, 1914, pp. 58–59; Die Welt, February 21, 1913, p. 231. The J.R. refers to a discussion of the affair at a meeting held by the anti-Semitic German Social Party in Berlin (December 19, 1913), p. 548. The German Die Welt am Montag also ran an article attacking Jewish liberals (cited in J.R., December 5, 1913, p. 526). For brief quotations from the press coverage of The Zionist (London) and The Jewish Exponent of Baltimore and Philadelphia, seeJ.R., January 9, 1914, p. 12 and December 12, 1913, p. 536. See also The Jewish Chronicle (London) November 21, 1913, p. 15.

24. See for example the ambivalence displayed by the C.V.s press organ, Im Deutschen Reich, February, 1914, pp. 71–73. Some members of the C. V. wrote letters to the Zionist press disassociating themselves from the Duisburg liberals (J.R., December 12, 1913, p. 536 and Die Welt, August 22, 1913, p. 1093). On the D.I.G.B. and the Verband see C.Z.A. A 101/Box 7 (letters dated November 24 and 30, 1913 in which Harry Epstein acknowledges the division within liberal Jewry). We may also note that the orthodox did not present a monolithic front. Der Israeli! found it necessary to castigate some orthodox communities in southern Germany for discriminating against foreign Jews (January 2, 1913, p. 2).

25. Saul: Liberates Judentum 6 (1914), no. 1, pp. lOff.; Geiger: quoted in J.R., November 7, 1913, pp. 482–83. See the Allgemeine Zeitung des Juden turns (A.Z.J.), January 30, 1914, p. 51 and I.F.H., February 13, 1913, p. 3 for other examples.

26. Michaelis first addressed the issue in the A.Z.J., May 24 and 31, 1912 (pp. 241ff. and 25Iff., respectively). His article was designed to influence the Prussian government to approve the disenfranchisement of foreign Jews in Bochum. He was answered in print by Siegfried Schwarzschild (Der Israelit, March 6, 1913 and March 13, 1913); Harry Epstein (J.R., August 22, 1913, p. 353); Joseph Heimberger (Judische Presse, August 22, 1913). Michaelis responded to his critics in A.Z.J., December 5, and 12, 1913, which, in turn, Harry Epstein rebutted in the JR., January 23, 1914. It is clear that Prussian officials considered these legal opinions before deciding the case. See, for example, Dusseldorf 30567, Memorandum to the Oberprasident dated August 19, 1913.

27. On liberal lobbying, C.Z.A. A 101/Box 7, letter by Epstein to the Berlin office of the Zionist Federation of Germany (November 24, 1913). Epstein was told by the governor in Koblenz that the mayor of Duisburg had preceded him. (We may note that a search of the municipal archive in Duisburg proved fruitless in turning up additional material on the affair.) For correspondence on Zionist lobbying activities, see C.Z.A. AlOl/Box 7 and C.Z.A. Alfred Klee files A 142/79 Wahlrecht der Auslander On orthodox participation in these efforts, see F.I.F., May 29, 1914, pp. 3–4. The Zionists shrewd political plan was first proposed by Dr. Ascher of Dessau. The Bodenheimer/ Epstein meeting is reported in C.Z.A. A 101/Box 7 (Epsteins letter of November 24, 1913 to the Zionist Federation of Germany, pp. I and II). This letter requests Ascher to meet immediately with the governor to discuss the plan further. See also a copy of a memorandum submitted by leaders of the Neue Judische Gemeindeverein in Chemnitz which stresses the political radicalism of liberals (C.Z.A. AlOl/Box 7, letter dated August 19, 1913).

28. See Dusseldorf 30567 for copies of memoranda by the Regierungsprasident in Dusseldorf and the Oberprasidenten in Koblenz and Munster to their superiors. The Mayor of Duisburg had attempted a compromise solution in which aliens who resided in the Gemeinde for a set period of time would be granted the franchise. When this suggestion was rejected by both sides, the mayor turned to his superiors for help (Dusseldorf 30567, letter of August 19, 1913).

29. The Ministers decision is reported in C.Z.A. Alfred Klee Collection A142/79 (letter from the Oberprasident in Koblenz to Rabbi Wolff)– The Ministers decision was apparently sent to all governors. I located a copy of the decision in the files of the provincial governor in Konigsberg (Gottingen Archivlager [now Pr. Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Berlin-Dahlem], Rep. 2, no. 212, vol. 1, p. 374). According to Article 19 of the Duisburg communal statues, members of the Gemeinde who had not resided in the community for three years were entitled to the active, but not the passive vote; they could vote but not stand for election.

30. On the Oberprasident message to the Gemeinde, see letter in C.Z.A. A 142/79 from Rabbi Munk to E. Strauss, dated May 18, 1914. See also J.R., May, 1914, p. 232. The provincial governor required active voters to prove that they had resided in the community for three years, a stipulation that conformed with the Minister of Interiors ruling.

31. Pending statute revisions in neighboring communities: Dusseldorf 30567, letter to the Regierungsprasident dated October 28, 1913. Harry Epstein was particularly concerned about the impact of an adverse ruling in Prussia upon a new Jewry Law under consideration in Bavaria. (See Naomi Katzenberger, Dokumente, p. 201 and Epsteins letter to E. Strauss in C.Z.A. A 101/Box 21, May 13, 1913. Let us note in this context that the disenfranchisement movement was defeated only temporarily; it arose once again after World War I with even greater strength.

32. Boehm, Adolf, Die Zionistische Bewegung, 2 vols., 2d rev. ed. Berlin, 1935, 1: 583–84. See also, pp. 201–2 on the struggle for conquest of the communities.Google Scholar

33. For an example of such misrepresentation, see Zosa Szajkowski, The Komitefur den Osten and Zionism, Herzl Yearbook, 1971, p. 199. See the following works on the voting rights of alien Jews in: Wurttemberg: Alfred Gunzenhausen, Sammlung der Gesetze, Verordnungen, Verflugungen, und Erlasse belreffend die Kirchenverfassung und die religiosen Einrichtungen der Israeliten in Wurttemberg Stuttgart 1909, esp. pp. 27–28 where the law of 1851 is quoted. According to Article One the active and passive vote belongs to all Jews. Baden: The law of March 21, 1894 does not exclude noncitizens from voting {Statistisches Jahrbuch der D.I.G.B., 1896, pp. 129–30). See also, Siegfried Wolff, Das Recht der Israelitischen Religions-Gemein schaft des Grossherzogtums Baden (Karlsruhe, 1913), pp. 54–58, 97–98, 140. Bavaria: Joseph Heimberger, Die Staatskirchenrechtliche Stellung der Israeliten in Bayern (Tubingen, 1912), p. 1313. Hesse: Katz, Leopold, Die Rechtliche Stellung der Israeliten nach dem Staatskirchenrecht des Grossherzogtums Hessen (Giessen, 1906). Saxony was the only state that failed to require the enfranchisement of alien Jews. Consequently, some Gemeinden in that state–notably Dresden and Leipzig–never enfranchised members of the community who lacked Saxon citizenship. Another community in that state, Chemnitz, initially did grant the franchise to aliens. But early in the twentieth century that Gemeinde stripped aliens of the passive vote and, in 1913, of the active vote also. On the vagueness of the Saxon laws, see Curt Graf, Das Rechl der Israelitischen Religions-Gemeinschaft in Sachsen (Frankfurt, 1914), p. 35. On developments in Chemnitz, C.Z.A. AlOl/Box 7 (memorandum of August 19, 1913) and Der Israelit, August 7, 1913, p. 3. See also a survey conducted by the Deutsch-Israelitischer Gemeindebund in 1903 concerning the voting rights of aliens in Jewish Gemeinden (Mittheilungen, May, 1903, pp. 1–2 and also p. 20 of the next issue for a correction).Google Scholar

34. German state, provincial and municipal archives possess rich collections of documents that shed light on Jewish communal affairs. To date, few Jewish historians have tapped these invaluable resources.