Life_under_Siege_The_Jews_of_Magdeburg_under_Nazi_Rule.pdf

172
instances this was for what would have been deemed normal relationships
between Jews and non-Jews prior to September 1935. Reference is also made to
the amount of publicity the case had drawn from the press in Frankfurt. 159 In the
ensuing weeks, a large number of the store’s Jewish employees tendered their
immediate resignation. Although not implicated in any way in the alleged crimes,
Hermann Broder was already investigating the sale of his business. 160 Clearly,
both Broder and his staff were fearful and felt vulnerable.
As in the case of Albert Hirschland, the legal counsel for the office of the
public prosecutor was the same representative, a man by the name of Kürth.
Likewise, the presiding judge, Judge Pippig, was the same. Both men were
notorious antisemites. On 25 February 1935, Die Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, which
had been reporting the entire trial proceedings, triumphantly wrote that Fischel
had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, Gans to one year’s imprisonment
and Oehm to five months. The other accused had been acquitted. 161 It is not
known if they were re-arrested, as was the tendency in such cases.
In these instances of ‘Rassenschande’ the clear delineation was made that, as
in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws, any sexual relations between Jews and
‘Aryans’ were prohibited. Sabatzky commented that Jews were being arrested for
exactly this reason. This separation in accordance with both law and Nazi racial
doctrine is demonstrated rigidly. As articulated by Barkai, 162 this instance is also
an excellent example of sale by coercion, as Hermann Broder, sensing the
159
Correspondence from the regional office of the CV in Leipzig to the head office of
the CV in Berlin, 15 December 1935, Collection RG-11.00M.31, Reel 130, File 721-
1-2845, USHMMA, op. cit., p. 373.
160
Correspondence from the regional office of the CV in Leipzig to the head office of
the CV in Berlin, 6 January 1936, ibid., pp. 359–360.
161
“Gefängnisstrafen im Barasch-Prozeß,” in Die Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, 25. Februar
1935, ibid., p. 348.
162
Barkai, op. cit., p. 71.