state. On the contrary, women were more in touch with subtle changes in prejudice based on their interactions within the surrounding community. Appel, for example, clearly expresses her anxieties after noticing Christian friends distancing themselves from her. In contrast to her husband, and in many cases this was representative of several Jewish spousal dynamics, Appel felt that leaving the country would make her family safe. However, the mere suggestion of such to her husband, instigated a disagreement between the two: hers pertaining to the safety abroad, and his to his duty as a German and the hope that such extreme prejudice measures were ephemeral. For example, when the Jewish men in the community were discussing the exodus of a Jewish doctor, they strongly denounced him and claimed that he was “wrong,” while the women contended that he was brave because he was willing to risk the unknown (Reader, 94). Kaplan reveals that Jews did have a choice in emigrating, and many of them indeed planned on doing so, but the reality for many was that starting up anew in an entirely new country in many cases was understandably daunting. For many, such as the elderly, it was not entirely realistic. Moreover, the rationale to stay was compelling for many as well. Many men believed that this “shame” of being a Jew could be made into a point of pride and that by uniting as one under this temporary state of oppression the Jewish community could become stronger than ever before. It was a sort of nationalistic Jewish movement that came to be one of the most prominent points of Zionist movement. Overall, it is important to understand that during this confusing time it was difficult to understand just what was going on and what it would eventually lead to, and the range of responses demonstrates the complexity of the matter.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 18 pages?
- Summer '07
- The Holocaust