106

Kateřina Čapková

SPECIFIC FEATURES OF ZIONISM IN THE CZECHLANDS IN THE INTERWAR PERIOD1)

It is relatively well known, that the Zionist movement in Bohemia, Moravia andSilesia has a unique history. Before World War I, Prague was renowned for theorganization Bar Kochba whose members managed to develop and rethinkcultural Zionism in important ways. At the time, the membership of Bar Kochbaincluded many prominent individuals, among them members of the GermanJewish literary elite of Prague – Felix Weltsch, Max Brod and Oskar Baum, whichis probably why pre-war Czech Zionism has received a great deal of attention.2)

Strangely, the history of Zionism in the Czech Lands (the Bohemian, Moravianand Silesian provinces of former Czechoslovakia) after World War I has only beenexamined in a few isolated works, often recollections written by contemporaries.The reason for this is undoubtedly the fact that a large number of importantZionists emigrated from Czechoslovakia, and that Zionists as well as other Jewsassimilated largely into Czech society. The natural process of cultural integrationof the Jewish population into Czech language and society resulted, on the onehand, in an enrichment of Czech culture through the literary contributions madeby Czech Zionists such Viktor Fischl and František Gottlieb. On the other hand,the preference for the Czech language resulted in some degree of isolation of theCzech Jewish nationalists within the wider Zionist community. Not withoutreason did Hans Kohn appeal to the representatives of the student fraternityTheodor Herzl, which took over Bar Kochba’s leadership role after World War I,to publish their writings in German. Only by doing so, could they make their ideasknown to the world as successfully as Bar Kochba had before the war.3) His appealwas not heeded.

The question remains whether the Zionists managed to maintain a certaincontinuity with the glorious pre-war period despite the emigration of manyeminent individuals and the preferred use of Czech, or if there was a shift in themovement’s direction in the interwar period.

During the First World War, the balance of power between the two opposingJewish movements in the Czech Lands, the Czech-Jewish movement and theZionist movement, changed. Before 1914, Jewish nationalism in Bohemia and

1) This article is an abridged and adapted version of a chapter from my doctoral thesis. My researchin the Israeli archives was made possible thanks to the financial support of the Memorial Foundationof Jewish Culture in New York. I would like to thank Dr. David Rechter from the Oriental Instituteof the Oxford University, Martin Wein from the Hebrew University and Tatjana Lichtenstein fromthe University of Toronto for their valuable comments.2) Primarily Kieval: The Making of Czech Jewry. National Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia,1870–1918, New York – Oxford 1988, and most recently Scott Spector: Prague Territories. NationalConflict and Cultural Innovation in Franz Kafka’s Fin de Siecle. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2000.3) Hugo Bergmann Archives, National Library Jerusalem (“NLJ”), Arc. 4, 1502 / 1561, Hans Kohn’sletter to the Theodor Herzl society, July 9, 1928.

107

Moravia did not attract a significant number of followers. The Jewish politicalstage was dominated by the Czech-Jewish movement, which had encouraged thecultural and ethnic assimilation of the Jewish population to the Czech majoritysince the 1870’s. After World War I and the establishment of the firstCzechoslovak Republic, the so-called Czech-Jews, emphasizing their linguisticand cultural allegiance to the Czech people (as opposed to the German or Jewishnation) believed that their movement would prevail. They aspired to become themain partner of the Czechoslovak government in issues regarding the Jewishpopulation. However, as it turned out, it was the Zionists represented by theJewish National Council (Židovská národní rada) and later by the Jewish Party(Židovská strana), who were perceived by Czech society in general and by itspolitical elite in particular as the most important representative of the Jewishcommunity in the Czech Lands.

The shift in the balance of power between the Czech-Jewish movement and theZionist movement did not mean that the natural process of integration of theJewish population into Czech society came to a halt. This continuous process isbest illustrated by statistics documenting the number of Jewish children enrolledin Czech and German schools. In the interwar period, the number of Jewishstudents enrolled in all levels of Czech educational institutions grew rapidly.

Despite the continuing integration of Jews into Czech society and culture, theorganized Czech-Jewish movement led by the Union of Czech-Jews (Svaz Čechůžidů) failed in its effort to become the main umbrella organization forCzechoslovak Jewry. The Union of Czech-Jews never became as significant apolitical force as the Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens[The Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith], the mostimportant Jewish organization in Weimar Germany. In early 1938, the Union ofCzech-Jews counted little more than two thousand members, while the number ofshekel payers exceeded twelve and a half thousand in the Czech Lands only.4)

What was the background for the unprecedented success of the Zionistmovement in a region with a Western-type Jewish community?5) In this study, Iwill analyze the main factors leading to this triumph of the Zionists. Due to thelimited scope of this article, I will not discuss the internal reasons for the declineof the Czech-Jewish movement, even though this organization’s post-war politicsdid, I believe, contribute to the success of the Zionist movement.

***

4) The Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens had 72 500 members in 1924,about 13% of the Jewish population in Germany, see Enzyklopädie des Holocaust. Die Verfolgungund Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Bd. I, München – Zürich 1998, p. 275. In April 1938 SvazČechů židů had 2023 members, see SÚA, MV pres., 207-1402-24, 8/5/53/64, April 20, 1938. For theZionists in the Czech lands, see Central Zionist Archive (“CZA”), S 5 / 435, Franz Kahn’s letter toMr. Lauterbach from the World Zionist Organization, October 14, 1938. 5) The so called West European and East European Jewish communities were best characterized by EzraMendelsohn: The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars, Bloomington 1983, pp. 6–7.

108

Unlike some historians,6) I do not distinguish between Jewish nationalism andZionism in the Czech Lands. Although there were groups whose members definedthemselves explicitly and exclusively as Jewish nationalists, the interests andpartial objectives of Jewish nationalists and Zionists were so similar in the CzechLands that it would be difficult to determine in which camp a given individualbelonged. Both Zionists and Jewish nationalists worked for the politicalrecognition of a Jewish nationality and for the development of Jewish culture inthe Diaspora, the so-called Gegenwartspolitik. The term itself indicates that thesegroups understood their work in the Diaspora as a necessary preliminary stage inthe mobilization of the Jewish population before some Jews emigrated toPalestine. A policy, which was embodied by the popular slogan: “Return toJewishness before returning to the Jewish homeland.” It is also worth mentioningthat only a small fraction of the Czech Zionists decided to make Aliyah. Before1938, the majority of immigration certificates to Palestine approved forCzechoslovakia was used by poor Jews from Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia or EasternSlovakia. Lastly, the ideological and practical alliance between Jewish nationalistsand Zionists was further strengthened by their shared opposition to German andCzech ‘integrationists’.

At this point, I would like to examine the term ‘integrationists’, which in thisstudy replaces the commonly used term ‘assimilationist’. The latter is misleadingsince only a fraction of the organizations advocating Jews’ cultural and nationalintegration into their respective majority societies sought full amalgamation withthe surrounding nation. In the context of the Czech Lands, the difficulty with theterm ‘integrationists’7) is the fact that the Jewish population, including CzechZionists and Jewish nationalists, was integrated in the Czech or German cultureand society to a degree that it becomes unclear what position the term reallydescribes. Furthermore, even the most active Czech Zionists never strove for ‘de-integration’. On the contrary, they used the prestige they held in Czech andGerman society to promote the idea of Zionism among the non-Jewish population.This is why I use the term ‘integrationists’ in quotation marks.

***In interwar Czechoslovakia, the most important representatives of the

country’s Zionist movement lived, with some exceptions, in Bohemia andMoravia, the areas of the republic with the smallest Jewish populations. It washere rather than in Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia that the Zionistmovement had a long tradition. The populous Jewish community of EasternSlovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia were characteristic ‘Eastern-type’ Jewishsocieties, where most Jews led a traditional way of life in voluntary separationfrom the surrounding ethnic and religious groups. One could be led to believe that

6) For example Meir Färber: ‘Die jüdisch-nationale Bewegung in der Tschechoslowakei’, in: ZGJ inder Tschechoslowakei, 1965 / 3–4, p. 150; or Fred Hahn: ‘The Dilemma of the Jews in the HistoricLands of Czechoslovakia, 1918–38’, East Central Europe, 1983 / 10, Pts. 1–2, p. 26.7) This term was introduced by Ezra Mendelssohn: On Modern Jewish Politics, New York 1993, p. 16.

109

these communities were predisposed to the idea of a distinct Jewish nation, but infact it was in these eastern regions of Czechoslovakia that the Zionists faced thestrongest resistance to their political ambitions. These traditional communitiesresented the secular lifestyle of the Zionist activists, the misuse of the HolyLanguage, and above all their attempt to create a Jewish state before the comingof the Messiah. The socio-cultural differences between Jews in the Western andEastern parts of the country shaped the distinct character of the local Zionistmovements. In Slovakia the religious Zionists in Mizrachi had many adherents, inthe Czech lands the secular Zionism prevailed.

However, it is important to understand that there were significant differencesbetween the Jewish communities of Bohemia and Moravia as well. As themajority of Jewish students from Moravia studied in Vienna, the ideas of TheodorHerzl spread faster and more effectively in Moravia than in Bohemia.Furthermore, Moravian Jews lived in relatively populous smalltown Jewishsettlements in which a sense of Jewish community and identity was more likely topersist than among Bohemian Jews, who lived either in big cities (above all inPrague), where they formed a tiny percentage of the population, or as individualfamilies in villages. The degree of socio-cultural integration was far greater inBohemia than in Moravia, and the latter communities were therefore morereceptive to Zionism.

The background for the different settlement patterns in the two areas was thatin a number of Moravian towns, the Jewish communities were functional self-governing bodies until 1918. Their scope of authority was governed by theterritorial principle, so that the Jewish Town Council also decided the affairs of thenon-Jewish citizens living within the limits of the former ghetto or Jewishquarter.8) The persistence of Jewish self-government considerably strengthenedthe community’s sense of belonging, which in turn became fertile ground for ideasof Jewish nationalism.

Furthermore, in Moravia, where the overall process of secularisationproceeded slower than in Bohemia, Zionist activists cooperated successfully withthe religious authorities in various Jewish communities.9) A situation, which wasquite unique in Western Europe.10) In contrast, Bohemian Jewry was largelysecular. This applied above all to larger cities and towns in which most BohemianJews were concentrated from the late 19th century. Hugo Gold noted in his workon the Jewish communities in Bohemia and Moravia that a large number of

8) Cf. e.g. Jaroslav Bránský: Židé v Boskovicích [The Jews of Boskovice], Boskovice 1999, p. 120.9) Ján Mišovič: Víra v dějinách zemí koruny české [Religious Faith in the History of the CzechCrown Lands], Praha 2001, pp. 78, 83.10) Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein: ‘The Jews between Czechs and Germans in the Historic Lands,1848–1918’, in: The Jews of Czechoslovakia, Vol. I, New York – Philadelphia 1968, p. 59.

110

Bohemian Jewish communities had been depopulated by the end of the 19thcentury, because Jews migrated to the region’s cities and towns, a process thatcontinued into the 20th century.11)

The beginnings of Zionism in the Czech Lands

Otto Abeles and Berthold Feiwel were the pioneers of the Zionist movementin Moravia. In 1894, they founded the organization Veritas in the Moravian capitalBrno (Brünn). Feiwel later became famous, when he, in cooperation with MartinBuber, established the publishing house Jüdischer Verlag [Jewish Publishers] inBerlin. Feiwel is also known in the history of the Zionist movement as the co-founder of the democratic faction together with Chaim Weizmann at the FifthZionist Congress in 1901.

In Bohemia, it was Russian-born students, who founded the first Zioniststudent association.12) In 1893, they established Maccabea in reaction to the anti-Jewish attitude of the German student fraternities (Burschenschaften) in theGerman section of Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague. These Russianstudents shaped Maccabea in a way that was more in tune with the trends of theyoung Jewish generation in their country of origin than with those of theirBohemian Jewish colleagues. It was anti-liberal, anti-religious, and opposed toassimilation in any form.13)

However, only few students at the Prague university showed interest inZionism. After three years of moribund existence, Maccabea was transformedinto the Verein der jüdischen Hochschüler in Prag [Association of JewishUniversity Students in Prague], which abandoned the original Jewish-nationalprogram. Maccabea’s mission had been to “awaken and promote nationalsolidarity of all Jewish students and to care for the national history andliterature.”14) The Verein der jüdischen Hochschüler in Prag consciously excludedall political and nationalistic activities from the organization, and defined its aimas one “defending and supporting the ethical and material interests of the Jewishstudents and fostering the study of Jewish history and literature.”15)

11) Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein: ‘The Internal Migration of Jews in 19th Century Bohemia’, in: TheField of Yiddish, 1969, pp. 305–309; Hugo Gold (ed.): Die Juden und Judengemeinden Böhmens inVergangenheit und Gegenwart, Brno 1934; Idem: Gedenkbuch der untergegangenen Juden-gemeinden Mährens, Tel Aviv 1974. Cf. František Friedmann: ‘Židé v Čechách’ [Jews in Bohemia],in: Gold (ed.): Die Juden und Judengemeinden Böhmens, pp. 729–730. On secularization of theJewish Community in Bohemia, see Wilma Iggers: Zeiten der Gottesferne und der Mattheit. DieReligion im Bewußtsein der böhmischen Juden in der ersten Tschechoslowakischen Republik,Leipzig 1997.12) Hugo Bergmann: ‘Zum dreissigsemestrigen Stiftungsfest des Vereines Bar Kochba’, Selbstwehr,January 18, 1908.13) Hillel J. Kieval: The Making of Czech Jewry, p. 94.14) Statuten des Vereines “Studentenverein Maccabaea”, Archiv Univerzity Karlovy (“AUK”), ASNU, U, Maccabea.15) Statuten des Vereines “Verein der jüdischen Hochschüler in Prag”, AUK, AS NU, U, Maccabea.

111

Not until 1899 did the Verein’s leadership rename the organization Bar Kochbawith the bilingual subtitle Verein der jüdischen Hochschüler in Prag / Spolekžidovských akademiků v Praze [Association of Jewish University Students inPrague].16) The new name signalled a program change as Bar Kochba now openlyprofessed Jewish nationalism. Section 28 of its statute even stated that any futuredecision of the general assembly to change the association’s objective to besomething other than ‘national Jewish’ would entail Bar Kochba’s dissolution.17)

The history of Czech Zionism has an interesting twist in that Bar Kochba wasshaped by an influx of disillusioned Czech-Jews, former active organizers of theCzech-Jewish movement.18) People like Alfréd Löwy, Arthur Klein or Josef Kohnwere originally members of the Association of Czech-Jewish University Students(Spolek českých akademiků-židů). The wave of anti-Semitism in the 1890’s, whichpeaked with the Hilsner trial in 1899, shook the convictions of many Czech-Jewish activists. Alfréd Löwy from Domažlice (Taus) was elected the firstchairman of Bar Kochba. Among the other ‘defectors’ from the Czech-Jewishcamp was Ludvík Singer, who later played a central role in the Czech Zionistmovement. In 1910, he was elected chairman of the Zionist Organization inBohemia. After World War I, he chaired the Jewish National Council (Židovskánárodní rada), where Singer together with Max Brod became the mainintermediary between the Zionist organization and Czechoslovak governmentofficials. In 1929, two years before his death, Singer became a member of theCzechoslovak Parliament for the Jewish Party.

According to the memoirs of Arthur Bergmann, former members of theAssociation of Czech-Jewish University Students played a particularly importantrole in transforming the Verein Jüdischer Hochschüler into an organization with aclear-cut bilingual and Zionist program.19)

Just before or shortly after World War I, two other prominent Czech Zionistscrossed over from the Czech-Jewish camp, namely Emil Waldstein, founder andlong-time editor of the Czech-language periodical Židovské zprávy [JewishNews], and František Friedmann, a Jewish Party organizer and an importantpromoter of the Zionist idea in the Czech environment.

Interestingly, Bar Kochba was not the only Zionist group in Europe, whosemain organizers originally championed the idea of ‘assimilation’. Both TheodorHerzl and Leon Pinsker were originally proponents of the integration of Jews intonon-Jewish society. Only after experiencing the increasing anti-Semitism in thelate 19th century, did these ardent advocates of assimilation begin to organize,with equal zeal, the Jewish national movement.

16) The change of the constitution was confirmed by the Police Headquarters in Prague only in1900, Archiv hl. m. Prahy (“AMP”), SK X / 56.17) Statuten des Vereines “Bar Kochba, Verein jüd. Hochschüler in Prag”, AUK, AS NU, U, BarKochba, p. 8.18) Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein was the first to point this out, see R. K.-G.: ‘Athalot Bar Kochba’,in: Felix Weltsch (ed.): Prag vi-Yerushalayim, Jerusalem 1954, p. 89.19) Arthur Bergmann: The history of Bar Kochba, manuscript, CZA, A 317 / c 8, p. 2.

112

Even without counting the former Czech-Jews (i.e. the active organizers of theCzech-Jewish movement), Jews involved in Czech culture represented a large partof Bar Kochba’s membership, which consisted mostly of university studentsliving in Prague. Let us name a few: Viktor Kleinzeller, Leopold Wertheimer,Alfred Kraus, Anton Kraus, Otto Kraus, and Ernst Koref. Members originating ina Czech environment prevailed in Bar Kochba’s leadership until 1903, when astrong generation of German-speaking students led by Hugo Bergmann becameactive in the organization.

The Czech-speaking Zionists promoted Zionism among the wider Jewish andnon-Jewish Czech public. For example in 1901, Alfred Löwy organized adiscussion evening about Zionism at the then most important Czech studentsociety Slavia. The Czech Zionists from Bar Kochba were among the initiators ofthe translation of one of Max Nordau’s works into Czech.20) They also acquaintedZionists from German-speaking families with the Czech political scene. Basedupon a recommendation by Emil Oplatka from Praskolesy, Hugo Bergmann,Julian Herrnheiser and some other German Zionists attended a series of lecturesaimed at working-class audiences given by the university professor and politicianTomáš Garrigue Masaryk.21)

The number of Czech Zionists joining Bar Kochba grew steadily. All Czechstudents were fluent in both Czech and German, but not all German students hadactive knowledge of Czech, which is why a Czech section of Bar Kochba wasestablished in 1909.22) The Association of Jewish University Students TheodorHerzl (Spolek židovských akademiků Theodor Herzl), the first organization ofCzech Zoinst, held its constituent assembly on December 9, 1909. AngeloGoldstein, the first chairman of the Association, described how Bar Kochba hadinitially been shaped by Czech Zionists, only later did its leadership becomedominated by German-speaking students or ‘utraquists’ (i.e. bilingualindividuals).23) In agreement with the German leadership of Bar Kochba, theCzech Zionists then decided to create their own association.24)

In the first years of its existence, Theodor Herzl was financially dependent onBar Kochba, and the organizations continued to cooperate closely both beforeWorld War I and through the interwar period.25) After 1918 Theodor Herzl replacedBar Kochba as the most important Zionist student organization.

However, let us stay with the pre-war period for a moment. Even though therewere other Zionist societies in Bohemia before the war, it was Bar Kochba that setthe tone for the Zionist movement. It assumed a leading role, because of the

20) Hugo Bergmann’s letter to Viktor Freud of January 4, 1934, CZA, A 317 / 10.21) ‘Zur Geschichte des Bar-Kochba, 3. Fortsetzung’, Bar Kochba Zirkular (“BKZ”), April 1967, p. 9.22) AMP, SK X / 173.23) Among the so called ‘utraquists’ (i.e. bilinguals) helping to overcome the linguistic barrier werealso the brothers Arthur and Hugo Bergmann.24) According to a report by the police commissioner Bohdan Škvora of December 24, 1909, AMP,SK X / 173.25) Bericht über die Tätigkeit des Vereins der jüd. Hochschüler Bar Kochba in Prag während des 34.Vereinssemesters (Winter 1909–1910) erstattet (...) vom Obmanne Phil. Hugo Herrmann, Prag 1910, p. 20.

113

involvement of a generation of German-speaking Zionists, who made Bar Kochbawell-known not only in the Czech Lands, but also abroad. The ranks of BarKochba were strengthened by a whole range of outstanding activists: HugoBergmann and his brother Arthur, Felix Weltsch and his cousin Robert Weltsch,Hugo Herrmann and his cousin Leo Herrmann, Siegmund Kaznelson, OskarEpstein, Viktor Freud, and, last but not least, Victor Kellner. In 1903, HugoBergmann became the chairman of the association, which opened a new chapterin the history of Zionism in the Czech Lands.

Defining the nature of their Jewish identity was the main problem of thePrague Zionists. Only few individuals could boast that their parents had beensupporters of Jewish nationalism. Most members of Bar Kochba had grown up infamilies, where Judaism and religious traditions remained only as a faded facade,and their education did not differ from that of their non-Jewish social equals.Depending on the milieu they came from, they were brought up reading theGerman classics Goethe and Schiller or the Czech authors Jirásek and Neruda,and their language and lifestyle did not differ significantly from their non-Jewishneighbours.

As Hugo Bergmann assumed the leadership of Bar Kochba, he formulated aprogram in which Hebrew became one of the pillars in Bar Kochba’s activitiesand in the work for a Jewish renewal. Earlier, the Russian student IsraelAronowitsch (Aharoni) founded a Bar Kochba club called HebräischePropaganda [Hebrew Propaganda], which was a strictly Hebrew-speaking forum.However, this club had only a few members. According to Hugo Bergmann, thestudy of Hebrew should be standard for every Zionist, and he argued, “a Zioniststudent who does not know Hebrew is a contradictio in adjecto.”26) The programpaid off and in 1910, the then chairman Hugo Herrmann could say with pride thatwherever Hebrew was spoken in Prague, the members of Bar Kochba helped outas interpreters.27) Besides Hebrew courses, Bar Kochba began organizing coursesin Jewish literature and history.

East European Jewish culture was a great inspiration to Prague’s Zionists. It iswell known that before World War I, Prague was not the target for East-EuropeanJewish immigration. Unlike the Zionists in Berlin or Vienna, who had directcontact with East European Jews, the Prague Zionists’ only had indirectexperience with Hasidism, shtetlach or Yiddish literature. Hugo Bergmann, drivenby the desire to see the ‘real’ Jews, travelled to Galicia in the summer of 1903.28)

After his return, he introduced Yiddish courses. Eastern Jewish culture became amodel for Prague Zionists, because of its perceived authenticity. Hugo Bergmannand other Prague Zionists were fascinated by what they saw as the Eastern Jews’authentic awareness of their religious and ethnic identity.

26) ‘Zur Geschichte des Bar-Kochba’, BKZ, April 1967, p. 3.27) Bericht über die Tätigkeit des Vereins der jüd. Hochschüler Bar Kochba in Prag während des34. Vereinssemesters, p. 11.28) Ibid., p. 4.

114

Before World War I, this enthusiasm for East-European Jewishness wasexpressed as intellectual fascination with its literature and folklore. However, theencounter between Bar Kochba members and the actors of a Yiddish troupeplaying in Prague in 1910–1911 was very different. The ‘Bar-Kochbans’ feltcontempt for the penniless travelling actors and showed no understanding for theirbleak material conditions. The behaviour of the Bar Kochba members was insharp contrast to Franz Kafka’s attitude towards the troupe. Kafka, a close friendof Max Brod and Felix Weltsch, helped the Lemberg (Lwów / L’viv) actors withboth the organizational and financial side of their strenuous tour of Bohemia,where they were met with indifference by the public. Kafka also befriended theactor Yitzchok Levi and managed to fall in love with no less than two actresses ofthe troupe.29)

Bar Kochba and Barissia – a clash of ideologies

Not all Bar Kochba’s members were pleased with the intellectual and spiritualcharacter of the organizations activities. Some students wanted to introduce thecustoms such as wearing badges and fraternity colours, creating internalhierarchies of longtimers and freshmen (Burschen und Füxe), singing and so onwhich was typical for German student fraternities. These customs were notintroduced in Bar Kochba, because many members feared that wearing coloursand national badges would be interpreted as a provocation by the Czech public.30)

Consequently in 1904, a group around Robert Neubauer, Jakob Fraenkl, JuliusLoewy and Ernst Guetig decided to form a separate society called Barissia.31) Theleaders of this new fraternity believed that their emphasis on symbols of Jewishnationalism, duels with German nationalists, and cultivation of the spirit of closefriendships among their members would weaken the Czech and Germanproponents of assimilation far more than Bar Kochba’s academic theorizing.32)

The diverging perception of Jewish nationalism among Bar Kochba andBarissia members led to serious disputes. According to some recollections writtenafter World War II, the ideological divisions between the members of these twoorganizations persisted throughout the interwar period.33) Their differences weredeep-rooted. It may well be said that the strife between Barissia and Bar Kochbawas a reflection of the conflict existing between Theodor Herzl’s political Zionism

29) Kateřina Čapková: ‘Kafka a otázka židovské identity v dobovém kontextu’ [Kafka and the Issueof Jewish Identity in the Context of his Time], in: Kuděj, 2001 / 2, pp. 42–52.30) Arthur Bergmann: manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, CZA, A 317 / c 8, p. 15.31) AMP, SK X / 116.32) Walter Kohner: ‘Portrait einer Studentenverbindung’, in: Zeitschrift für die Geschichte derJuden, 1966, 2 / 3, pp. 125–132; The history of Barissia is described in detail in the commemorativepublication produced on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Barissia’s establishment: FünfzigSemester “Barissia”. Festschrift, Prag 1928.33) In Israel after World War II, however, the former members of both societies came closer together.Cf. Arthur Bergmann, manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, CZA, A 317 / c 8, pp. 15–16.

115

and the cultural Zionism formulated by Achad Haam and Martin Buber.34) Politicaland cultural Zionism differed in their approach to fundamental philosophicalquestions as well as in their visions of how to implement Zionist ideas in practice.Naturally, the Zionist movement was more complicated than to be fullycharacterized by these two poles. Nevertheless, the tensions between political andcultural Zionism was the focal point of internal Zionist debates in Central Europe.

In the world Zionist movement, political Zionism and cultural Zionismrepresented two equally valid alternatives. In Bohemia, the competition between thetwo trends was won by Bar Kochba, which represented cultural Zionism. BeforeWorld War I, both Barissia and Bar Kochba consisted of a few scores of activemembers.35) Despite their relatively small number, the members of Bar Kochbacontributed a great deal to the renewal of Jewish national identity in the Czech Lands,and raised the awareness about Zionism among the Czech public. The program of BarKochba with its focus on the cultural regeneration of the Jewish nation was supportedby a large number of non-Jewish Czech celebrities, above all Tomáš G. Masaryk.

Bar Kochba members also shaped the character of the first official BohemianZionist periodical, which even though founded by Barissia members in 1907, wasdominated by Bar Kochba by 1910.36) The founders had chosen a name Selbstwehr[Self-Defence], which reflected their willingness to fight back anti-Semitism. In1910, the editorial office of Selbstwehr was taken over by Leo Herrmann from BarKochba and, until the end of the First Czechoslovak Republic, Selbstwehrremained under the ideological influence of former or new members of BarKochba. From the outset, Leo Hermann received great support from HugoBergmann, Hans Kohn, Robert Weltsch, and Siegmund Kaznelson. During WorldWar I, Kaznelson became its chief editor.37) Felix Weltsch took over this positionafter the war and remained its chief editor through the interwar period.

One of the most important aspects of Bar Kochba’s activities was that itsmembers supported a number of other Zionists activities and organizations. Inparticular, Jüdischer Volksverein Zion [Jewish People’s Association Zion]38) whichcatered to the older generation of Zionists, and Jüdischer Frauenverein[Association of Jewish Women]39) that served as a forum for female Zionists.

34) ‘Zur Geschichte des Bar Kochba’, 3. Fortsetzung, BKZ, April 1967, pp. 5, 11; also Kieval: TheMaking of Czech Jewry, p. 116; Kohner: ‘Barissia. Portrait einer Studentenverbindung’, pp.131–132. Kohner writes directly: “Ihr [Barissias] Zionismus war der Zionismus Herzls undNordaus, er war klar und durchaus pragmatisch. Sein Ziel war nicht so sehr die Vertiefung deszionistischen Gedankens sondern seine Verbreitung und Aktivierung, der Kampf gegen dieAssimilation, Gewinnung der Jugend und der jüdischen Gesellschaft.”35) For example in 1910, the Bar Kochba society had 52 active members and 41 members of the‘Alte Herren’ club (older members who had already completed their university studies). See Berichtüber die Tätigkeit des Vereins der jüd. Hochschüler Bar Kochba in Prag während des 34.Vereinssemesters, p. 4.36) Hillel J. Kieval: The Making of Czech Jewry, p. 117.37) ‘Zur Geschichte des Bar-Kochba’, 6. Fortsetzung, BKZ, März 1968, p. 4.38) AMP, SK XXII / 119.39) AMP, SK XXII / 216.

116

Some of the former organization’s members were the parents of ‘Barkochbans’such as Siegmund and Johanna Bergmann (parents of Arthur and Hugo), and winedealer Karl Resek (father of Felix Resek). Philipp Lebenhart, who is sometimesregarded as the very first Zionist in Prague was among the founding fathers of theVolksverein. In 1900, Lebenhart created a magazine for young people called JungJuda, which was still being published in the interwar period. In the mid 1920’s, ithad approximately fifteen hundred young Jewish subscribers, who among otherthings could learn basic Hebrew with the help of a course prepared for Jung Judaby Israel Aronowitsch, and later by Hugo Bergmann and Viktor Kellner, both fromBar Kochba.40)

In his memoirs, Arthur Bergmann argues that all founding or regular membersof Zion and the Frauenverein came from ‘solid’ Jewish families, i.e. from middleor upper-middle class homes. The activities of the organized Zionist women waslimited to organizing children’s parties during the festivals of Purim andHanukkah, while Zion organized debate evenings, which were, of course,dominated by Bar Kochba members.41)

The first Zionist club for young girls and women was established on theinitiative of Bar Kochba in 1912, and had a different character than theFrauenverein. This new group known as Mädchenklub (The Girls’ Club) wasfounded in order to strengthen Zionist education among women. Among itsfounders were the sisters or young spouses of ‘Bar-Kochbans’: the wives of HugoBergmann and Max Brod and the sister of Robert Weltsch, Marta Schick, RůžaLöwy, Grete Obernik and the sisters Mirjam and Fritzi Scheuer. Fritzi Scheuerwas later married to Emil Margulies. The members of Bar Kochba also helpedwith the cultural and educational program in this group. Its program includedlecture series on Jewish history, Zionist ideology and Hebrew courses taught byHugo Bergmann.42)

It is clear that prior to World War I, the Zionist movement in Bohemia had aquasi-familiar character with members of different Zionist organizationsinterconnected by family ties. The obituary of Frída Weltschová, née Böhmováillustrates this pointedly. Frída Weltschová was the mother of Robert Weltsch, auntof Felix, cousin of Adolf Böhm, and mother-in-law of Siegmund Kaznelson. Herobituary of October 1938 reads as follows:

“A respectable and modest lady who enjoyed much esteem in Prague’s Zionistcircles. Most of the Zionist life in Prague took place in her hospitable home.”43)

40) Židovské zprávy [Jewish News] (“ŽZ”), January 4, 1924 / 1, p. 4.41) Arthur Bergmann, manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, CZA, A 317 / c 8, p. 8.42) Irma Polak, Geschichte der zionistischen Frauenbewegung in der CSR, manuscript, p. 2, CZA,A 459 / 3.43) ‘Paní Frída Weltschová mrtva’ [Mrs. Frída Weltschová Is Dead], ŽZ, October 14, 1938 / 41, p.9. At the turn of the 1920–30’s, Mrs. Weltschová transferred to Berlin to rejoin her son-in-lawKaznelson, the owner of the publishing company Jüdischer Verlag; in 1935, she moved to Palestinewhere she died.

117

It is worth mentioning that the first known case of a Jew from Bohemia whodecided to settle in Palestine was Marta Schicková from the Mädchenklub. Herrevolutionary feat from 1913 caused outrage not only in her family, but also inPrague’s entire Jewish society.44) The story of Ms. Schicková documents that theZionists of Bohemia before World War I reflected upon settlement in Palestine ina rather theoretical way.

Bar Kochba also strove to address the young generation, and createdHaschachar, an organization for high-school students for this purpose.45) Themembers of Bar Kochba also founded the Jewish Society for Vocal and Instru-mental Music in Prague (Židovský spolek pro zpěv a hudbu v Praze / JüdischerGesang- und Musikverein in Prag).46) The society focused on practising Jewishchoral works under the guidance of Richard Taussig, singer at Prague’s GermanTheatre.47) Together with the Bnai B’rith, Bar Kochba also established the so-called Toynbeehalle in Prague.

Momentous encounter: Buber and Bar Kochba

Under the guidance of Hugo Bergmann, and later of Viktor Freud and LeoHerrmann, the members of Bar Kochba studied the texts of leading culturalZionists thereby trying to discover the roots of their Jewishness. They mainly readthe works of Achad Haam, whose Hebrew articles critical of Herzlian Zionismwere translated by Viktor Kellner.48) It is therefore not surprising that Martin Bubertook a liking to the Prague Zionists in Bar Kochba. The affection was mutual.

It is commonly thought that Buber’s first meeting with the Bar Kochbamembers took place in 1909, when he came to Prague on Leo Hermann’sinvitation to present the first of his well-known Drei Reden über das Judentum[Three Speeches about Judaism]. However, a close examination of the archivalsources show that Buber’s cooperation with Bar Kochba was of an earlier date.Already from 1899, when Buber started publishing in Herzl’s newspaper Die Welt,did the Prague Zionists follow his articles with great interest. In 1903, Bar Kochbaand the so-called democratic Zionist faction (Buber, Feiwel, and Weizmann)opposed the project of Jewish settlement in Uganda. At that time, Ernst Gütig andHugo Bergmann publicized the dissenting views within their organization in theperiodicals Die Welt and Jüdische Volksstimme.

In 1903, the leadership of Bar Kochba invited Martin Buber and BertholdFeiwel to a celebration of the tenth anniversary of the organization’s existence.Buber held a lecture with the characteristic title ‘Jüdische Renaissance’ [Jewish

44) Irma Polak: ‘The Zionist Women’s Movement’, in: The Jews of Czechoslovakia. Vol. II,Philadelphia – New York 1971, pp. 140–141.45) Hugo Bergmann: ‘Pacovsky – 70 Jahre’, BKZ, Feber 1958, pp. 2.46) AMP, SK XII / 78.47) Arthur Bergmann: manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, CZA, A 317 / c 8, p. 13.48) Hans Kohn: Martin Buber, sein Werk und seine Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur GeistesgeschichteMitteleuropas 1880–1930, Köln 19613, p. 315.

118

Renaissance].49) From that time on, Buber visited Prague often, and he maintainedcontacts with the Prague Zionists through the interwar period.

Buber’s three lectures on the essence of Judaism shaped the development ofZionism in Bohemia. His first lecture began a new tradition in Bar Kochba. Until1909, when Leo Herrmann assumed its chairmanship, the association held ‘BarKochba – Kränzchen’ (dance evenings) modelled upon similar events in Czechand German student fraternities, which were an important source of income forstudent societies. Unlike the German Jews, but similarly to the Czech-Jews, theZionists could not count on the financial support of affluent German studentorganizations. The associations Verein Israelitischer Techniker [Association ofJewish Engineering Students] and Verein Israelitischer Universitätshörer[Association of Jewish University Students] only provided financial support toJewish students of treudeutscher Gesinnung (‘true German sentiment’).50) LeoHerrmann decided to abolish the dances, and instead fundraise at gala lectureevenings, a custom which was continued until 1938.

At the first gala evening in January 1909, the guest speakers were Felix Saltenand Martin Buber. Two performing artists from the German Theatre (the presentTheatre of the Estates) Philipp Manning and Lia Rosen provided entertainment forthe assembled audience, who had been attracted by the popular author FelixSalten. Martin Buber was supposed to speak on the topic of Judaism and Zionism.The plan succeeded marvellously. The lobby of the Central Hotel, at the time oneof the most luxurious lecture halls in Prague, was filled to capacity.51) Middle andupper middle class Prague Jews listened to a lecture encouraging every Jew tocultivate his or her bond to Jewish culture and to be proud of his or her Jewishroots. The program of political Zionism would undoubtedly have scandalized thisaudience, but Buber’s teachings about Zionism as a process of spiritual renewalfascinated many. The essence of Zionism was, according to Buber, embodied byJewish traditions and the traditional ethnic solidarity of Jewish communities.

When organizing Buber’s two subsequent lectures at the city’s JewishTownhall, the organizers did not have to look for a popular speaker to attractaudiences. Buber’s name was a sufficient guarantee for attracting capacitycrowds. Buber’s three lectures from 1909–1910 first appeared in print inGermany. In 1912, they were published in Czech by the Theodor Herzl Societyunder the title Tři řeči o židovství [Three Speeches about Judaism].52)

Interestingly, Buber’s lectures were translated into Czech and prepared for

49) ‘Zur Geschichte des Bar Kochba’, 5. Fortsetzung, BKZ, 5728 (Dezember 1967), p. 5. On theoccasion of the anniversary, the Bar Kochba society produced a festive publication entitled NeueWege. Festschrift, Prag 1903.50) Arthur Bergmann, manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, CZA, A 317 / c 8, pp. 4–6; also ‘ZurGeschichte des Bar-Kochba’, 3. Fortsetzung, BKZ, April 1967, p. 8.51) Viktor Freud: manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, untitled, BKZ, Chanukah 1954, pp. 11-12.52) Martin Buber: Drei Reden über das Judentum, Frankfurt a.M. 1911; Idem: Tři řeči o židovství[Three Speeches about Judaism], Praha 1912.

119

publishing by a certain Arnošt Kolman, then a member of Theodor Herzl andlater a zealous Moscow communist.53)

The cultural Zionist orientation of Bar Kochba is reflected in the publicationVom Judentum [About Judaism]54) published by the organization in 1913. Thiscollection of writings by prominent Czech Zionists was acclaimed in all of Europeas a gem of intellectual Zionism striving for the renewal of Jewish culture.55)

To the practically oriented Zionists in other countries, Bar Kochba looked likea club of dreamers. During his stay in Prague in January 1913, Kurt Blumenfeld,the leader of the Zionist movement in Germany, wrote in a letter to his friendMartin Rosenblüth:

“Prague’s Bar Kochba is becoming less and less productive. Buber whoeducates them theosophically, is their Rebbe and diverts the people (...) fromreal Zionism.”56)

The close contact between Bar Kochba and Martin Buber increased theinfluence of both within the Zionist organization. Thanks to his public lectures inPrague, Buber gained not only more devoted followers among Bar Kochba’smembership, but also a wider audience for his spiritual concept of Zionism.57) Acertain climax of this cooperation was Buber’s speech at a convention for Jewishyouth (Jugendmeeting) held in Prague in March 1920, which I will return to later.Buber, on the other hand, facilitated contacts and helped establish close tiesbetween members of Bar Kochba and the World Zionist Organization, which wasbased in Berlin until World War I.

After 1921, when Buber retreated from public life and active Zionist politics, hispersonal friendship and cooperation with the former ‘Bar-Kochbans’ did not end.He was still invited to lecture in Prague, and he maintained contacts with formerPrague Zionists, who settled abroad during the interwar period. As president of theHebrew University, Hugo Bergmann was later instrumental in obtaining aprofessorship for Buber, who lectured in Jerusalem during and after World War II.58)

53) ‘Zur Geschichte des Bar Kochba’, 5. Fortsetzung, BKZ, Chanukah 5728 (Dezember 1967), p. 4.54) Vom Judentum, Hrg. von Verein jüdischer Hochschüler Bar Kochba, Leipzig 1913.55) Re memoir Vom Judentum cf. Andreas Herzog: ‘Vom Judentum. Anmerkungen zum Sammel-band des Vereins Bar Kochba’, in: Kurt Krolop – Hans Dieter Zimmermann (ed.): Kafka und Prag,Berlin – New York 1994, pp. 45–58.56) Kurt Blumenfeld: Im Kampf um den Zionismus. Briefe aus fünf Jahrzehnten. Hrg. von Sam-bursky u. Ginat, Stuttgart 1976, pp. 42–43.57) Hans Kohn: Martin Buber, sein Werk und seine Zeit, p. 91.58) Buber’s role in forming Israeli public opinion was recently discussed by the right-wing Israelihistorian Yoram Hazoni in his controversial book The Jewish State. The Struggle for Israel’s Soul,New York 2000. Buber who always spoke in favour of a Jewish-Arab dialogue has influenced(according to Hazoni in a negative way) entire generations of Israeli intellectuals. Thanks to Buber,the willingness to negotiate with the Arabs even for the price of territorial losses of the Jewish stategained acceptance in Israeli politics and among Israel’s intelligentsia. Even though Hazonioverestimates Buber’s responsibility for the left orientation of the Israeli society, it is certain thatBuber played a very important role in the movement promoting Jewish-Arab dialogue.

120

Until World War I, the Zionists from Bohemia engaged with their Jewishcultural heritage on an academic level. They learned Hebrew, attended courses inJewish history and culture and discussed the possibilities of establishing a Jewishhomeland in Palestine. During the war, they engaged in for them a new aspect ofZionist activity, namely aiding the Jewish refugees streaming into Prague fromGalicia. The first groups of refugees from the battle zone started arriving alreadyin the fall of 1914, and local Zionists immediately engaged in obtaining anddistributing aid through the newly established Hilfskommittee [Relief ActionCommittee].59) Soon, Professor Alfred Engel and other volunteers establishedimprovised school classes for about two thousand Galician children. For the firsttime, Prague had a school with a clear Jewish-national character.60) Due to theshortage of teachers, Bar Kochba’s members who had not or not yet been draftedto the Austrian army volunteered, among them Karel Schwager and Max Brod.61)

New prospects in a new state

The First World War was a turning point in the history of world Zionism. In thepre-war era, the opponents of Zionism could dismiss it as utopian. After 1918,however, they had to acknowledge that the Jewish national movement had gainedpolitical weight and, thanks to the Balfour Declaration, a Jewish homeland inPalestine had become a real political possibility.

Another important event, which strengthened the Zionist cause was Wilson’sspeech of January 1918, where he outlined his well-known Fourteen Points. Byspring 1918, Jewish as well as Czech nationalists interpreted Wilson’s tenth pointconcerning the nations’ right to autonomy within the Habsburg Empire as a rightto national self-determination. A Jewish National Council (Židovská národnírada,62) “JNC”) was created in Prague on October 22, 1918, and declared itself therepresentative of all citizens, who identified themselves nationally as Jewish in theCzech Lands. This declaration of the JNC provoked strong disapproval from theCzech-Jewish camp and from some German-oriented Jews. The Zionists alsoanticipated opposition from the political parties in which Czech-Jews wereinvolved such as the Constitutional Democrats, the Agrarian Party, the SocialDemocratic Party, the Czech Socialist Party and above all Progressive Party. Yet,no party presidium protested against the creation of the JNC.63)

59) Jiří Kuděla: ‘Galician and East European Refugees in the Historic Lands: 1914–16’, Review ofthe Society for the History of Czechoslovak Jews 1991–1992 / IV, pp. 15–32.60) Hans Tramer: ‘Die Dreivölkerstadt Prag’, pp. 172–173.61) Karl Schwager: ‘Ein kleines Kapitel zur Geschichte Bar Kochba’s’, BKZ, Januar 1966, p. 7.62) The Council was constituted under the name Národní židovská rada [National Jewish Council];due to the similarity of the initials NRŽ and NRČ (“Národní rada československá” [NationalCzechoslovak Council]), mail for the respective councils was often misdirected. For this reason, theJewish nationalists renamed the institution Židovská národní rada [Jewish National Council], Státníústřední archiv [Central State Archives] (“SÚA”), NRČ, Call No. 118, Box 230, letter of May 26,1919.63) ‘Zbytečné protesty’ [Useless Protests], ŽZ, November 25, 1918 / 16 –17, p. 12.

121

The JNC executives repeatedly stressed that they represented only thoseindividuals, who identified nationally as Jewish. However, the JNC soon becamethe main partner of the Czechoslovak political leaders in matters involving theJewish population as such, probably because the JNC was the only Jewishorganization capable of acting within the new political climate.64) The stateauthorities dealt directly with the representatives of Jewish pre-war provincialorganizations only in matters regarding religious issues, which needed to beresolved by Jewish congregations.

The first Czechoslovak government’s positive attitude towards the JNCmembers was the result of a clever diplomatic move, which Ludvík Singer latergot the credit for. Only a few hours before proclaiming the new state, the membersof the Czechoslovak National Committee (Národní výbor) received a JNCdelegation; the JNC presented its demands and, at the same time, expressed itspositive attitude towards the emerging state. In a memorandum submitted to theNational Committee, Ludvík Singer, Karel Fischel and Max Brod reiterated themain demands of the Jewish nationalists, namely recognition of a Jewishnationality and the right for Jews to identify as such, equal rights for the state’sJewish citizens, minority rights in the field of education, and, last but not least, thedemocratization and unification of the Jewish communities.65)

The demands of the JNC were reflected in the official interpretation of section128 of the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920. It reads as follows:

“The Constitution does not enumerate national minorities as this wouldnecessitate resolving certain issues problematic from the scientific point ofview. The term ‘nation’ itself has not yet been exactly scientifically defined.(...). Disputable is among others the question whether the Jewish people forma nation. The Czechoslovak Constitution, adopting the phrase ‘irrespective ofrace, language or religion’ (race, langage ou religion) allows every individualto determine where he or she detects the attribute of nationality and to decideaccordingly of their free will. If a person considers the Jews to be a distinctnation, he or she has the right to claim Jewish nationality irrespective of beingnon-denominational or of Czech or German mother tongue etc. On suchgrounds, the Jews are not required to declare themselves in census, elections,etc., as members of an ethnic minority other than Jewish.”66)

Whereas for the members of other ethnic groups, their nationality was basedon their mother tongue, Jews were allowed to opt for Jewish nationalityirrespective of language and religious persuasion. In the 1921 census, 239 persons

64) Similar situation was in Vienna, see David Rechter: The Jews of Vienna and the First World War, p. 12.65) The full text of the memorandum was published in the ŽZ on November 7, 1918 / 14–15, pp. 3–6.66) National Assembly (Czechoslovak Parliament) Session 1920. Print No. 2421. Report by theConstitutional Committee on the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic adopted by theConstitutional Committee pursuant to Sections 14 and 7 of the Standing Rules. Protection ofMinorities. See www.psp.cz/cgi-bin.

122

belonging to denominations other than Jewish claimed Jewish nationality, and inthe 1931 census, the number was 352. The option to claim Jewish nationalitywithout preconditions was unique in contemporary Europe. Unfortunately, I donot have the space here to analyse the reasons why the Czechoslovak Parliamentdecided to adopt the above-mentioned interpretation of the constitution.

After the establishment of the Czechoslovak state, the Jewish nationalmovement found itself in an entirely new position, especially after Zionistactivists within the JNC assumed the authority over the nationally-conscious Jewsin Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. The needs of the Jewish population inthe eastern parts of the Czechoslovak Republic differed greatly from those in theCzech Lands. For the Czechoslovak Zionist leadership, it was very difficult toreconcile the needs of Jews from Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia and Eastern Slovakiawith Zionist demands in the Czech Lands. In 1929, Walter Kohner wrote in theSelbstwehr:

“As it stands now, it is impossible to formulate a future program that wouldsatisfy the cultural, economic, and linguistic demands of the Jewish peopleboth in the East and in the West.”67)

An example of the problems that the JNC faced in coordinating their policiesfor these very different regions was the issue of establishing a national Jewishschool system. In the Czech Lands, the Zionists’ efforts to create Jewish schoolswere criticized by the Czech-Jewish movement as an attempt to create barriersbetween Jews and non-Jews. In Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, where the Zionistsmanaged to establish a Hebrew academic high school in Mukachevo (Mukačevo/ Munkács) with Hebrew as the language of instruction, they were met with fierceopposition by the the Rebe of Mukachevo. Together with other Hasidic Jews, herejected the secular nationalist schools, and scolded the Zionists for theirlukewarm relation to religion and for using the Hebrew instead of Yiddish.68)

One of the main tasks of the JNC was to convince the Slovak and Sub-Carpathian Jews to opt for Jewish nationality in the census and toacknowledge the JNC as their representative. In September 1919, Max Brodasked President Masaryk to arrange for Brod’s leave of absence from theCzechoslovak Post Administration in order for him to campaign for the Jewishnational movement in Slovakia. Masaryk, who later contributed greatly to thestate’s recognition of the Jewish nationality, immediately granted Brod’s wishand invited him to a special audience.69) In December 1919, the JNC also sent

67) Walter Kohner: ‘Zur Diskussion über Landespolitik’, Selbstwehr, February 22, 1929.68) On the negative relations between the Mukachevo Hasidim and the Hebrew academic highschool, see e.g.: Aryeh Sole: ‘Modern Hebrew Education’, in: ‘Subcarpathian Ruthenia’, in: TheJews in Czechoslovakia, Vol. II, p. 411.69) Koloman Gajan: ‘Masaryk a Max Brod’ [Masaryk and Max Brod], Židovská ročenka, 5761 /2000–2001, pp. 37–38.

123

Markus Ungar, who was an orthodox Jew, to Slovakia to win support forJewish nationalism among the province’s orthodox communties.70)

It is surprising, how positively Zionism was perceived by the Czechintelligentsia and some of leading politicians. Undoubtedly, the authority of thePresident played an important role in this. All the same, it would be a fallacy tooverestimate Masaryk’s influence. There were others, who were supportive of theJewish national movement such as the philosophers Emanuel Rádl and FrantišekKrejčí. Krejčí also supported the recognition of the Jewish nationality as amember of the Czechoslovak parliament. The support for Jewish nationalismextended by Czech society became clear already at the first ‘Jewish NationalConvention in the Czechoslovak State’ that took place in early January 1919.Among the visitors of the Convention Jaroslav Kvapil (as a representative of theUnion of Czech Writers – Svaz českých spisovatelů), the writer FrantišekSekanina and František Kadeřávek, professor at the Czech Technical University.Politicians from various political parties were also present at the convention. TheSocial Democrats were represented by their member of Parliament Kouša, theCzech Socialist Party by Josef Kopecký and the Czech Constitutional DemocraticParty by Václav Němec. The Nestor of Czech literature Alois Jirásek sent agreeting to the convention in which he respectfully recognized the efforts of theJewish nationalists.71)

Such appreciation of the endeavour of the Jewish nationalists was unique inEurope at the time. In ethnically homogenous countries like France and Germany,the ‘integrationists’ held a very strong position, which was maintained both withinthe Jewish community and in the relations with the political elite. In Poland orRomania, most non-Jews did not deny the fact that the Jews formed a distinctnation, but in these countries such statements often had anti-Semitic connotations,and one does not find the unique cultural interconnectedness of Jewish nationalistswith writers, artists and intellectuals of the mainstream society, which wascharacteristic for the Czech Lands.

One of the most important reasons for Czech society’s positive reception ofZionism was that the Czech Zionists introduced a very moderate nationalprogram. This was not surprising as they did not face militant anti-Semitism nordid they have to defend and accommodate an overtly religious lifestyle withintheir political program. Basically, their main concern was the possibility ofchoosing Jewish nationality, and to receive state support for Jewish cultural andeducational institutions as an officially acknowledged ethnic minority. Bycomparison, the Polish Zionists demanded proportional representation of Jewishdeputies in the Polish Parliament, and the establishment of an officialrepresentative of the Polish Jewish National Council with whom the Polish

70) Marsha L. Rozenblit: Reconstructing a National Identity. The Jews of Habsburg Austria duringWorld War I, Oxford 2001, p. 145.71) ‘První národní sjezd židovský ve státě československém’ [The First Jewish National Conventionin the Czechoslovak State], ŽZ, January 9, 1919 / 22–23, p. 3.

124

government should consult, when dealing with matters concerning the Jewishpopulation.72) While the moderate demands of the Czech Zionists were acceptedby the Czech political representation without difficulties, the negotiations betweenthe Polish government and the local JNC collapsed, an outcome symptomatic ofthe relation between the political elite and the Jews in these countries.

Furthermore, the intensifying conflict between the Czechs and the Germansmade the Czech politicians more open to the Jewish national demands. Thisethnically tense atmosphere also made it convenient for some Jews to opt out ofthe conflict between Czechs and Germans by identifying nationally as Jewish. Inhis memoirs, Kurt Blumenfeld admitted that the conditions in Prague and inmultiethnic Vienna before the war had been inspiring for him as a Zionist:

“The political culture of Vienna and Prague was more instructive than anythingI could explore anywhere else. In this tangle of nations, the Jews were forcedto seriously think about their situation if they wished to avoid cultural andpolitical vagueness.”73)

In 1897 at the time of the controversies surrounding Badeni’s linguisticregulations, Theodor Herzl argued that the most obvious Jewish position in theethnic strife between the Czechs and the Germans was Zionism, a national Jewishplatform.74)

The fact that the ethnically tense environment became fertile ground for Jewishnationalism is shown by a very interesting study about Prague’s Jewry written byKarl Baum. Based on the census of 1921, Baum found a direct relation betweenthe length of an individual’s stay in Prague and their propensity toward Jewishnationalism. In 1921, approximately 70% of Prague’s Jewish residents originatedfrom small towns and villages. Baum argued that the longer these individualslived in Prague, the greater the possibility of them becoming Jewish nationalists.75)

In the Czech context, Zionism with its emphasis on the revival of the Hebrewlanguage, Jewish traditions and education was often compared to the Czechnational revival, a comparison made by both Jews and non-Jews.76) For Czechintellectuals, including Masaryk, the Zionist movement in Bohemia wasacceptable particularly because of its emphasis on cultural renewal.

72) Ezra Mendelssohn: The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars, pp. 34–35.73) Kurt Blumenfeld: Erlebte Judenfrage. Ein Vierteljahrhundert deutscher Zionismus, Stuttgart1962, pp. 85–86.74) Theodor Herzl: ‘Die Jagd in Böhmen’, Die Welt, November 5, 1897.75) Karl Baum: ‘Das jüdische Prag der Gegenwart in Zahlen’, in: Monatschrift für Geschichte undWissenschaft des Judentums, 1929 / 73, pp. 358–359.76) Cf. e.g. Emanuel Rádl’s lecture for the “Liga pro pracující Palestinu” [League for the WorkingPalestine] (the correct name is “Liga pro pracující Erec Israel” [League for the Working EretzIsrael]), SÚA, PP, 1921–1930, 28 / 4, k. 907, 9.4.1930; Přemysl Pitter’s lecture for the same league,SÚA, PP, 1921–1930, 28 / 4, k. 907, 11.2.1930; or Arne Novák’s article: ‘Český národ a sionismus’[The Czech Nation and Zionism], in: Sionismus. Idea a skutečnost [Zionism. Idea and Reality],Prague 1926, p. 123.

125

This brings us to my next point. One of the reasons for the positive receptionof Jewish nationalism among the Czech intellectuals was that many Zionists hadclose contacts with Czech and German writers and artists. This was another of thespecific characteristics of the Czech Jewish community. Due to the secularisedcharacter of especially Bohemian society, the works by Jewish writers, oftenJewish nationalists, became an integral part of Czech and German literaturewritten in Bohemia and Moravia. If we look at the famous Prague Circle, MaxBrod, Oskar Baum and Felix Weltsch were active Zionists and Kafka alsosupported the Zionist cause. Especially Max Brod as a JNC member could, afterWorld War I, use his pre-war contacts in the Czech literary and artistic circles.

This also applies to the founder and long-standing chief editor of Židovskézprávy, Emil Waldstein. He was well known in the Czech literary milieu, and wasa frequent guest at the literary meetings, which were held in the home of theCzech author Gabriela Preisová. Waldstein had his own chair at the table reservedfor regulars at the Café Union – the Mecca for Czech writers and artists. After heleft Židovské zprávy, he wrote for the Czech daily newspaper Lidové noviny inUzhgorod (Užhorod / Ungvár) in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia.77)

And we must not forget Viktor Fischl, editor of Židovské zprávy in the late1930’s. Shortly before World War II, Fischl published his first collections ofpoems praised by a number of prominent Czech literary critics. Also KarelFleischmann, a member of Theodor Herzl, worked closely with the Czech writersand artists. In the Czech Lands, active participation in the Jewish nationalmovement did not exclude close connections with Czech and German culture.

On the other hand, the Jewish national movement also had its political andstatewide dimension. The Czech Zionists assumed the authority over the Jews inSlovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. To those Jews, the Czech-Jewish conceptof integration made no sense. For the Zionist leaders of the JNC and later of theJewish Party, the incorporation of the eastern areas into in the unifiedCzechoslovak state was advantageous to their political cause even though the Sub-Carpathian and Slovak traditional Jews used every opportunity to thwart theactivities of the Zionist Jewish Party. However, it was mainly due to the nationallyconscious Jewish communities of Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia that therepresentatives of the Jewish Party could maintain that they represented most Jewsin Czechoslovakia, namely those, who had opted for the Jewish nationality in thecensus of 1921.78)

The support of a large portion of Moravian Jewry also contributed to thesuccess of the Zionist movement in the Czech Lands. In order to consolidate itsauthority, the post-war JNC needed to obtain the maximum possible support fromthe Jewish religious communities and various Jewish organizations. In Moravia,this strategy succeeded quickly thanks to the already mentioned demographic

77) Otta Kraus: ‘Emil Waldstein zum Gedenken’, BKZ, Januar 1960, p. 3.78) At the 1921 census, 53.67 per cent of the citizens of Jewish faith indicated Jewish nationality, in1930, it was even 57.30 per cent.

126

situation. In a short space of time, the Union of Jewish Religious Communities inMoravia (Svaz židovských náboženských obcí na Moravě) and the RegionalZionist Union in Moravia (Sionistický svaz obvodový na Moravě) submitted toJNC authority.79) A letter from Moravia published in Židovské Zprávy reported thateven the synagogues, “where until now only prayers were heard,” opened theirdoors to Zionism, and went on to describe the positive attitude towards Zionismin Kroměříž (Kremsier), Přerov (Prerau), Olomouc (Olmütz), Holešov(Holleschau), and Uherský Brod (Ungarisch-Brod).80) On March 22–23, 1919 at aconvention in Brno (Brünn), the Jewish National Council for the Land of Moravia(Zemská národní židovská rada) was established, which soon submitted fully tothe authority of the JNC leadership in Prague.

One of the demands of the Moravian Zionists was the transformation of Jewishreligious congregations into nationally-based communities. This demand waslater incorporated into the program of the JNC in Prague. However, in Bohemia ithad no chance of succeeding. In Moravia, on the contrary, in some largercommunities like Prostějov (Prossnitz) or Uherské Hradiště (UngarischHradisch), the vast majority of Jews claimed Jewish nationality. A reportsubmitted by the Presidium of the Office of the Moravian Land Governor in Brnoto the Ministry of the Interior in Prague contains the following information aboutthe Jewish national movement in Moravia:

“The Jewish national movement is rapidly spreading in Moravia since the Jewswho, before the creation of Czechoslovakia, with the exception of a smallfraction, had mostly declared themselves German, consider it the safest way toregulate their relationship with the Czechoslovak nation. The Jews in Prostějov(Prossnitz) are mostly attached to the Jewish national movement; the sameapplies to Uherské Hradiště (Ungarisch Hradisch), Jihlava (Iglau) (80%) aswell Olomouc (Olmütz). In the latest census, 5470 out of 8400 Brno (Brünn)Jews indicated Jewish nationality; in Olomouc (Olmütz) it was 1012 out of1800 Jews. The leaders of the Jewish national movement in Moravia arecertain to attract all Jews except for a small fraction that will eventuallyassimilate to the Czechs or Germans. In Bohemia, the conditions are lessfavourable for the Jewish national movement, where its supporters can onlyhope to organize 50% of the Jews. The reason for this is the Czech-Jewishassimilation movement that has been active in Bohemia for many years.”81)

Such predictions proved to be considerably over-inflated. During the censusconducted in Moravia, about half of the persons of Jewish faith indicated Jewishnationality.82) In Bohemia, it was 15% in 1921 and 20% in 1930.

79) ‘Národní rada židovská’ [National Jewish Council], ŽZ, December 4, 1918 / 18, p. 11.80) ‘Dopis z Moravy’ [Letter from Moravia], ŽZ, November 25, 1918 / 16–17, pp. 8–9.81) SÚA, MV pres., 225-164-18, IV/P/149.82) In 1921, it was 48.74 per cent, and in 1930 51.67 per cent.

127

We, the Orthodox are with you!

Leading orthodox authorities’ support for Zionism was another aspect of theparticular conditions for Jewish nationalism in the Czech Lands. As mentionedearlier, orthodox Jews made up a small fraction of Bohemian Jewry. After WorldWar I, Orthodox Judaism in Prague did get some reinforcement as Jews from Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia moved to the city, but these immigrants never constituted asubstantial portion of Prague’s Jewish population. In Bohemia, unlike Moravia,even the leaders of the Jewish religious communities were religiously indifferentand first and foremost supporters of integration into Czech or German society.

Even Prague’s Jewish community, the traditional administrator of theconservative synagogues in the downtown area, had no significant proportion oforthodox Jews. In the period between the wars, orthodox Jews only managed tohold two to four seat out of thirty-two in the community’s Presidium, whereorthodox representatives had to listen to repeated complaints made by liberal Jewsabout the high costs subsidizing kosher food and ritual slaughterers.

Charitable organizations aside, the only organization uniting orthodox Jews inBohemia was Sinai (Association for the Support of Conservative Judaism inBohemia), whose objective was to ‘maintain and support the interests of thetraditional Jews in Prague’. Sinai’s leadership was made up by people like theChief Rabbi Heinrich Brody, professor Eugen Lieben, Rudolf Stránský, professorSalomon Ehrenfeld, and Markus Ungar. Its long-serving president was IsidorJeiteles.83) It is important to point out, that despite the term ‘conservative’ in itstitle, the Sinai Association did not follow Zacharias Frankel’s movement. Theterm had the meaning of ‘orthodox’ (see the quotation of Lieben later in the text).

It is puzzling that Sinai was one of the first Jewish organizations toacknowledge the JNC as its representative.84) The attitude of orthodox Jewry waspeculiar if we compare the situation in Bohemia and Moravia with that in Slovakiaor Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, where the main opponents of Zionism were theorthodox communities. Agudas Israel, the main political organization of non-Zionist orthodox Jews, which battled Zionism in the Eastern parts ofCzechoslovakia as well as in the neighbouring countries, was never active in theCzech Lands. In Poland, this organization had enough support among thecountry’s Jews that it could negotiate with the Polish government single-handedly.85)

The situation in Bohemia was different from the rest of the country, becausethe orthodox Jews here were not in a position to conduct independent politics andhad to form an alliance with a stronger political partner. In Bohemia, the mostacceptable choice to orthodox Jews was Zionism. After all, even though mostZionists were not particularly active members of the religious communities, they

83) AMP, SK I / 48. 84) ‘Národní rada židovská’ [National Jewish Council], ŽZ, December 4, 1918 / 18, p. 11.85) Ezra Mendelssohn: The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars, p. 55.

128

did not reject Judaism, and did encourage maintaining religious customs,particularly ones they regarded as national traditions. In contrast, many Czech-Jewish activists rejected Judaism as a meaningless relic of the past.

However, even though orthodox Jewry viewed their alliance with Zionism asan opportunity to retain a position within the Jewish political community this didnot entail a change in their program. As Salomon Lieben emphasized at thenational convention held in Prague in January 1919, a political alliance did notchange his position “that only orthodox Judaism represents the true Jewishspirit.”86)

There were other reasons as well for the good relations between orthodox Jewsand Zionists. The chief rabbi of the Czech Lands, Heinrich Brody was a ferventJewish nationalist. Brody was born in Uzhgorod and studied at yeshivahs anduniversities in Bratislava (formerly Prešpurk / Pressburg / Pozsony), Berlin, andOxford. His studies were not limited to religious literature only. Brody’s vastbibliography shows that he was widely recognized as a specialist in medievalHebrew literature. After several years of professional activity in Náchod, heaccepted the position as principal of the Talmud-Thora-Schule in Prague. InPrague, he married the daughter of the chief provincial rabbi Ehrenfeld, whom hereplaced in this position in 1912. Brody retired from his rabbinical position in1930, and decided to continue his career in publishing with Schocken Books(Schocken-Verlag) in Berlin and later in Jerusalem.87)

Brody published a brochure entitled Widerspricht der Zionismus unsererReligion? [Does Zionism Contradict our Religion?] as early as 1899. Its objectivewas to convince orthodox Jews that it was important to support the Zionistmovement. In Brody’s opinion, Zionism was helping to renew Jewish traditionsand was searching for effective means to improve the living conditions of destituteJews around the world. The background for the second edition of this brochurepublished in 1909 was the outcome of a conference of orthodox German Jewry inMarburg, where the delegates decided to condemn Zionism as a movementirreconcilable with Judaism. Using traditional Jewish texts such as the Prophetsand rabbinical literature, Brody attempted to convince his readers that Zionismindeed did deserve support from orthodox Jews.88) Later Brody became aninfluential member of Mizrachi, and in 1927, he was the organization’s maincandidate in the elections to the Fifteenth Zionist Congress.89)

Gustav Sicher was another rabbi, who supported Zionism publicly. LikeBrody, Sicher had begun his career in the important Jewish community in Náchod.In 1928, he became the Rabbi of the Vinohrady Synagogue in Prague. Sicher waspopular for his sermons, and he also had very close contacts with a number of

86) ‘První národní sjezd židovský ve státě československém’ [The First Jewish National Conventionin the Czechoslovak State], ŽZ, January 9, 1919 / 22–23, p. 4.87) Tobiáš Jakobovits: ‘Vrchní rabín Dr. Jindřich Brody’ [The Chief Rabbi Dr. Jindřich (Heinrich)Brody’], Věstník ŽNO, May 28, 1938 / 7, pp. 72–74.88) Dr. Heinrich Brody: Widerspricht der Zionismus unserer Religion?, Leipzig 1909.89) Hauptwahlkommission für den XV. Zionistenkongress, CZA, Z 4 / 3564.

129

prominent non-Jewish individuals. In Vinohrady, he maintained warm relationswith the Archdean of St. Ludmilla Church Monsignor Antonín Hoffmann.90) Sicheralso participated in the Czechoslovak State Radio broadcasts as a representativeof the Jewish community in the Czech lands. A role he filled for Chief RabbiHeinrich Brody, who was not fluent in Czech.

Like Brody, Sicher was a member of Mizrachi, and was a candidate for theUnited Jewish Parties (Sdružené strany židovské)91) in the 1920 Parliamentelection. He was a member of the Presidium of the Union of Rabbis in Bohemia(Svaz rabínů v Čechách) and the cultural association Afikei Yehudah. In 1939, heemigrated to Palestine, where he established a synagogue for Czechoslovak Jews.After the war, he was offered the position as Czech chief rabbi by the JewishReligious Community in Prague, which he accepted hesitatingly. He served in thisposition from 1947 until his death in 1960.

The basic currents of Zionism in the Czech Lands

After 1918, the increasing number of Zionists and the new political tasks thatemerged also created problems for the Zionist activists. The post-war challengesgradually divided the Czech Zionist movement into various factions. However inspite of the organizational disintegration of the Zionist movement, it is, in myopinion, possible to describe its basic features.

In Bohemia, there was an essential difference between Zionism in the German-speaking border areas and Zionism in the Czech-speaking heartland. In theGerman-dominated border areas, it took longer before a more substantial numberof Jews joined Zionist organizations as many middle-class Jews living in themostly German-speaking environment were apprehensive of separating in anyway from their non-Jewish German neighbours. In the Czech heartland, Jewsoriginating in a Czech-dominated or bilingual milieu embraced Zionism earlier.The ethnic conflict between Czechs and Germans often worked as a catalyst forJews, who until then ignored the question of national identity or were convincedthat it was possible to assimilate to the Czech or German nation. As mentionedearlier, Bar Kochba was created by Jews from the Czech-speaking environment,who were only gradually followed by Jews from the German milieu.

However, after the creation of the First Czechoslovak Republic, the situationchanged. More Jews from the German-speaking border areas opted for a Jewishnationality and joined Zionist organizations as a reaction to growing Germannationalism and anti-Semitism. In the Czech heartland this process was reversed.A new generation of Jews did not feel the need to join Zionist groups, andnaturally integrated into the Czech community. The number of Zionists in theCzech heartland did not decrease, but it did not grow as rapidly as in the German-dominated areas of Czechoslovakia.

90) Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (“CAHJP”), Dr. Gustav Sicher, P 209 / 5.91) The name of the Jewish party was altered only for the duration of this election.

130

There were other differences than growth rates between the Zionist movementin the border areas and that of the centre. The latter stood for a ‘synthetic’moderate leftist Zionism, while the German Jews from the border areas supportedthe strictly political Zionism of Emil Margulies, the most significant Zionistactivist in this area. Members or alumni of Bar Kochba and Theodor Herzl, whocontinued to shape the character of Czech Zionism throughout the interwarperiod, dominated the former. Some had become prominent activist in the worldZionist movement such Hugo Bergmann, the President of the Hebrew University,Robert Weltsch, the editor in chief of the Jüdische Rundschau, SiegmundKaznelson, managing director of the publishing house Jüdischer Verlag, and LeoHerrmann, who was the Secretary General of the world-wide Keren Hayesodorganization.92) The Czech Zionists maintained close contacts with the leadershipof the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in London and the Jewish elite inPalestine thanks to Leo Herrmann and Hugo Bergmann.

In the Czech lands, the members of Bar Kochba and Theodor Herzl controlledthe main Zionist periodicals. Felix Weltsch remained the chief editor ofSelbstwehr during the entire interwar period, and Emil Waldstein, FrantišekFriedmann, and Zdeněk Landes, all members of Theodor Herzl were in charge ofŽidovské zprávy. Theodor Herzl also published the popular Jewish Calender(Židovský kalendář), which was edited by Emil Waldstein, Zdeněk Landes andtwo of the best-known Czech Zionist writers František Gottlieb and Viktor Fischl.The Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael – KKL) published theJewish Almanac (Jüdischer Almanach), which was edited by Friedrich Thiebergerand Felix Weltsch, and was a German-language counterpart to the Czech JewishCalendar (Česko-židovský kalendář).

Furthermore, a number of former ‘Bar-Kochbans’ and ‘Herzlians’ becameimportant members of the Zionist organization and the Jewish Party. ArthurBergman was appointed chairman of the Zionist Fund Keren Hayesod inCzechoslovakia.93) Ludvík Singer, initially chairman of Theodor Herzl was thechairman of the JNC and later member of Parliament for the Jewish Party. A laterM.P. for the Jewish Party in the Czech Lands after Singer’s death was another‘Herzlian’, Angelo Goldstein. Hugo Herrmann and Franz Kahn were responsiblefor the organization of the World Zionist Congresses, which were held inCzechoslovakia several times in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Kahn was also a memberof the Central Committee of the Zionist Organization in Czechoslovakia (Ústřednívýbor sionistické organizace v Československu).94)

Emil Margulies was an antipode to the moderate leftwing Zionists aroundSelbstwehr, Židovské zprávy, and the Central Committee of the ZionistOrganization in Czechoslovakia. He contributed greatly to the creation of a

92) Leo Herrmann later published a survey of the Fund’s activities in the first five years of itsexistence under the title The First Five Years, Johannesburg, year not given.93) ‘Arthur Bergmann’ obituary’, BKZ, November 13, 1958, p. 4.94) Regarding the key role played by Kahn after the occupation of the Czech Lands by the Nazisand later in Terezín (Theresienstadt) see Ruth Bondyová: Jakob Edelstein, Praha 2001.

131

network of Zionist clubs in the German-speaking border areas, above all in thenorthern and western regions of Czechoslovakia. In the early years of the newstate, Margulies’ position was strong, because of the relatively fast growingnumber of Zionists in the cities and towns in the border areas, where a largepercentage of the Jewish population was concentrated. During the 1920’s,Margulies’ opposition to Chaim Weizmann’s politics in the WZO increased, andthe ideological differences between him and the other Zionist representatives fromthe Czech Lands became more pronounced. Margulies was the Chairman of theJewish Party from 1931 to 1935, when he resigned due to the decision of theexecutive of the Jewish Party to cooperate with the Social Democrats in that year’selections, a move which led to his definitive isolation in Northern Bohemia.Furthermore, as I will discuss in the section on the youth movement, Margulies’emphasis on self-confident Jewish minority policies and his overall rightwingorientation were not particularly attractive to the young generation of Jews in theSudeten region, who were more interested in Zionism as a revitalizing culturalprocess, which would prepare some young Jews for emigration to Palestine.

Moderate socialists

If Bar Kochba and Theodor Herzl focused on the philosophical foundations ofZionism prior to World War I, the post-war period was a time of attempts toimplement the Zionist program.96) As early as 1918, several articles appeared in theZionist press critical of the abstract and detached character of Czech Zionism. Oneof the main players in pre-war Bar Kochba, Hugo Bergmann expressed thesefeelings in one of his articles as follows:

“We were unable to transform our ideas into a force influencing real life, andconsequently our entire movement withdrew from life into lifelessness. Is it acoincidence that Zionism was a student movement and for the most partremained just that? Only a student, who does not have any real-life interests,nothing prosaic, a person in limbo, who may drink from all cups like a blitheguest, may fully merge with a movement to which everyday existence remainscompletely foreign. However, after the student became an ‘old gentleman’ – aphysician, a lawyer or an executive – he forgot all about Zionism and his lifedid not differ from that of other Jews.”97)

Bergmann was also critical of the pre-war idealization of East EuropeanJewish culture:

95) Robert Weltsch: ‘Looking Back Over Sixty Years’, Leo Baeck Yearbook, 1982 / XXVII, p. 382.96) In his History of Bar Kochba, Viktor Freud distinguished a romantic phase – from Buber’slectures until World War I, and a realistic phase – beginning at the end of World War I. See ViktorFreud: manuscript of Bar Kochba’s history, untitled, BKZ, Chanukah 1954, pp. 1–17.97) Hugo Bergmann: ‘Židovský nacionalism po válce’ [The Jewish Nationalism after the War], ŽZ,12, pp. 6–7.

132

“For some time we assumed that true Judaism was that of the East EuropeanJews; the East European Jewish poets were translated, ‘new-Jewish evenings’were organized – very useful work, which however did not suffice to give usmore Jewishness. Life can only spring from within; it cannot be conjuredoutside and transplanted to the inside. The West European Jew living in acompletely different environment cannot perceive the East European Jewishculture as his own.”98)

However, what should the new program of post-war Zionism look like?Bergmann suggested:

“For the nationally conscious Jew, ‘more Jewishness’ can only mean ‘higherhumanity’, and any formal Judaism is relevant to him only if it fosters thishigher humanity.”99)

What this ‘higher humanity’ meant for the former members of Bar Kochba isreflected in other writings by Bergmann, and from the work and activities of FelixWeltsch, Max Brod, Oskar Baum and their mentor Martin Buber. After the war,these leading Zionist intellectuals were attracted to Socialism and wereincreasingly concerned with basic social problems among Jews

In November 1918, Bergmann described the objective of the new Zionistprogram as follows: “We have to work, even with the utmost personal sacrifice,towards fulfilling every fair demand of the working masses.” In practice thismeant working towards establishing a democratic voting system in the Jewishcommunities, and organizing the Jewish working class; work in which the JewishSocialist in Poale Zion were already involved. Bergmann also encouraged Jewishentrepreneurs to show solidarity with Jewish and non-Jewish workers alike by notfiring workers in the critical post-war months and refrain from reducing theirwages: “The Jewish entrepreneur must always belong to the left wing ofcapitalism and be ready to bargain with the workers.”100)

In 1917, Max Brod published a brochure entitled ‘Die dritte Phase desZionismus’ [The Third Phase of Zionism]. This new stage of Zionism which,according to Brod, had begun shortly before the end of the War, should focus onsocial and cultural work for the Jewish masses in the Diaspora such as generaleducation, youth activities, vocational training, and instruction in matters of healthand sex.101) Later in Sozialismus im Zionismus [Socialism within Zionism]published in 1920, Max Brod discussed the importance of the national characterof the Socialist movements, and described Hapoel Hatzair as a model for this type

98) Hugo Bergmann: ‘Židovský nacionalism po válce’, ŽZ, 13, p. 4.99) Ibid.100) Hugo Bergmann: ‘Židé a sociální převrat v novém státě’ [The Jews and the Social Revolutionin the New State], ŽZ, November 25, 1918 / 16–17, pp. 1–2.101) Max Brod: Die dritte Phase des Zionismus, Berlin 1917.

133

of organization. Only a workers’ movement attuned to the specific requirementsof a particular nation and anchored in its national culture is capable of fullintegration in the inter-national labour movement.102)

Oskar Baum, better known as a novelist than a political activist, discussed theissue of marriage and the conditions of women. In a letter to Bergmann of June1919, Baum argued that married women should be able to continue working intheir profession, while children were cared for in smaller groups. The organizationof household should not depend exclusively on women. Baum considered thesolution of this problem the only way in “which our sick social establishment canbe revitalized.”103)

Poale Zion and Hapoel Hatzair

It is probably Max Brod, who deserves credit for the participation ofrepresentatives of the Jewish Socialist movement in the JNC leadership afterWorld War I. There were five members of Poale Zion including their chairmanRudolf Kohn, in the eleven-member presidium of the JNC. Soon, however, theideological differences between the Poale Zion members and the official Zionistleadership surfaced. For the Socialists, who were members of the SocialistInternational, the class struggle was after all more important than Zionism, andthey believed that their collaboration with the ‘bourgeois Zionists’ from the JNCdiscredited their class consciousness in the eyes of Czech and Germansocialists.104)

During 1919, the Jewish Socialist movement gained increasing support, whichis reflected both in reports published in Židovský socialista [The Jewish Socialist],the official organ of the Jewish Social Democratic Workers’ Party Poale Zion inthe Czechoslovak Republic, and in 1326 votes which the party obtained in thecommunal elections in Greater Prague that same year.105)

In 1920, however, Poale Zion collapsed as a political force in Czechoslovakiadue to internal strife about whether or not to accept the conditions of theCommunist Third International. In July 1920 at the World Congress of Poale Zionin Vienna, half of the delegates decided to accept membership in the ThirdInternational, while the other half abstained from voting.106) In Bohemia, themajority of Poale Zion’s leading members choose the Communist wing. In May1921, and Rudolf Kohn and Arthur Polak from the Prague leadership as well as

102) Max Brod: Sozialismus im Zionismus, Wien – Berlin 1920, p. 73.103) Oskar Baum’s letter to Hugo Bergmann of June 31, 1919, Hugo Bergmann Archives, NLJ, Arc.4° 1502 / 592.104) Karel Fischl: ‘Židovská Národní Rada’ [Jewish National Council], Židovský socialista, July 20,1919 / 4, p. 1.105) P-K.: ‘Kapitola povolební’ [The Post-Election Chapter], Židovský socialista, July 5, 1919 / 3, p. 1.106) Only one delegate voted against it. Oskar K. Rabinowicz: ‘Czechoslovak Zionism. Analecta toa History’, in: The Jews of Czechoslovakia. Historical Studies and Surveys, Vol. II, Philadelphia –New York 1971, p. 80.

134

Felix Loria from Brno decided to leave the Zionist platform altogether to becomeactive communists.107) Kohn’s defection to the Communist Party also ended theperiodical Židovský socialista as he was its chief editor. Earlier, Kohn had beencriticized by editor of the Brno-based Der jüdische Sozialist [The JewishSocialist] Arnošt Frischer for his lax approach to Zionist issues.108) All the same,Frischer’s critique did not prevent the decline of the Poale Zion movement in theCzech Lands.

In the following years, Poale Zion practically ceased to exist in Czecho-slovakia. Not until January 1928, at a meeting in Olomouc did Moravian delegatesfrom Brno (Brünn) Olomouc (Olmütz), and Prostějov (Prossnitz) re-establish theparty. However, until 1937, Poale Zion refused to cooperate with the CentralCommittee of the Zionist Organization (Ústřední výbor sionistické organizace).The most active members of Poale Zion’s leadership were Jakub Reiss and JacobEdelstein. The latter became the head of the Jewish self-government in Terezín(Theresienstadt) during the Second World War.109)

In the Czech Lands, the number of Jewish workers was quite small, and thiscontributed to the weakness of the Jewish Socialist movement here. Furthermorein this area, the needs of the Jewish workers did not differ significantly from thoseof the non-Jewish working class due to the socio-cultural integration of Jews andnon-Jews characteristic for the western parts of Czechoslovakia. In one of hislectures, Jakub Reiss summarized the situation as follows:

“As far as our country is concerned, an independent political platform forJewish workers does not have much appeal. There is no need for such policiesin Bohemia and Moravia. In Slovakia, and above all in Sub-Carpathian Russia,the issues of the Jewish working class may be more acute, since theseprovinces have a much higher percentage of Jewish population than Bohemia,Moravia, and Silesia.”110)

***Hapoel Hatzair was another left-wing movement active in Czechoslovakia. It

was supported by a number of prominent Zionists including members of pre-warBar Kochba, and was much more successful than Poale Zion. Hapoel Hatzair wasfounded in Palestine in 1905. Its branches in the Diaspora were either calledHapoel Hatzair as in Czechoslovakia or, as in most of Eastern Europe, TzeireiZion. The movement emphasized personal transformation of each individual in

107) Kohn even held several top positions in the Czechoslovak Communist Party and Loria wasamong Dimitrov’s counsels during the Leipzig process following the arson attack against the BerlinReichstag in February 1933. Ibid., pp. 81, 121.108) Rudolf Kohn: ‘Kdo ohrožuje jednotnost palestýnské práce?’ [Wo Endangers the Unity of thePalestinian Effort?], Židovský socialista [Jewish Socialist], December 5, 1919 / 11, p. 1.109) Ruth Bondyová: Jakob Edelstein, p. 46.110) SÚA, PP, 1921–1930, 28 / 4, k. 907, Jakub Reiss’ lecture for the Svaz židovských řemeslníků vČSR [Union of Jewish Craftspeople in the Czechoslovak Republic], February 4, 1930.

135

preparation for life as a worker in Palestine. Hugo Bergmann, Max Brod, OskarEpstein, and Alex Feig established the Prague branch in 1920. Max Brod laterhelped to create a branch in Brno (Brünn).111)

Hapoel Hatzair was first and foremost influenced by the ideas of AharonDavid Gordon, whom Czech Zionists had discovered before World War I.Gordon’s teachings was in some ways similar to that of Achad Haam in that theywere both opposed to a purely political program typical of Theodor Herzl orMarxists like Ber Borokhov. Borokhov, founder of Poale Zion, believed thatjustice and social harmony could only be reached through revolution and theremoval of old social structures. Gordon’s program was positive in the same waythat Achad Haam’s was. Gordon understood each individual as a social unit, who,with the help of his or her family, is able to contribute to the regeneration of thenational community.112) Why plan world revolutions, when every individual couldstart with him or herself?

One of the significant differences between Hapoel Hatzair and Poale Zion wastheir attitude towards the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Hapoel Hatzair was a‘Palestino-centric’ movement closely linked with the life of the Yishuv, and therewere close connections between members of Hapoel Hatzair and other Zionistorganizations. Poale Zion, on the other hand, maintained contacts with groupsoutside the Zionist community such as the socialist non-Zionist Jewishorganization Bund in Poland and non-Jewish Marxist-oriented political parties invarious countries.113)

Martin Buber can also be considered another of Hapoel Hatzair’s foundingfathers. His Three Speeches about Judaism presented in Prague introduced someof Gordon’s ideas to the Zionist youth. Buber also called for a personalcommitment and an active approach to Jewish traditions. Gordon’s Letters fromEretz Israel was first published in German in Buber’s magazine Der Jude in 1916.

Martin Buber was also one of the most important participants at a grandiosegathering of Jewish youth (Jugendmeeting) held in Prague in March 1920. Theaim of the meeting was to gain support for Hapoel Hatzair. However, the meetingmade history for different reasons, when a substantial portion of Tzeirei Zionmerged with Hapoel Hatzair, and formed a new united political party Hitachdutwithin the framework of the Zionist movement.114) The convention was chaired byHugo Bergmann, Elieser Kaplan and Josef Sprinzak, and the other Czechoslovakdelegates were Max Brod, Oskar Epstein, and Hans Kohn.115)

111) Oskar K. Rabinowicz: ‘Czechoslovak Zionism’, p. 55.112) Gideon Shimoni: The Zionist Ideology, pp. 208–209.113) Salomon Goldelman: Das arbeitende Palästina. Zionistischer Sozialismus, Prag, year notgiven, pp. 15–16.114) Its full name was Hitachdut Hapoel Hatzair-Tzeirei Zion [Unie Hapoel Hacair a Ceire Cion].115) Simultaneously with the world conference, a conference of the Czechoslovak Hapoel Hatzair;was held, wher Oskar Epstein was elected head of the Prague branch. Rabinowicz: CzechoslovakZionism, p. 58.

136

In his detailed presentation, Martin Buber stressed the importance ofSocialism. He argued that ‘true’ Socialism was not based on class struggle, but oneach individual’s voluntary decision to become a worker. In Buber’s opinion,Jewish workers in the form of Zionist volunteers would become the model forsolving the problems of the working class worldwide. Furthermore, Bubersuggested that even though Hapoel Hatzair was not a religious movement, it couldbe the beginning of a modern religious renewal of the Jewish people.116)

Many renowned Zionists like Chaim Arlosoroff, Robert Weltsch (editor of theJüdische Rundschau in Berlin) and Gordon himself attended the conference,which greatly impressed Zionists in the Czech lands. During the interwar period,Hitachdut had many supporters in Bohemia and Moravia, and shaped theideological character of Zionism here. Despite this apparent success, Hitachdutwas unable to assert itself as political force. During the election of delegates to theThirteenth Zionist Congress in 1923 in Karlovy Vary (Carlsbad), Czechoslovaksupporters of Hitachdut did not dare nominating their own candidate and decidedto run on the ballot of the Argentinean and Belgian Hitachdut. After 1924, thereis no trace of the organization in Czechoslovakia.117)

Why did Hitachdut fail? There were several reasons. In the 1920’s, themovement lost its most prominent leadership figures. Martin Buber retreated frompublic life in 1921 and Gordon died in 1922. In 1920, Hugo Bergmann, the mainrepresentative of Hitachdut in Czechoslovakia, moved to Palestine in compliancewith the movement’s ideology, and he was followed by a number of other younghalutzim. Also Hans Kohn left Czechoslovakia.

The organizational failure did not mean that the ideas of Gordon and Buberbecame less influential. Their followers maintained contacts with each other, butdid not establish a formal group. Even though, the Czechoslovak Hitachdutpractically ceased to exist as an organization in the mid-1920’s, the President ofthe Zionist Territorial Federation (Sionistická teritoriální federace) Josef Rufeiseninsisted that the Hitachdut was theoretically still alive as this had been the onlyCzechoslovak Zionist group, which would join his federation. The representativesof the former Hitachdut had three seats on the Central Committee of the ZionistOrganization (Ústřední výbor sionistické organizace) in Czechoslovakia andtherefore exerted some influence on Zionist politics in this country.118) Someformer members of Hitachdut became firm supporters of Chaim Weizmann’spolitical program. In the elections in which Czechoslovak candidates for theFifteenth Zionist congress were elected, Weizmann supporters ran under the nameLeft Centre, and gained 4167 votes out of 6514, thus obtaining six out of the ninedelegates attending the congress.119) Left Centre was led by Chaim Weizmannfollowed by Ludvík Singer, Hugo Herrmann, Ervín Vogl, Angelo Goldstein, and

116) Rede Dr. Martin Bubers gehalten am Jugendmeeting am 25.3.1920 in Prag, Martin Buber’sArchives, NLJ, Ms. Var. 350 / 56a vav.117) Oskar K. Rabinowicz: Czechoslovak Zionism, p. 61.118) Ibid., pp. 61–62.119) Ibid., p. 70.

137

Friedrich Eckstein from Děčín (Tetschen-Bodenbach). All of them were chosen tobe delegates to the Zionist Congress. František Friedmann was another candidateon the Left Centre ticket.120)

Another group consisting of former Hitachdut members was the ‘Zionistrealists’. They were inspired by Masaryk’s ideas of humanist politics. Theirprogram developed gradually and was published in a series of booklets and asarticles in Selbstwehr in 1925 and 1926.121) In 1925, Oskar Epstein, who was theleading figure among the realists, became a teacher at the Jüdisches Reform-Real-Gymnasium [Jewish Reform High School] in Brno (Brünn), and with the supportof former members of Hitachdut in Brno, he organized a renewal movementwithin the Czechoslovak Zionism. Epstein was particularly inspired by Gordon’sideas of personal engagement as well as Masaryk’s philosophy. According to theZionist realists, cultural work was the most important Zionist activity. The Jewishhomeland in Palestine had to be founded on humanistic principles of socialjustice. This aspect of their program also addressed the issue of Jewish-Arabrelations. The realists believed that the Arabs in Palestine would have to accept theright of Jews to fully develop a national program in their own state, but at the sametime the Great Powers should assist the Palestinian Arabs in selecting their ownleadership, which could guide them towards national independence, including theformation of national cultural institutions.122) At a conference of the ZionistTerritorial Federation held in July 1926, the Zionist realists tried to convince otherdelegates of the individual points of their program.123) They managed to provoke adiscussion, which continued in the Zionist press after the conference had ended.In the end, the realists did not achieve anything politically, and the group graduallywithered away in the course of 1927. Oskar Rabinowicz, a historian and con-temporary Zionist activist, ascribed the demise of the realists as a result of OskarEpstein’s organizational incompetence.124)

Weizmann’s devotees

As mentioned earlier, the President of the WZO Chaim Weizmann supportedthe moderate socialists from Hitachdut. Their loyalty to Weizmann strengthenedafter one of the main proponents of Hitachdut, Joseph Sprinzak, was elected to thepresidium of the WZO and thus became one of Weizmann’s closest col-laborators.125)

120) CZA, Z 4 / 3564, Hauptwahlkommission für den XV. Zionistenkongress, July 19, 1927.121) Oskar Epstein: Proklamations- oder Tatsachen-Zionismus?, Prague 1925; ‘Thesen desZionistischen Realismus’, Selbstwehr, May 7, 1926.122) ‘Die Thesen des Zionistischen Realismus’, Selbstwehr, May 7, 1926, pp. 2–4.123) The participants of the conference representing the Zionist realists were Robert Anders fromPrague; Oskar Bachrach from Bratislava; Eduard Drachman, Oskar Epstein, Ernest Lamberger,Alois Zaitschek, Leopold Schnitzler, and Samuel Zeisl from Brno/Brünn; and Hans Zweig from zProstějov (Prossnitz).124) Oskar K. Rabinowicz: Czechoslovak Zionism, p. 68.125) Ibid., p. 63.

138

In interwar Czechoslovakia, the so-called ‘general Zionists’ i.e. Zionists, whowere unaffiliated, also supported Weizmann. Some ‘general Zionists’ wereprominent Jewish activists such Josef Rufeisen, Angelo Goldstein, OskarNeumann (later more active in Slovakia) and Hanna Steinerová.126)

The main representative of the ‘general Zionists’ (allgemeine Zionisten) wasFelix Weltsch, the chief editor of Selbstwehr in the interwar period. In othercountries, the adherents of this type of Zionism were often considered colourlesspeople lacking a specific program. Not so in Czechoslovakia, where Weltschmanaged to transform the ideology of general Zionism into a respectable politicalposition. Following Hegel’s dialectic, Weltsch argued that among extremelydiverging groups, one could only reach successful solutions through creativecompromises. This idea was further developed on a theoretical level in his bookDas Wagnis der Mitte [The Stakes of the Middle Ground]127) which was popularamong Prague’s Jewish elite. Weltsch also applied his ideas directly to Zionistideology. In his brochure Allgemeiner Zionismus. Eine ideologische Skizze’[General Zionism. An Ideological Sketch], he demonstrated why he did notconsider ‘general Zionism’ colourless or easy, but rather the most challengingdirection.128) The difficulty lay in finding a way to unite various diverging opinionsinstead of formulating a program that would lead to a further fragmentation of theZionist movement. The political, social and economic extremist positions were,according to Weltsch, endangering Zionism.

Despite the efforts to find a compromise, the European general Zionistseventually split into two groups in 1931. At the following World Zionist Congress,Weizmann did not succeed in getting re-elected as President of the WZO. In hisprogram speech, Weizmann admitted that he did not believe that the Jews wouldever form a majority in Palestine, and he therefore suggested that it was unrealisticfor the Zionist movement to work primarily for the creation of a Jewish state. Notsurprisingly did his candidacy meet with opposition. Weizmann even lost most ofhis supporters among the ‘general Zionist’ (58 out of 84 voted against him).Chaim Weizmann’s candidacy was backed only by the ‘general Zionists’ fromEngland, Germany and Czechoslovakia;129) another example of the Czech Zionistscommitment to Weizmann’s politics.

When looking closer at Weizmann’s perception of Zionism in the early 20thcentury, a number of similarities between Weizmann and Czech Zionism emerge.Chaim Weizmann was born in Russia, and completed his studies in Switzerlandand Germany. At the Zionist Congress in 1901, he was instrumental in forming theso-called democratic faction, which opposed Herzl’s political Zionism. Weizmannand his colleagues (including Feiwel from Moravia and Martin Buber) foundHerzl’s emphasis on diplomacy short-sighted, whereas Herzl considered it the

126) In 1937, Hanna Steinerová was even elected delegate to the Zionist Congress for the generalZionists, cf. Rabinowicz: Czechoslovak Zionism, p. 128.127) Felix Weltsch: Das Wagnis der Mitte, Moravská Ostrava 1937.128) Idem: Allgemeiner Zionismus. Eine ideologische Skizze, Prag 1936.129) Rabinowicz: Czechoslovak Zionism, p. 49.

139

most effective way to make the Jewish state become a reality. Weizmann’s groupmaintained that Zionism could not depend on the personal involvement of a fewpolitically influential individuals. On the contrary, they argued that thedevelopment of cultural and educational institutions in Palestine was decisive fora future Jewish state. Moreover, Weizmann contended that even if the Jewsobtained an internationally acknowledged right to settle in Palestine, it would bemeaningless if a Jewish society did not already exist in Palestine. ThoughWeizmann himself was not a socialist, he held the work of the halutzim in highesteem. In 1903, at the Sixth Zionist Congress, Weizmann and Buber, supportedby members of Bar Kochba in the Zionist press, and others opposed the temporaryplacement of the Jewish state in Uganda.

In 1902, the democratic faction established the publishing house JüdischerVerlag in Berlin, the first Zionist publishing company in Western Europe. Its aimwas to publish the cultural, spiritual and artistic treasures of the Jewish people andthus help bring about the cultural renaissance of the Jewish nation. BesidesWeizmann, Buber, and Feiwel, prominent Prague Zionists participated in theproject such as Hugo Bergmann and Siegmund Kaznelson. Kaznelson ranJüdischer Verlag from 1920 until 1938, when Gestapo closed it down. Duringthese years, Jüdischer Verlag became the most important Zionist publishing housein the world.

1907 was an important landmark in the history of the Zionist movement, whenWeizmann succeeded in persuading most delegates of the Eighth Zionist Congressto accept his ‘synthetic Zionism’ platform. In brief, ‘synthetic Zionism’ was ablend of political and practical Zionism. Weizmann encouraged the continuationof the diplomatic effort, but supported the practical concrete work conducted inthe first Zionist settlements. In addition, he stressed the importance of Zionistwork in the Diaspora, above all in the area of education and fundraising for theJewish National Fund, whose long-serving president was, as I have alreadymentioned, a ‘Bar-Kochban’ Leo Herrmann.

During World War I, Weizmann participated as a chemist in the militaryresearch projects of the Allies. Thanks to his prominent status as a scientist, heplayed an important role in the diplomatic negotiations leading up to the BalfourDeclaration in November 1917.

In 1920, he was elected President of the WZO. For almost two years,Weizmann’s closest advisor was Robert Weltsch, who had transferred from Berlinto London.130) In addition, Weizmann became the head of the newly establishedJewish Agency in 1929. He left his post in WZO in the early 1930’s, but resumedthe presidency again in 1935, a position he held until 1946, when Ben Gurionreplaced him.

Weizmann also played an important role in creating the Hebrew University inJerusalem. Already in 1902, he co-authored a book with Buber and Feiwel entitled

130) Hans Kohn: ‘Rückblick auf eine gemeinsame Jugend’, in: Hans Tramer, Kurt Loewenstein(ed.): Robert Weltsch zum 70. Geburtstag von seinen Freunden, Tel Aviv 1961, p. 117.

140

Eine jüdische Hochschule [A Jewish University] in which the idea of establishinga university in Jerusalem first appeared.131) In 1920, Weizmann in his capacity asPresident of the WZO took part in the ceremony of laying the cornerstone for thenew university, and in 1925 in its festive opening. Hugo Bergmann became theHebrew University’s first president.

From a political point of view, it was characteristic of Weizmann to strive fora peaceful solution to the conflict with the Arabs, and immediately after WorldWar I, he began negotiating with the leader of the Arab nationalists Emir Faisal.He also preferred diplomatic compromises to the radical solutions proposed by theso-called Zionist revisionists in relation to the British mandate power. Here too, acomparison with the activities of the former Bar Kochba members comes to mind.In 1925, Hans Kohn, Hugo Bergmann, and Robert Weltsch founded theorganization B’rit Shalom in Palestine, whose goal was to find a peaceful solutionto the Jewish-Arab conflict.

In one of his poems, Max Brod expressed the admiration of Czech Zionists forChaim Weizmann. Viktor Fischl translated the poem ‘To Chaim Weizmann’ intoCzech in 1938. Here is a brief passage from the long poem:

“Noble man – I saw you,but I did not approach. I only bowed and humblyhid in the crowd. Then before you, I want to be merely one of a multitude. I want to listen to you and hear what you say.”132)

Antipode: Emil Margulies

Most Czech Zionist were the pro-Weizmann, moderately leftist kind, whofocused on the cultural and linguistic regeneration of the Jewish people. EmilMargulies who lived in Northern Bohemia was different. Marguelies came fromSosnowice in Poland, a region which at the time belonged to Russia, and he grewup in an orthodox Jewish household. The cultural and political environment hecame from was different from that of most Zionists from Bohemia and Moravia.One of the basic differences was that he did not have to re-discover his Jewishidentity. In his Zionist activities, he focused exclusively on political dimension ofJewish nationalism. He joined the Zionist movement under the influence of hisbrother Isidor as a young law student in Vienna, where he also met Theodor Herzl.In 1903, he moved to Teplice-Šanov (Teplitz-Schönau), where he had found work,and began organizing the local Zionist movement, a process he was alreadyfamiliar with from his time in Vienna.

At the time, Zionism was virtually unknown in Northern Bohemia. Themajority of the population was German. The Czechs living there had settled

131) It was only the second book produced by the publishing house Jüdischer Verlag.132) Max Brod: ‘Chaimu Weizmannovi’ [To Chaim Weizmann], translated by Viktor Fischl, ŽZ,September 16, 1938 / 37, p. 4.

141

recently, attracted by the growing industry in the second half of the 19th century.Most Jews moved to the North Bohemian cities from Czech or German villagesand small towns only after industrialization took off and the restrictions on Jewishmigration were lifted in 1848. Outside Prague, this area, later known asSudetenland, had one of the largest concentrations of Jews in Bohemia.133)

In Northern Bohemia, Margulies and his friends’ Zionist propaganda metstrong resistance among the Jewish liberal middle class. Unlike Prague, wherenon-Jewish Germans respected the different religious and, to a certain degree,ethnic identity of the German-speaking Jews134), the Jews in northern Bohemiawere afraid that Zionism would isolate them from and put them at odds with thenon-Jewish German population.

German liberals and Jews cooperated to obstruct Zionist activities by refusingto publish announcements, as for example when the Teplitzer Zeitung [TepliceNewspaper] rejected printing Margulies’ invitation to a Zionist general meeting onthe grounds that the city’s important Jews were against it. Similarly, the leadershipof the liberal party Deutsche Fortschrittspartei were oppossed Zionism based onconsultations with the ‘leading Israelites’.135) When Arthur Bergmann (Hugo’sbrother) went to Teplice (Teplitz) in 1904 to become the tutor for the Steinerchildren, he was met with hostility from Jewish Germans.136)

Emil Margulies decided to break the German Jews’ indifference. The first stepwas his brochure ‘Zionismus und Deutsche Fortschrittspartei. Offener Brief an dieFührer der Partei in Prag’ [Zionism and the German Progressive Party. OpenLetter to the Party Leaders in Prague]. In it, Margulies as a Zionist expressed hissympathy with the liberal program of the party, but he suggested that the party’sleadership respect the right of Jews to choose their own nationality. In mostpolitical issues, Jews will support the liberals, he argued, but the Fortschrittsparteishould stay away from national Jewish issues.137) Margulies’ publication upset theJewish Community in Teplitz, where Zionism found support among the city’syoung Jews, particularly Jewish students, while the older generation wasunanimously opposed to Jewish nationalism.

Margulies did not give up despite the negative effect of his Zionist activities onhis legal practice. His commitment to the Zionist cause is reflected by thenumerous positions he held in various Zionist organizations, committees andgroups. From 1905, Margulies took part in all World Zionist Congresses as wellas in all local Zionist conventions in the Czech Lands. Prior to 1914, he served asthe vice-chairman of the Zionist Central Committee for Cisleithania [western half

133) Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein: ‘The Internal Migration of Jews in 19th Century Bohemia’, in: TheField of Yiddish, 1969, pp. 305–309.134) Gary B. Cohen: The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914, Princeton1981. 135) Meir Färber: Dr. Emil Margulies, ein Lebenskampf für Wahrheit und Recht, Tel Aviv 1949, p. 36.136) ‘Dr. Arthur Bergmann’, BKZ, November 1958 / 1, p. 3.137) Dr. jur. Emil Margulies: Zionismus und Deutsche Fortschrittspartei. Offener Brief an Herrn Dr.Karl Eppinger von Prag, Teplitz Schönau 1904.

142

of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy]. In the years 1910 to 1935, he was the vice-chairman of the Zionist Central Committee for the Czech Lands (later forCzechoslovakia), a member of both Zionist funds (KKL and KH), and played akey role in organizing the Zionist Congress in 1921.138)

Margulies campaigned tirelessly in various Northern and Western Bohemiancities and towns. His activities can be followed in his voluminous correspondencewith the Zionist societies in Trutnov (Trautenau), Žatec (Saaz), Ústí nad Labem(Aussig), Děčín (Tetschen-Bodenbach), Postoloprty (Postelberg), Podbořany(Podersam), Chomutov (Komotau), Most (Brüx), Mariánské Lázně (Marienbad),and Karlovy Vary (Carlsbad). He often wrote local organizers in advance, closelymonitoring what was announced prior to his arrival, and how local activistspresented him to their audiences.139) Gradually, he succeeded in establishing anetwork of Zionist clubs in many cities and towns in Northern and WesternBohemia.

Margulies’ Zionism was very much influenced by Herzl’s ideas. Despite thefact that his adherence to political Zionism was more in tune with Barissia, hebecame a member of Bar Kochba before World War I. Evidently, Margulies rec-ognized that the latter was the centre for the Zionist elite at the time. In BarKochba, however, Margulies was in opposition as reflected in the organization’sannual report from the academic year 1910/1911. He made no secret of hisdisregard for Achad Haam’s thinking, and defended Herzl’s political Zionismagainst the majority of Bar Kochba’s members arguing that without Herzl, theworld-wide Zionist movement would not have come into existence.140)

These controversies between Prague’s cultural Zionists and the political-nationalist view, influenced the decisions Margulies made towards the end of theWorld War I. At that time, he worked to establish an independent Zionistorganization in the Sudeten region, a move which reflected the separatist trend ofNorthern Bohemian politics in general.141) He relied on the ‘Land Government’hastily formed in the fall months of 1918 by pro-Austrian oriented Germans infour predominantly German-speaking territories, Deutschböhmen, Sudetenland(at the time only North-western Bohemia), Deutschsüdmähren and Böhmer-waldgau. The proclamation of the Sudeten German leader Lodgmann von Auen,who supported German autonomy, and who was in favour of acknowledging aJewish nationality and minority rights contributed to Margulies decision.142) Only

138) An overview of all his positions is given in his “Kurze Selbstbiographie” contained in Färber’sbook Dr. Emil Margulies, pp. 163–168.139) For example during his lecture tour of Žatec / Saatz, Postoloprty / Postelberg, and Podbořany/ Podersam, SÚA, Emil Margulies collection, Box 2, Call No. 7.140) Bericht über die Tätigkeit des Vereins der jüd. Hochschüler Bar Kochba in Prag während des34. Vereinssemesters, pp. 10–11.141) Ota Kraus’ letter to Pacovský, BKZ, April 1958, p. 3. 142) Aharon Moshe K. Rabinowicz: ‘The Jewish Party’, in: The Jews of Czechoslovakia, Vol. II,New York 1971, p. 255.

143

the diplomatic talent and influence of Viktor Freud, Chairman of the ZionistDistrict for the Czech Lands, averted the break-up of the Zionist organization inBohemia and Moravia.

Nevertheless, significant differences between Margulies’ concept of Zionismand that of most Bohemian and Moravian Zionists remained. At the ThirteenthZionist Congress in 1923, Margulies joined a group later known as ‘radicalZionists’. Among the well-known members of this group were Nahum Goldmann,Max Soloveichik, and Robert Stricker. The latter a native of Brno, who became aleading figure in the Viennese Zionist movement. The radical Zionists were unitedprimarily by opposition to Weizmann’s leadership in the WZO. They disapprovedof Weizmann’s moderate approach towards Great Britain as they demanded thatmore political pressure was put on the British government to support a Jewishstate, not just a homeland. Furthermore, they were critical of his decision to invitenon-Zionist Jewish philanthropists willing to provide financial support to theYishuv to become part of the Jewish Agency. The radical Zionists were afraid thatthis decision would weaken the position of the Zionists and paralyse theirdiplomatic efforts.

Margulies believed that Zionism was about formulating and practisingindependent and self-confident Jewish minority politics, and was unwilling tocompromise in the manner envisioned by the general Zionists dominant in thepolitical centre of the Zionist organization and in the JNC in Prague. One exampleof this position was Margulies’ rejection of a proposed coalition between theJewish Party and the Social Democratic Party in the 1935 elections, which led tohis resignation from the presidium of the Jewish Party. There were other examplesof his dissent. Margulies could not accept Karel Baxa’s election as Prague’smayor, and even less that Baxa, who had been deeply involved in the Hilsneraffair, was elected with the support of Ludvík Singer, a member of the CityCouncil and chairman of the JNC. In an article on Jewish support for Baxa,Margulies admitted that

“now and then, it may be legitimate to elect an anti-Semite, because sometimespolitical pacts must also be made with enemies, but such a partner cannot bean instigator spreading the idea of ritual murder (Ritualmordhetzer), who willnot clearly renounce his past.”143)

The editors of Selbstwehr were so loyal to the JNC chairman that they decidednot to publish the article. When Margulies complained about this, in his words,‘scandalous case’ at a meeting of the Czechoslovak Zionist District, nobodysupported his criticism. Karel Baxa’s election as Prague’s mayor hardenedMargulies’ dissenting standpoint. In a letter to Yitzchok Grünbaum of the ActionCommittee of the WZO in London, he wrote:

143) SÚA, Emil Margulies collection, Box 2, Call No. 7, letter of October 23, 1923 to YitzchakGruenbaum, member of the Action Committee in London.

144

“Starting from this session, I have become even more conscious of myopposing views. I have nothing in common with these people. I do not onlydiffer from them only in tactical matters and with regard to the principalquestions of Zionism, but in my entire philosophy of life.”144)

By the election of candidates to the Twelfth Zionist Congress in 1921, EmilMargulies would run on a separate ballot. At the top of the other tickets presentedby the Central Zionist Committee in Moravská Ostrava (Mährisch Ostrau) wereJosef Rufeisen, Hugo Bergmann, and Norbert Adler. It is clear from thedistribution of votes that the Czech-dominated towns in Bohemia and the majorityof the Moravian towns voted for Rufeisen and Bergmann, who represented amoderate leftist pro-Weizmann wing. In contrast, the German cities often stood100% behind Margulies and his militant rightwing Jewish politics. Among thestaunchest supporters of Margulies were the cities of Most (Brüx), Ústí nadLabem (Aussig), Trutnov (Trautenau), Teplice (Teplitz-Schönau), Litoměřice(Leitmeritz), Chomutov (Komotau), Carlsbad, and Děčín (Tetschen-Bodenbach).145)

Another significant event in the relationship between Emil Margulies, as arepresentative of the Zionists from the border areas, and the centre of the ZionistOrganization in Moravská Ostrava (Mährisch Ostrau) happened in 1925. In thatyear, Margulies decided to actively support the radical Zionists, who had formedthe Konferenzgemeinschaft radikaler Zionisten [Conference of RadicalZionists].146) Margulies’ membership in this opposition group created muchindignation in the Zionist leadership in the Czech Lands, above all the leaders ofthe Zionist Territorial Federation Josef Rufeisen and Ludvík Singer. Subsequently,one of the main points in the discussion at the third plenum of the Central ZionistCommittee in July 1925 was the question whether or not to allow Margulies to runfor election to the World Zionist Congress on a separate ballot on behalf of theCzechoslovak Zionists. His negative approach to Weizmann’s politics was anirritant to the members of the Central Zionist Committee for Czechoslovakia, whoalso resented the fact that Margulies communicated more with his colleagues fromGermany, Austria and Poland than with the Czechoslovaks.147) These politicaldifferences could not be reconciled and despite continued cooperation within theJewish Party, a split between Margulies and the rest of the Zionist leadership couldno longer be averted.

144) Ibid.145) ‘Offizieller Wahlbericht über die Wahlen Zum XII. Zionisten-Kongreß in derTschechoslowakei’, Selbstwehr, August 26, 1921 / 34, p. 4. Norbert Adler secured the majority ofvotes in Prague, however, on the whole, his ticket obtained the lowest number of votes; therefore, inthat year, he did not gain the mandate to the Zionist Congress.146) Program declaration of the Konferenzgemeinschaft, see SÚA, Emil Margulies collection, Box2, Call No. 8.147) SÚA, Emil Margulies collection, Box 2, Call No. 8, Zionist Central Committee inCzechoslovakia, minutes of the Third General Meeting, July 19, 1925.

145

One manifestation of the animosity was the exclusion of Margulies’ articlesfrom the main Zionist papers, Selbstwehr and Židovské zprávy. Margulies beganpublishing in the Brno-based Jüdische Volksstimme, whose editorial office hadbeen supportive earlier. He even called upon other radical Zionists including theirleader Nahum Goldmann to contribute articles to the Brno journal and thus makeit the main competitor of Selbstwehr.148) The Jüdische Volksstimme, however,remained in the shadow of Selbstwehr until the end of the interwar period.

Among the few Zionist supporters of Margulies were people like professorAlfred Engel from Brno, who had been active in the work with Jewish refugeesduring the war and in the first years of the Czechoslovak Republic, Margulies’sister-in-law Mirijam Scheuerová, and Paul März who replaced Josef Rufeisen aschairman of the Central Zionist Committee for Czechoslovakia in 1938. PaulMärz expressed his support for Margulies already in the critical year 1925. In thesame letter in which he declared his support for Margulies, he pointed to otherpotential allies in the Czech Lands, namely Jüdische Lese- und Redehalle [JewishStudy and Lecture Hall] in Brno and Prague’s Barissia lead by Hugo Kohner.149)

In this letter, März complains that he and his views were completely isolated inMoravská Ostrava (Mährisch Ostrau).150) This was symptomatic of the marginalposition of Margulies’ politics, which only resonated in the border areas, while themoderate left-wing Zionist position was dominant in Bohemia and Moravia.

The Revisionists

Emil Margulies and the radical Zionists had much in common with therevisionist Zionist, but whereas the radical Zionists only managed to attract asmall group of intellectuals, the Revisionists succeeded in creating a massmovement. The Zionist Revisionist movement was led by the charismaticRussian-born leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, who was critical of Chaim Weizmann,and in 1935 aspired to the position of chairman of the WZO. Jabotinsky, like theradical Zionists, opposed Weizmann’s moderate policy towards Britain and wasagainst any enlargement of the Jewish Agency by non-Zionist members.Jabotinsky and the radical Zionists also shared the view that it was necessary tocreate a large Jewish population in Palestine to ensure that the Jews would have amajority there. Margulies therefore showed a keen interest in the activities of theRevisionist movement.151) The Czechoslovak Zionist Revisionists, on the other

148) SÚA, Emil Margulies collection, Box 2, Call No. 8, Margulies’ letter to Dr. Goldmann ofSeptember 9, 1925.149) Barissia’s positive relation towards the ideology of radical Zionism was also confirmed by thelecture of Nahum Goldmann from Berlin organized by the Barissia fraternity in November 1927.The main topic of this lecture was a critique of Chaim Weizmann’s politics. See SÚA, PP, 1921–30,28 / 4, Box 907, report by the police commissioner of November 22, 1927.150) SÚA, Margulies, Box 2, Call No. 8, März’ letter to Margulies of September 14, 1925. In thefollowing years, März informed Margulies in detail about the activities taking place at the CentralZionist Organization in Moravská Ostrava (Mährisch Ostrau).

146

hand, did not conceal their admiration for Margulies. On the occasion of his 60thbirthday in 1937, their party organ Medina Iwrit praised Margulies as a leader ofthe Jewish nationalist and minority movement, who had a lion’s share in thedevelopment of Zionism in the Sudeten region.152)

There were, however, differences between the two groups as well. In theireffort to advance their cause, the Revisionists went far beyond what the radicalZionists would ever agree to. Firstly, Jabotinsky made a deal with the Polishgovernment according to which he would cooperate to support the emigration ofabout 750,000 Jews from Poland over a period of several years, a prospect, whichwas equally attractive to anti-Semitic Poles and revisionist Zionists.153) Secondly,Jabotinsky advocated the creation of a strong Jewish army (sometimes called‘legion’ in allusion to the Jewish Legion operating during World War I) to protectthe Jewish settlements against Arab raids. According to Jabotinsky, the Arabs hadto understand the historically motivated claim of the Jewish people to land ofPalestine on both banks of the river Jordan. In this future Jewish state, the Arabswould have ethnic minority rights. In order to create a military force that couldprotect Jewish settlements, Jabotinsky believed that it was necessary to train thelargest possible number of members of the future Jewish army and police forcealready in the Diaspora. The training camps of the youth organization B’ritTrumpeldor in Poland were often organized as military field exercises. Between1938 and 1939 even with the support of the Polish Ministry of Defence.

In Czechoslovakia, the Zionist Revisionist movement did not gain a militantcharacter as it did in Poland. In the Czech Lands in particular, the B’rit Trumpeldorcamps were not much different from those of other boy-scout organizations. The onlydifference being that the former might have emphasized physical education more.B’rit Trumpeldor gained only a very limited foothold in Bohemia and Moravia, butin Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia the situation was completely different.

In the Czech Lands, the position of the moderate Zionist left was too strong forthe Revisionists to get a foothold. With this in mind, one can understand, thedissatisfaction of Czech Zionists, when they learned that the author of theimportant essay about Zionism in Czechoslovakia, published in the trilogy TheJews of Czechoslovakia in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, was the interwarRevisionist Oskar K. Rabinowicz.154)

The Jewish Party

What was the position of the Jewish Party in the conflict between Marguliesand the Central Committee of the Zionist Organization in Czechoslovakia? TheJewish Party was a liberal national minority party loyal to the Czechoslovak state.

151) This is confirmed by numerous flyers produced by the revisionists; the flyers are included inhis estate. SÚA, Emil Margulies collection.152) ‘Dr. Emil Margulies sechzig Jahre’, Medina Iwrit, 1937 / 30, p. 7.153) Kateřina Čapková: ‘Piłsudski or Masaryk?’, Judaica Bohemiae, XXXV, 1999, pp. 216–217.154) CZA, A 317, a letter of Rudolf Popper to Paco (Karel Pacovský) of December 1972.

147

The creation of a separate Jewish party was, according to the long-serving partyexecutive František Friedmann, the result of the ethnic basis of political parties inCzechoslovakia. Except for the Communists, these ‘ethnic’ parties led a separateexistence, for example there was a Czech and a German Social Democratic Party.The same applied to the Agrarian Party, and so on. It was uncommon thatcandidates had an ethnic background different from the party they represented. Incountries like France and England, where political parties were not formed on thebasis of ethnicity, Jewish nationalists could be candidates of for example a liberalparty.155) In Czechoslovakia, however, Jewish nationalists were compelled to formtheir own party in order to participate in national politics.

This also explains why there was so much internal strife followed bysubsequent unification attempts in the history of the Jewish Party. Due to therelatively small number of Jewish nationalists in Czechoslovakia, their success inparliamentary elections depended on their unity. The officials and supporters ofthe Jewish Party were divided not only by their political persuasions as were otherethnic groups, but by their views on specific Jewish issues as well.

The Jewish Party was founded in January 1919 and was active in elections onall levels of government, communal, regional, provincial, and national elections.Because of the electoral system of the First Czechoslovak Republic (only a partyreaching no less than 20,000 votes in one region and at least 120,000 votes in allof Czechoslovakia could enter the Parliament), the success of the Jewish Partydepended on the support it had in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. 1925 was aparticularly disappointing year for Jewish Party. Even non-Jewish analysts hadanticipated that the Jewish Party would obtain at least one mandate.156) This did nothappen thanks to the shrewd politics of the Agrarian Party, which used the internaldifferences within the Jewish Party to split the Jewish vote in Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia by supporting the creation of an independent JewishEconomic Party (Židovská hospodárská strana).

In 1928 there was another split in the Jewish Party. Julius Reisz, a well-knownactivist among Slovak Jews, decided to unify the Slovak and Sub-CarpathianJewish nationalists in one political party in order to ensure success in theprovincial elections. In order to win his party the votes of the opponents ofZionism among the members of the orthodox Agudas Yisrael, he removed Zionistslogans from the party program. Naturally, Reisz’ decision met with strongresistance from the Czech Zionists. They could not swallow the ‘betrayal’ of theZionist program and the fact that under Reisz’ leadership, the Jewish Party inSlovakia launched an independent campaign.157)

155) František Friedmann: Strana židovská [The Jewish Party], Praha 1931, pp. 10–11.156) Jaromír Nečas: Politická situace na Podkarpatské Rusi (rok 1921) [The Political Situation inSub-Carpathian Ruthenia (1921)], Praha 1997, 76pp. Quoted from: David Borek: M.A. thesis aboutthe Jewish Party, Charles University, manuscript.157) Reisz’ activities in 1928 are described in detail by Marie Crhová: ‘Sionistická volební politikana konci 20. let’ [The Zionist Election Strategy in the Late Nineteen Twenties], Paginae Historiae,1999, pp. 166–188.

148

In preparation for the 1929 Parliament election, the Czech Zionists decided tobreak the dependence on Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia by entering in a coalitionagreement with three Polish parties.158) The concentration of the Polish electoratein Těšín (Cieszyn / Teschen) was a guarantee that the joint ticket would attractenough votes in one region to which Jewish votes from all parts of the republicwould be added. Before these elections, the Jewish Party in the Czech Landssucceeded in renewing the cooperation with the Jewish Party in Slovakia. Thanksto the coalition with the Poles and the cooperation with the Jewish nationalists inSlovakia, two Jewish Party candidates entered Parliament, Julius Reisz forSlovakia and Ludvík Singer for the Czech Lands. After Singer’s sudden death in1931, Angelo Goldstein became member of parliament.159)

The good results of the parliamentary elections contributed to some degree toa consolidation of the party, and in early January 1931, the official unification ofthe Jewish Party on the entire territory of Czechoslovakia took place. EmilMargulies became the party’s chairman. It is quite understandable that the partychose Margulies to lead its national organization since he advocated pragmaticminority policies that were similar to those of other national minorities inCzechoslovakia. On the other hand, it was a paradox probably caused by CzechZionist opposition that Margulies did not become one of the party’s deputies to theNational Assembly. However, a more important reason for his exclusion from thisrole was his insufficient knowledge of the Czech language. Margulies, an excellentlawyer, organizer, and orator did not speak any other language than German. Thisbecame a barrier for him not only limiting his access to the Czech political scene,but also to the broader Zionist movement, where English had replaced Germanafter WZO transferred to London. His lack of proficiency in foreign languageseffectively ended his career, when he fled to Palestine in 1939.160)

Margulies did not chair the Jewish Party for very long. In 1935, the party’scentral committee decided (by thirty-five out of forty-eight votes) not to runindependently, but to use the offer of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Partyto run on a joint ticket. However, this was not a coalition. The Social Democratsmerely offered the Jewish Party eligible positions on their ticket. Margulies andeight of his supporters opposed this arrangement.161) For Margulies, an alliancewith the Social Democrats was unacceptable for several reasons. First, he objectedto the cooperation with a leftist party. Second, and more importantly, he viewed asolution, where the name of the party did not even appear on the ballot as abetrayal of a self-confident Jewish minority policy. He resigned his position, anduntil the demise of the First Czechoslovak Republic, his activities remainedrestricted to the region of Northern and Western Bohemia. The next chairman ofthe Jewish Party was Arnošt Frischer, who held this position until 1938.

158) The Jewish Party ran on a joint ticket with the Związek Śląskich Katolików, the PolskieStronnictwo Ludowe, and the Polska Socjalistyczna Partia Robotnicza w Czechosłowacji.159) Both – Singer and Goldstein – were members of the pre-war Theodor Herzl Society.160) Meir Färber: Dr. Emil Margulies, p. 71.161) CZA, F 15 / 2, Rundschreiben sozialistischer Zionisten in der ČSR No. IX, 18.4.1935, p. 3.

149

In 1935, the left-oriented politician Chaim Kugel from Sub-CarpathianRuthenia joined Angelo Goldstein as a representative of the Jewish Party inparliament. In contrast to Reisz, Kugel was a conscious Zionist, who focusedmainly on the problems of the Hebrew school system and the relations betweenRuthenians and Jews.

In the period from 1929 to 1938, there are several shared features of thespeeches made in the national parliament by the Jewish Party deputies.162) First, theloyalty of the Jewish nationalists towards the Czechoslovak Republic was alwaysemphasized at the outset of a speech, which was one of the main aspectsdistinguishing the Jewish Party from other ethnic minorities. The Germans and theHungarians could, thanks to their numbers, afford to form more ethnic-minorityparties. Among them were both parties loyal and opposed to the Czechoslovakstate. Secondly, in terms of specific Jewish demands, Reisz, Singer, Goldstein,and Kugel always demanded financial support for the Hebrew school system inSlovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. This reoccurring theme shows that themuch-praised relation between successive Czechoslovak governments and theJewish minority should be revised. Even though state support for the Hebrewschool system (basically to several elementary and secondary schools includingthe academic high school in Mukachevo (Mukačevo / Munkács) was the maindemand of the Jewish nationalists, state subsidies were only granted on a verylimited scale.163) In the early years of the Mukachevo high school, it received nosupport from the government. Nevertheless, the Czechoslovak President Masaryk,as a private donor, remitted a substantial amount of money to this school. In spiteof repeated demands made by the Jewish nationalists, above all by Chaim Kugel,who was the founder and long-standing principal of the Mukachevo high school,the Czechoslovak government perceived the Hebrew school system as a charityproject rather than a legitimate need of a national minority.164) In the end, theHebrew schools were mainly sustained by the Jewish educational organizationTarbuth.165)

A third reoccurring theme was the demand to liberalize the process of applyingfor Czechoslovak citizenship, and to introduce a more objective procedure in

162) The speeches of the Members of Parliament can be found on the Internet under the followingURL: www.psp.cz/eknih.163) See the memorandum of the Zionist Central Committee for Czechoslovakia in MoravskáOstrava (Mährisch Ostrau) written on June 25, 1924 and presented by Rufeisen to the CzechoslovakPresident Masaryk on the occasion of his visit to Moravia. The memorandum contained amongothers a complaint that no government subsidy was approved in 1924 for nine Hebrew schools inSub-Carpathian Ruthenia. It further criticized that “the Zionist public strongly objects to the fact thatthe Jewish agenda at the Department of Religious Affairs of the Ministry of Education was entrustedto an exponent of assimilation [Eduard Lederer], the President of the Association of Czech-Jewswhose public statements about mixed marriages, the Hebrew school system, etc. do not allow us toview him as an objective government official but rather as an adversary following a political lineopposed to our program.” Archiv Kanceláře prezidenta republiky (“KPR”), D 3487 / 1924.164) Aryeh Sole: ‘Modern Hebrew Education’ in: ‘Subcarpathian Ruthenia’, p. 409.165) AMP, SK IX / 998.

150

cases involving the expulsion of stateless individuals. This demand concerned,among others, a relatively large number of Jews in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia.166)

The deputies for the Jewish Party also became involved in solving generalmatters. Angelo Goldstein for example prepared new legislation to regulate theprotection of the Czechoslovak currency and the circulation of the legal tender.

The young generation

The core of the Zionist movement in Czechoslovakia was, as in othercountries, the Jewish youth. A close study of Jewish youth activities shows thatmoderately leftwing cultural Zionism was even more dominant among youngpeople in the Czech Lands than among the members of the older generation. Inthe Czech Lands, there were many Zionist youth clubs. In the 1930’s, the numberof such clubs, particularly in the Czech-speaking areas, was growing. Among thebest-known clubs and the one with the strongest membership was Makabi, whichemphasized its similarity to the Czech gymnastic club Sokol.167) Makabiestablished scores of branches all over Bohemia and Moravia, and trainedthousands of prospective athletes.168) The members of Makabi focused more onphysical training than on Zionist education. Sports clubs such as Hagibor, andHakoach were very active in soccer, swimming, and track and field. Among thetop Hagibor athletes were many international champions, above all swimmerswho represented Czechoslovakia in international contests in the 1920’s and1930’s. Photographs from the period show winners with the Star of David on theiruniforms cheerfully holding the Czechoslovak flag.169)

Though the central leadership of Makabi repeatedly stressed the organization’sposition as part of the Zionist movement, the reality of many local clubs wasdifferent. This is illustrated by the minutes from a meeting of the LandCommission of the Jewish National Fund held in January 1931. Even though,Makabi had made it mandatory for its members to pay the shekel to the Zionistorganization,

166) This demand was presented by Reisz as a deputy for the Jewish Party in his maiden speech inthe Parliament, see CZA, A 87 / 384, copy of the minutes of the seventh session of the Lower Houseof the Czechoslovak Parliament of December 12, 1929, p. 30.167) For example in the article ‘Der Sokol – ein Ziel’, Selbstwehr, July 9, 1938 / 27, p. 10.168) In 1921, the Czechoslovak Makabi had 31 clubs and two thousand members; in 1936, therewere 82 clubs and 10,300 members, Beda Brüll: ‘Československý Makabi’ [The CzechoslovakMaccabi], ŽK, 1937 / 38, p. 101.169) Among the best Jewish swimmers from Hagibor were Julius Balázs, František Getreuer, Pavel(Pali) Steiner, Kurt Epstein, František Schulz, Arnošt Reiner a Hanuš Abeles. See Joseph C. Pick:‘Sports’, in: The Jews in Czechoslovakia, Vol. II, pp. 207–211; Čapková: ‘Tělo a duch. Židovskésportovní organizace v Čechách a na Moravě’ [Body and Soul. Jewish Sports Organizations inBohemia and Moravia], Věstník ŽNO v českých zemích a na Slovensku [Bulletin of the JewishReligious Communities in the Czech Lands and in Slovakia], 1998/7, pp. 8–9. Continuation: Věstník,1998 / 8, pp. 10–11.

151

“many people join Makabi only because of athletics and are not interested inZionism. Besides, some of Makabi’s affiliated clubs show only a modestinterest in Zionism or none at all.”170)

Makabi did establish a youth club, Makabi Hatzair, which was similar TecheletLavan; particularly in the 1930’s, when these groups both focused on thepreparation of young people for Aliyah. Apart from Theodor Herzl, there weremany more Zionist student societies such as Hatikvah, Cartel – Association ofZionist Socialist University Students (Kartel – Sdružení sionistických socialis-tických akademiků – it was particularly active between 1935 and 1938), the Studyand Lecture Hall of Jewish University Students in Prague (Lese- und Redehallejüdischer Hochschüler in Prag / Čtenářská beseda židovských akademiků). Fromthe society’s activities and from Kurt Blumenfeld’s letters shortly before WorldWar I it is clear that the Study and Lecture Hall of Jewish University Students hada Jewish national orientation.171) Even though the Halle did not explicitly supportthe Zionist program, its members routinely took part in the activities of otherZionist associations.172) The same was true for the society’s equivalent in Brno.173)

The Union of Zionist University Students was the umbrella organization for allZionist student societies.174)

However, at Prague’s universities there were also clubs of nationally-consciousJewish students from other parts of Czechoslovakia or from other countries. Judeawas established by Jewish nationalists from Slovakia, Hechaver was the club forZionist students from Poland and Romania,175) Svépomoc [Self-Help], originally aclub of Polish students, transformed into a Jewish national association, becauseonly few of its members were non-Jews.176) Bar Giora, Hatchiah and Hasmoneawere the so called Couleur fraternities of students from Eastern Europe, similar toBarissia.

Techelet Lavan was the most important organization within the Zionist youthmovement in the Czech Lands in the interwar period. It was established afterWorld War I as the successor to Blau Weiss, which had been founded by peoplefrom Bar Kochba and Haschachar. The background for establishing Blau Weiss

170) CZA, KKL 5 / 3763, Protokoll der Sitzung der Landeskommission des JüdischenNationalfonds vom 28.1.1931.171) Blumenfeld: Im Kampf um den Zionismus. Briefe aus fünf Jahrzehnten, pp. 42–43.172) S. Goschen: ‘Zionist Students’ Organizations’, in: The Jews of Czechoslovakia, Vol. II,Philadelphia – New York 1971, p. 180.173) Ibid., p. 181.174) More specific information about the academic life of the Zionists can be found in the brochureŽidovský studente viz... [Jewish Student, Lo and Behold...], published by the Sionistický svazobvodový pro Čechy v Praze a Spolek židovských akademiků Theodor Herzl. [The Regional ZionistUnion for Bohemia and Association of Jewish University Students named after Theodor Herzl],Praha, no year given [evidently 1937]. Compare S. Goschen’s article: ‘Zionist Students’Organizations’, in: The Jews of Czechoslovakia, Vol. II, Philadelphia – New York 1971, pp. 173–184.175) AMP, SK X / 343.176) SÚA, ZÚ pres., 207-419-49, 8/5/45/175.

152

was to create a counterweight to the overtly intellectual character of Bar Kochba,in the form of an alternative organization for young people, who preferred open-air activities and the spirit of camaraderie to lectures and academic discussions.Furthermore, the increasing anti-Semitism within the German Wandervogelmovement created a need for an organization, where Jewish youths werewelcome. The remarkably successful Wandervogel movement was founded byKarl Fischer in Berlin-Steglitz in 1897. Its main slogans were romanticism,freedom and simple outdoor life. In Germany, Jews were accepted as members ofthe Wandervogel until 1913. In the Austrian part of the Hapsburg monarchy, thesituation was different as the Wandervogel here excluded non-Aryans from itsfoundation in 1911.177)

The Blau Weiss members went on weekend trips and organized outdoor camps.Their interest in Jewish history, Zionism, and Eretz Israel was only secondary.During World War I, they participated, together with Bar Kochba members, inrelief actions for Galician refugees.178) During the war, the number of members ofBlau Weiss increased with most of the new members coming from German-speaking families. Many parents preferred sending their children to this Jewishorganization for fear that their children might suffer some harm in the Germannationalist organizations, which increasingly emphasized their national and‘Aryan’ character.179)

The major events of the year 1917, the Balfour declaration and the Bolshevikrevolution, was a turning point for the Jewish youth movement, and Blau Weissstruggled to find a synthesis between Zionism and Socialism; some membersjoined the political left and later embraced Communism.

The collapse of the Hapsburg monarchy caused a surge in the popularity ofBlau Weiss among former Hapsburg Jews. Before World War I, many Jewsconsidered themselves to be Austrian Germans and were loyal to the HapsburgEmperor. The break-up of Austria-Hungary brought a new definition of the term‘Austrian’ which no longer applied to the entire western half of the Empire andwas restricted to the Alpine provinces; loyalty to the Hapsburgs was no longerbefitting. The ‘Old Austrian’ Jews were forced to change their original ethnicallegiance and for those who did not feel Pan-German, Zionism provided asuitable alternative. More and more local branches of Blau Weiss appeared inBohemia and Moravia. The most active sections were in Teplice-Šanov (Teplitz-Schönau), Karlovy Vary (Carlsbad), Varnsdorf (Warnsdorf), Podmokly

177) Richard Karpe: ‘Bar Kochba und Blau-Weiss. Die Entstehung des jüdischen WanderbundesBlau-Weiss in Böhmen und seine Entwicklung während des ersten Weltkrieges’, CZA, A 317 / 3, p.3; abridged version: Richard Karpe: ‘The Beginnings of “Blau-Weiss” in Bohemia and itsDevelopment during the First World War’, in: Rhapsody to Tchelet Lavan in Czechoslovakia, Israel1996, pp. 16–20.178) Richard Karpe: ‘The Beginnings of “Blau-Weiss” in Bohemia and its Development during theFirst World War’, in: Rhapsody to Tchelet Lavan in Czechoslovakia, p. 19.179) Philip Boehm: ‘Tchelet-Lavan. A School for Practical Zionism (A Personal Story)’, in:Rhapsody to Tchelet Lavan in Czechoslovakia, p. 23.

153

(Bodenbach), and in Jablonec nad Nisou (Gablonz), all in the future ‘SudetenRegion’. In Moravia, the most prominent Blau Weiss branches were in Brno(Brünn), Moravská Ostrava (Mährish Ostrau), Olomouc (Olmütz), and Prostějov(Prossnitz).180)

Another important feature of Blau Weiss in the Czech Lands was its oppositionto any form of militarism, including the paraphernalia of the boy-scout movementthat might have been somewhat reminiscent of military discipline. This becameapparent already in the early years of the First Czechoslovak Republic, whenWalter Moses and Heinz Nagler were leaders of Blau Weiss. They attempted tointroduce a type of military discipline in the movement’s activities similar to thedevelopment in its German sister organization. Moses even coined the slogan:‘Der Blau Weiss ist eine Armee auf dem Marsch’ (‘the Blau Weiss is an army onthe march’). The rank and file members of the organization, however, opposed thisdevelopment and in 1920 gained full independence from the organization inGermany.

Hashomer Hatzair was another challenge to Blau Weiss’ position. HashomerHatzair was founded in Vienna during the World War I and was particularlypopular in Eastern Europe.181) The members of Hashomer Hatzair worecharacteristic uniforms, scarves, and hats and had their own slogans, mostimportantly ‘Be Ready’. Hashomer Hatzair gradually acquired the character of aleftist, even Communist movement.

The members of Blau Weiss did not adopt any of the external symbols ofHashomer Hatzair, but this was not the only difference between them. AfterWorld War I, Blau Weiss focused more on Hebrew instruction and education inJewish history and traditions in order to help acculturated Jewish youths discovertheir Jewish identity. Most members of Hashomer Hatzair mostly grew up in anorthodox environment in large Jewish communities, and did not feel the need foradditional Jewish education.

Blau Weiss changed its name to Techeleth Lavan in 1923, a move reflectingideological and organizational changes, which placed the movement on a solidZionist basis. The Statute of Techelet Lavan stated that its objective

“is to foster the scout spirit in the Jewish youth, enhance its civil virtues andbring up a new Jewish generation strong in body and spirit. It reaches this aimby organizing regular outings and social meetings dedicated to cultural andmoral improvement.”182)

In articles describing the organization’s activities, the authors repeatedly stressthat the outdoor activities embraced by Techelet Lavan were ‘free of any military

180) Ibid., pp. 24–25.181) David Rechter: The Jews of Vienna and the First World War, p. 102.182) AMP, SK XIV / 595, constitution of 1923.

154

content’.183) Furthermore, the leaders believed that borrowing too much from theboy-scout movement could lead to an ‘inner assimilation’:

“The spiritual background of the Jewish lad is different from that of the youngpeople in the surrounding ethnics. For this reason, the main idea of TecheletLavan’s activity is to raise his national and cultural awareness.”184)

In the first post-war years, a number of Techelet Lavan members decided to goon Aliyah. Soon the first farms were established, where the future halutzim learnedfarm work. The members of Techelet Lavan were inspired by Socialist stimulicoming from Hapoel Hatzair. Most halutzim from the Czech Lands weremembers of Techelet Lavan, who founded the kibbutzim Bet Alfa, Heftziba, Sarid,Givat Haim, and Ein Gev in Palestine.185)

In the mid 1920’s, there was another shift in the organization’s ideologicalplatform. In his report on the youth movement presented at a meeting of theCentral Committee of the Zionist Organization in 1927, Hans Lichtwitz describedthe development of Techelet Lavan as follows:

“We can distinguish three stages in the Techelet Lavan movement. The firststage ended with the Great War. Typical for the second stage was themovement’s orientation towards the Aliyah; we arrived there more or lessthrough Socialism rather than Zionism. This stage too has ended. Now, themovement’s track is that of general Zionism, its leaders are not halutzim.”186)

As I have already mentioned, Techelet Lavan took root above all among theZionist youth in the German-speaking border areas of the Czech Lands, inlinguistically mixed regions, and in Moravia. Only in 1938 did a Czech alternativeto Techelet Lavan emerge, namely El-Al, which had some success.187) Theestablishment of El-Al goes back to January 1937, when Martin Buber heldanother of his Prague lectures on Jewish identity. On this occasion, a young man,Paul Kohn, collected the addresses of the young people in the audience and invitedthem to the first meeting of the future El-Al. At the moment of its registration atthe beginning of 1938, the organization had about fifty members. Nonetheless, at

183) For example Karel Bruml’s article: ‘K sjezdu’ [On the Convention], Listy židovské mládeže[Jewish Youth Journal], 1923 / 4–5, p. 40.184) R. Lederer: ‘O židovský skauting’ [Building the Jewish Boy-Scout Movement], Listy židovskémládeže, 1923 / 6, p. 54.185) Amos Sinai: ‘Introduction’, in: Rhapsody to Tchelet Lavan in Czechoslovakia, p. 11. IndividualCzechoslovak halutzim also settled in the communities of Nes Tzionah, Rehovot, Rishon LeTzion,Bet Shemen, Petah Tikva, Herzlia, Kfar-Saba, Raanana, Gan Shmuel, Hedera, Binyaminah, Nahalal,Ein Harod, Tel Yosef, Mishmar HaEmek, Deganya, and Kfar Gun; see Oskar Aschermann:‘Českoslovenští Židé v Palestýně a styky obou zemí’ [The Czechoslovak Jews in Palestine and theContacts between both Countries], ŽK, 1934 / 35, p. 95.186) CZA, Z 4 / 3564, Protokoll der Sitzung des Zionistischen Exekutivkomitees vom 23.5.1927, p. 3.187) AMP, SK XXII / 2705.

155

the time of its formal establishment, El-Al was already publishing its El Al Revuewith a circulation of two hundred copies. By the end of the year, the movementhad about two hundred members in Brno (Brünn) and Hradec Králové(Königgrätz). Given the political situation, their program focused mainly onAliyah. In the end only a few individuals managed to escape to Palestine.188)

One of the main topics at several conventions of Jewish youth in the years 1923and 1924 was the difference between the level of development of the Zionist youthorganizations in the German and Czech areas respectively. At the SecondConvention of Jewish Youth held in May 1923 and attended mostly by delegatesfrom the Czech-speaking country districts, the assembly adopted a resolutiondefining its relation to Techelet Lavan. The delegates came to the conclusion thatthe Jewish youth in the Czech-speaking districts had only just begun organizingand was lacking “closeness to nature, a stage which Techelet Lavan had alreadysurpassed.” The proclamation concluded as follows: “We are not separated fromTechelet Lavan by language but by maturity.”189) Other sources clearly show thatthe Zionists had trouble attracting the young generation of Czech Jews. In theirconfidential reports, the representatives of the Central Zionist Union forCzechoslovakia did not conceal the fact that a generation conflict was developingin some Czech-speaking areas. Whereas the older German-speaking or bilingualgeneration still supported the Zionist program,

“their children find themselves in a ceaseless stream of cultural assimilation;they can only be rescued for the Jewish nation and culture through a wellprepared and well organized cultural and educational effort.”190)

At the same time it must be underlined that both among the general Jewishpopulation as well as among the Zionists, Czech had replaced German as thedominant language. Whereas the German-language weekly Selbstwehr was losingreaders, the circulation of Židovské zprávy was increasing. In the interwar period,according to the last editor of Židovské zprávy, Viktor Fischl, this periodical wasread mainly by the young generation as opposed to Selbstwehr, whose readershipbelonged to an older generation.191)

One could argue that in the Czech-speaking regions, the Zionist youthmovement was developing slowly due to the high degree of socio-cultural

188) Otto B. Kraus: ‘The El Al Divertimento’, in: Rhapsody to Tchelet Lavan in Czechoslovakia, pp.256–258.189) ‘II. sjezd žid. mládeže’ [Second Convention of Jewish Youth], Listy židovské mládeže, 1923 /6, p. 57.190) Letter to the local Zionist groups and trustees of the Zionist Labour Commission for the Czech-speaking Regions within the Central Zionist Union for Czechoslovakia, December 20, 1926, CZA,Z 4 / 2338.191) See my interview with Viktor Fischl; a portion of this interview was published in the Věstníkžidovských náboženských obcí v českých zemích a na Slovensku [Bulletin of the Jewish ReligiousCommunities in the Czech Lands and Slovakia] in March 2001.

156

integration of the Jews into the Czech environment. The situation was different inMoravia, where the Zionists were often able to enlist the support of therepresentatives of the local Jewish communities.192)

***The specific features of Zionism in the Czech Lands become clear, when

compared to the situation in Slovakia. There, the first Zionists were orthodoxJews, who supported Mizrachi. In the early years of the First CzechoslovakRepublic, only a handful of isolated non-orthodox Zionist youth groups existedin Slovakia, and the Zionist movement in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia was still inits early stages.193) Oskar Neumann (in Palestine, he later assumed the nameJirmejahu Neumann), who visited Bratislava on a business trip already in 1920deserves the most credit for organizing the Zionist youth in Slovakia. Here,Neumann made an interesting experience. He tried to establish a Tseirei Ziongroup, which was ideologically equivalent to the Czech Hapoel Hatzair as wellas a branch of Blau Weiss. Very early, it became evident that neither the programnor the form developed among the young Zionists in the Czech Lands wouldattract new Zionists in Slovakia. More successful than Neumann was LeoKalman, who was inspired by the boy-scout movement, and allowed his group towear uniforms and exercise a tough discipline. Hashomer Hatzair was notregistered in the Czech Lands, but was formed in Slovakia thanks to a number ofhalutzim from Poland and the Ukraine, who were passing through Bratislava ontheir way to Palestine. Its main organizers in Slovakia were Julius Gross andPerez Fischer.

In his memoirs, Neumann views the early years of the Zionist youth movementin Slovakia with critical eyes:

“Given the spiritual structure of the Jewish youth in Slovakia in this period, theyoung people were initially only impressed by the surface effects of the boy-scout movement: nice uniforms, sharp military discipline, banners, and otherexternal things. The deeper educational ideas and the great ideal of thehalutzim were neither understood nor included in their program. Nevertheless,the magnetism of these superficialities was so great that in many locations, wewere able to gather large sections of the population, often all of the localJewish youth, under Hashomer’s banner.”194)

192) The fact that the Zionist movement in Moravia had more favorable conditions in comparisonwith Bohemia was also stressed by the delegates to the Convention of the Jewish Youth in UherskéHradiště (Ungarisch Hradisch) in 1924, Listy židovské mládeže, 1924 / 2, p. 23.193) Livia Rothkirchen: ‘Slovakia’, I., 1848-1918, in: Jews of Czechoslovakia, Vol. II, p. 79; S.Goshen: ‘Zionist Students’s Organizations’, in: Jews of Czechoslovakia, Vol. II, p. 182-183.194) Jirmejahu Neumann: ‘Zur Geschichte der zionistischen Jugendbewegung in der Slowakei’, in:ZJG, 1966 / 2-3, p. 134.

157

Neumann’s critical approach to the character of the Zionist movement inSlovakia is understandable. For Neumann, like for most Jews from the CzechLands, Buber was an important teacher, and Neumann supported his notion ofZionism as an intellectual and spiritual movement.195) All the same, he continuedhis strong engagement in Slovakia and contributed a great deal to the success ofZionism in this province.196) Thanks to Oskar Neumann’s initiative, it becamepossible to strengthen the organizational and ideological structure of HashomerHatzair in the 1920’s, and to establish contacts with young Zionists in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. The latter were organized in Kadimah. In December 1925,the Slovak and Sub-Carpathian organizations merged and formed Hashomer-Kadimah. It did not last long. Already in 1927 did Kadimah decide to go its ownway and joined Vladimir Jabotinsky’s revisionist youth movement B’ritTrumpeldor.

Since then, the strongly leftist Hashomer Hatzair and the strongly rightist B’ritTrumpeldor formed the main axis of the Jewish youth movement in Slovakia andSub-Carpathian Ruthenia. At the same time, none of these movements managedto strike root in the Czech Lands. Hashomer Hatzair was not even registeredthere, and the presence of B’rit Trumpeldor was very limited.197)

***In conclusion, I would like to point to the links between the program of the

Zionist movement in the Czech Lands after World War I and the legacy of the pre-war Bar Kochba. Naturally, there were also numerous differences.

The First World War and the Balfour Declaration transformed Zionism into areal political force and player in international politics. After the Great War, CzechZionists focused more on the political fulfilment of the Zionist ideology includingthe advancement of Jewish minority rights. They were aided by the positiveapproach of the Czechoslovak state to ethnic minorities, above all by the option tochoose Jewish nationality in the census. These and other factors discussed in thisarticle contributed to the growing success of the Zionist movement at the expenseof the organized Czech-Jewish movement.

Another shift was that of the political orientation. All former leading membersof Bar Kochba and Theodor Herzl supported the political left. They did notembrace Poale Zion with its strongly Marxist program, but rather the ideology ofHapoel Hatzair emphasizing personal engagement and support for Jewishsettlement in Palestine.

In spite of these changes, one could argue that pre-war and interwar Zionismhad many common features. The continuity was maintained above all by such

195) Cf. e.g. public lecture of Angelo Neumann in Moravská Ostrava (Mährisch Ostrau) held onFebruary 26, 1938, SÚA, MV pres., 225-980-7, X/Ž/6/8, p. 2.196) Oskar Neumann‘s tireless campaign for Zionism in Slovakia is also documented by materialscontained in his estate kept at the CZA, A 123.197) Kateřina Čapková: ‘Piłsudski or Masaryk?’.

158

individuals as Max Brod, Felix Weltsch, Angelo Goldstein, Ludvík Singer, andJosef Rufeisen. During the entire interwar period, the close contacts with theleading Zionists abroad such as Hugo Bergmann, Leo Herrmann, Robert Weltschand the mentor of Bar Kochba Martin Buber were maintained. Those Zionists,who remained in Czechoslovakia strove as editors of the main Zionist periodicals,members of Parliament for the Jewish Party or as leading representatives of theZionist organization to revitalize a Jewish national consciousness with particularemphasis on Jewish culture, traditions and ethnic solidarity. At the centre of theiractivities was the effort to build a network of national Jewish schools.

In view of the Czech Zionists’ program, it is understandable that theyestablished close contacts with the long-standing chairman of the WZO ChaimWeizmann. The Czech Zionists remained loyal to him in the critical year 1931,when he was removed from his leadership position.

In opposition to this Weizmann-style ‘synthetic Zionism’ stood EmilMargulies with a handful of supporters. Margulies had earned great credit in thedevelopment of Zionism in Northern and Western Bohemia. Nevertheless, theyoung Zionist generation from this region was rather critical of Margulies’rightwing program. For several years, Margulies stayed on as Chairman of theJewish Party, but when he refused pragmatic cooperation with the CzechoslovakSocial Democracy in 1935, his influence was reduced to a minimum.

In Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, non-orthodox Zionism begandeveloping only after 1918, and the young Jews there were particularly attractedto either the Marxist organization Hashomer Hatzair or the rightwing revisionistorganization B’rit Trumpeldor.

The comparison between the situation in the Czech lands and that in otherregions and countries could be continued. For example it is interesting to note thatthe radical Zionist Emil Margulies remained isolated in the Czech Lands, whileanother radical Zionist, Robert Stricker (supported by Heinrich Margulies, brotherof Emil), became exceptionally successful in Vienna.198) However, the analysis ofthe reasons for these differences would be beyond the scope of this study.

To sum up, the background for the success of the Czech Zionists in theinterwar period was firstly that the Czech Zionists were integrated into thesurrounding society to a degree unprecedented in other regions of Central Europe.Their close contacts with the cultural (German and/or Czech) elite and theirmoderate political program signalled to Jews and non-Jews alike that Zionism wasnot incompatible with the Czech environment and did not necessary entail an endto Jewish integration. This is also why so few Czech Zionists made Aliyah untilthe late 1930s. However, the political success of the Zionists would never become

198) During World War I, the conflict between the so called political and cultural Zionists waspersonified by the confrontation between Robert Stricker and Robert Weltsch. Heinrich Marguliessupported Stricker. David Rechter: The Jews of Vienna and the First World War, pp. 123-127.

159

so clear if – and that is the second point – Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Rutheniahad not been part of the new state. The question of Jews’ nationality only becamea significant political issue due to the large Jewish communities in the Easternparts of Czechoslovakia.

These two points reflect, as I believe, the unique character of Zionism in theCzech Lands between the World Wars. It was a movement that gained popularitydue to its Western-type orientation and character, but the political success of thismovement was completely dependent on the Eastern type Jewish communities inSub-Carpathian Ruthenia and in Eastern Slovakia.