Life_under_Siege_The_Jews_of_Magdeburg_under_Nazi_Rule.pdf

counsel for Jewish clients and defending Jewish interests. 34 The incident
infuriated the local hierarchy and it dispatched a memorandum reminding its
members that all ‘personal contact’ 35 with Jews was forbidden. It also indicated
that the police would endeavour to obtain a list of those solicitors involved, in
order to take disciplinary action. 36 Whilst this example indicates that a number of
individuals were still exerting personal choice in their contacts with Jews, it
clearly demonstrates the force and potential effect of a Nazi Party directive. An
even clearer example of this occurred on 4 October 1935, when all civil servants
in the Gau Magdeburg-Anhalt were ordered not to shop in ‘non-Aryan’
establishments. 37
Even without a Nazi Party directive to boycott, it was enough for it to simply
create agitation in the public eye and allow events to follow their natural course.
An example of this occurred on 28 November 1935, when a complaint was made
concerning a Jewish monopoly in the livestock trade in the Gau and of the alleged
inflated prices leading to higher retail prices for meat. The complainant claimed
that this situation would lead to ‘unrest and discontent amongst the local
population’ 38 and an inquiry was ordered. The text and the tone of the complaint
indicated its purposes. The desire to remove Jews from the livestock trade was
clearly articulated, as was the invitation to incite public anger for the ‘alleged
inflated prices.’ The level of concerted force involved in driving Jews out of
34
Rundschreiben Nr. 134/35; Betr.: Vertretung jüdischer Interessen durch arische
Rechsanwälte, 6. Mai 1935, Bestand Oa, Signatur Nr. 46, ASGM, p. 88.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Betrifft: Einwirkung auf die Beamtenschaft beim Besuch nichtarischer Geschäfte,
4. Oktober 1935, Bestand Rep. C 20 I. I b, Signatur Nr. 119, LHASA MD, op. cit., pp.
285–286.
38
Betrifft: Juden in Viehhandel, 28. November 1935, Bestand Z.-Dok.001, Signatur
Nr. 043, ASGM, p. 95.
89