The Transfer Agreement (43 page)

Such inefficient methods would be short-lived. At the July
15
World Jewish Economic Conference all the emotionalism, anger, and resentment of the boycotters would be transduced into pure business. The mercantile expertise of centuries would be but a rehearsal for the biggest and most important commercial brokerage network in Jewish history.
If
the deals were right, German Jewry could be saved.

Once the global boycott became a reality, the slogan "Germany will crack this winter" could well become a prophecy.

Mr. Sam Cohen, on June
24, 1933,
concluded a fruitful meeting with German Consul Wolff in Jerusalem. A number of boycott-breaking ideas were discussed, and Consul Wolff was eager to notify Berlin. In a memo marked
"URGENT,"
sent that day to the Reich Foreign Ministry, Wolff reported, "Mr. Sam Cohen ... had informed me today that he will most likely ... attend a Jewish congress in London, planned for the middle of July,
which is to make decisions concerning the Jewish boycott against Germany ... throughout the most important countries of the world." Wolff predicted "that the boycott resolution will be passed" since Jews everywhere believe "the boycott is the only weapon which can do appreciable damage [to Germany]."
¹⁶

It went on:
"
I
f
Mr. Sam Cohen is now going to attend what I might call the 'boycott congress,' he is doing so ... in his capacity with Zionism here and with the Jewish Agency; [and] to put the brakes on the congress by working behind the scenes. . . . He will try . . . to sell his anti-boycott plans to influential attendees of the London congress. This includes if possible, Stephen Wise and attorney [Samuel] Untermyer, both of whom are arriving from America to attend the congress."
¹⁷

Consul Wolff added that Cohen's tireless anti-boycott efforts were being continuously subverted by Jewish and Zionist groups who maintained that Hanotaiah's
I-million reichmark permission was too small a concession to trade for the politically volatile act of abandoning boycott. Playing right into the Nazi mentality, Wolff labeled the RM
I
million license as "insignificant in view of the magnitude of [Jewish] economic problems and the wealth in Jewish hands .... The only successful measure to counteract increasing Jewish hate and hostility for Germany would be a more generous accommodation on the part of the German government.
I
t
is of course understood that such an accommodation would be in the economic rather than in the political area."
¹⁸

Consul Wolff's letter was another lobbying effort to expand Sam Cohen's deal to several million and broaden it to cover future as well as present Jewish emigrants. In the Nazi party's view, "future" emigrants included every Jew in Germany. In allying with Consul Wolff, Cohen found his most effective advocate. Even as Wolff was mailing his June 24 letter, the Economics Ministry in
Berlin was notified of
the Foreign Ministry's full endorsement of the consul's recommendations.
¹⁹
Consul Wolff was after all Germany's man in Jerusalem. Berlin relied upon him. So did Sam Cohen.

Consul Wolff would not fail him. In yet another fortifying effort, sent three days later, Wolff sent a personal note to his colleague Kurt Prufer, who supervised the Foreign Ministry's Eastern Department. "I have become more and more convinced that Mr. Sam Cohen's way is the only one which will enable us to overcome the Jewish anti-German boycott movement," Wolff wrote. "Mr. Sam Cohen has been successful in not only provoking the interest of all appropriate local authorities and individuals for his plans, but also in obtaining the most extensive authority for implementation under [Jewish] national supervision .... This is the only way ... something can be done about the wave of boycotts." To drill home the perception of Cohen's validity, Consul Wolff added assurances that there would be no subsequent opposition to Cohen or Hanotaiah, "not from the orchard growers, or the big Zionist funds, or worker groups or from any other party."
²⁰

For the moment, such assurances were essentially correct. Leading Zionist institutions, desperate for fast action in the face of the growing boycott, had indeed endorsed Cohen. On July 2,
the ad hoc Conference of lnstitutions convened a meeting attended by representatives of the Histadrut labor conglomerate, the Manufacturers Association, the Organization of German Immigrants, and other official entities. These men -indeed represented official Jewish Palestine, and they reiterated their belief that breaking the boycott was the only way to save the Jewish wealth of Germany. But the men also verbalized their fear of a popular backlash. By now, the Third Reich's hot-and-cold pogrom was so heinous, and the public cries for boycott so vehement, that few could envision public acceptance of any economic liaison with Germany. The Chamber of Commerce representative reminded the gathering that in a previous session on June 6, they had voted to take no stand for or against the boycott, functionally defeating any boycott plan. The June 6 resolution had been withheld from public view following the Arlosoroff murder. But the representatives now felt they could no longer delay if German immigrants were to successfully transfer their assets to Palestine. The representatives voted to encourage a merchandise arrangement with the Reich.
²¹

The next day Consul Wolff resumed his campaign. On July 3, he dispatched a letter marked
"VERY URGENT"
to the Reich Foreign Ministry
relating the various tactics boycotters would try and credited Cohen with providing inside information. "Mr. Sam Cohen, . . . who because of his intimate knowledge of local conditions, called some other matters to my attention, ... for example ... the British and French, to exploit the difficulties experienced by German export efforts in Palestine, . . . intend to establish a clearinghouse which with the help oflocal Jewish firms would list present German suppliers and then be in a position to offer British and French substitute merchandise at lower prices. Mr. Sam Cohen informs me that Jewish [Zionist] circles to date do not favor such an enterprise, and I believe him, because Sam Cohen and his friends are strong Zionists who want to facilitate the immigration of German Jews to Palestine by way of Hanotaiah's imports .... [But] they must demonstrate that by organizing this German Palestine trade they can make a special contribution to Palestine [outweighing the value of the boycott]."
²²

Wolff's July 3 letter warned Berlin how advanced the Palestine boycott was. "What is happening in Tel Aviv ... is that young men are inspecting every store, demanding to see company orders and invoices to determine the origin of merchandise."
²³
The consul urged approval of his earlier request to expand Hanotaiah's transfer permission in both cash limit and in the type of merchandise allowed.

When Wolff first requested the expansion in late June, he enticed the Reich with assurances that Cohen's deal was broadly supported through
port
£500,000
worth of machinery, paying mostly with foreign currency. But
Wolff now advised the Reich that Cohen's role as a boycott breaker was so crucial that Berlin should circumvent "national supervision" and grant Hanotaiah an outright monopoly on
all
German imports to Palestine.
²⁴
Cohen had originally agreed to "share" his commercial ventures with publicly responsible companies such as Yakhin to avoid profiteering and engender public control. But now Cohen would share the profits and the decisions with no one.

In his July 3 letter, Consul Wolff also indicated that Cohen was no longer willing to pay any foreign currency for the special orders of machinery. The consul acknowledged that Berlin would not like this retreat, but stressed that if Germany expected to break the boycott, it should cooperate with Cohen. Wolff suggested all outstanding questions be resolved at a meeting with Cohen in Berlin on July
13.
²⁵
Then expansion of the original deal, separate arrangements for machinery imports, and exact foreign-currency requirements could be settled.

"Immediately afterwards," Wolff wrote, "he plans to go to the [July
15]
'boycott congress' in London."
²⁶
The implication was clear. Mr. Sam Cohen's work at Melchett's July
15
boycott conference would hinge on the deals he could arrange in Berlin on July
13.

The protest situation in England was almost a mirror image of America. The general British population was shocked and angered by Germany's anti-Jewish regime. Christian and Jewish lay and religious leaders favored strong punitive measures. His Majesty's Government preferred to remain silent, but frequently acceded to the wishes of the people and Parliament to lodge formal objections with the Reich. Yet in England, as in America, the biggest obstacle to a united protest and boycott movement was the coterie of leaders standing at the helm of the Jewish community.
²⁷

As in New York, London's Jewish community was divided into an East European class congregated in the East End, and the more gentried West European, heavily Germanic families of the West End. These two groups often looked upon each other with reproach. The East Enders—working people and struggling merchants—were accustomed to noisy protests to secure their rights. West Enders preferred dignified methods of coping with injustice toward Jews.
²⁸

The British counterpart of the American Jewish Committee was a small group of self-appointed gentlemen called the Anglo-Jewish Association. The seeming counterpart of the American Jewish Congress was an elected representative body called the Board of Deputies of British Jews. However, the Deputies pursued defense missions in their own sedate manner. And unlike the Congress, the Deputies were known for being either anti-Zionist or non-Zionist So, while they were indeed elected, they often did not represent
popular Anglo-Jewish desires.
²⁹
Therefore, in their custodial approach to Jewish affairs, the Deputies found a greater kinship with the conservatives of the Committee than with the rabblerousers of the Congress.

In the protest and boycott vacuum created by the Anglo-Jewish Association and the Deputies, there arose many grass-roots Jewish and interfaith groups determined to boycott. Such ad hoc entities as the World Alliance to Combat Anti-Semitism, Captain Webber's Organization, and Lord Melchett's Anglo-Jewish Trades Council generated a militancy directly threatening Anglo-Jewry's established leadership.

The disunity came to a climax during July
1933,
when Lord Melchett's circle was determined to stage massive protest and boycott actions in London. Among the most important was the July 15 World Economic Jewish Conference. The custodial mentality of Anglo-Jewry's leaders caused them to issue statements claiming the planned World Jewish Economic Conference—and its constituent groups from thirty—five nations--was an "unauthorized" gathering of Jews to be ignored.
³⁰
At first, conference organizers refused to be intimidated. They enjoyed mass support, buoyed each time they vowed publicly to hold the boycott conference with or without the sanction of traditional Anglo-Jewish leaders. But as the barrage of discrediting statements by established Anglo-Jewish leaders mounted, it became clear to Lord Melchett that British Jewry was not ready to wage economic battle with Hitler. By July 7, he was forced to announce a postponement of the conference until autumn. The official explanation cited a need for several national boycott committees to coordinate further.
³¹

But Lord Melchett correctly understood that Jews alone could not execute a successful boycott. They were dependent upon winning Christian cooperation. That would be impossible as long as official Jewish organizations denounced the boycott and the boycott conference as illegitimate.
It
was therefore time for a showdown.

In a surprise move on July
12,
Lord Melchett's representatives attended a meeting of the Joint Foreign Committee, the foreign policy arm of the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association. All policies on the German crisis were technically formulated through this bilateral deliberative body and reflected the decisions of the Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association.
³²
The JFC's approbation was therefore imperative.

During the meeting, Lord Melchett's advocates presented an eight-point memorandum requesting the JFC step aside and acknowledge that reaction to the Hitler crisis was solely within the purview of a special ad hoc committee to include Lord Melchett and other boycott notables.
³³
If
they did not
wish to join the boycott, at least they could be silent while others took up battle.

Abdicating authority on the greatest emergency facing twentieth-century Jewry would not be an easy act for the Joint Foreign Committee. Zionist
mittee because it promised boycott as an official policy, thus derailing hopes for a transfer to Palestine. Many of the regular Jewish leaders fought the abdication for all the known reasons of fear and caution and because it was an admission that their leadership was bankrupt.

But enough JFC members either buckled under Lord Melchett's pressure, chose to be relieved of the responsibility, or secretly backed the popular movement. After a bitter debate, a majority ratified Melchett's memorandum—six in favor, three against.
³⁴
Thus, an ad hoc committee now super-ceded the established Anglo-Jewish authorities on all questions regarding Nazi Germany. The boycotters could approach the Christian community and British government as the designated and legitimate voice of Jewry, thus ending months of public disunity.