|
My research analyzes the impact of the
antisemitic legislation on the everyday Jewish life in Italy and the
reaction of Italian Jewry to the legislation during the years
1938-1943, in the period prior to the Nazi occupation of Italy and
the beginning of the deportations of Jews from Italy to
extermination camps. The issue of the Jewish responses to the
racial policy has never been fully investigated. Therefore, the
goal of my research has been to analyze this subject from the point
of view of the individual and the Jewish leadership in order to
study the Jews as subjects and not merely as objects of the events.
The Jewish community in Italy is one of
the most ancient in the Diaspora. Jews arrived to Rome in 160 BCE
when envoys from Judah Maccabee (Judas Maccabeus) arrived to solicit
an alliance from the Roman Senate. In 70 CE the Romans destroyed
the Temple in Jerusalem, breaking the political alliance. The
Emperor Titus brought Jewish slave laborers to Rome to join the
ranks of the newly enslaved Roman community. This relatively small
Jewish community soon came to be effected by the differing political
systems and rulers that emerged throughout the region’s history.
After nearly two millennia of life under
restrictions and religious persecution, the Jews in Italy achieved
emancipation during the Italian Risorgimento in the 19th century.
They became citizens who fought side by side with the rest of the
Italian people, in search of freedom and unity. Their full
integration into Italian society can be seen by their style of life
and the increasing patterns of intermarriages that reached, during
the first decades of the 20th century, up to 50% in some cities. By
the 1930s, the Jewish inhabitants in Italy varied between 40,000 to
45,000 or one per thousand of the population. Italian Jewry
belonged mainly to the middle and upper-middle classes, as an urban
community whose educational level was above the national average.
Jews were integrated into the Italian economic, cultural, and
political life, and their social and political attitudes were
similar to those of the rest of the Italian population. When
Mussolini came to power in 1922, the response of the Jews compared
favorably to the rest of the Italian populace; some immediately and
enthusiastically joined the Fascist Party while others opposed it.
For the most part, Jews, like the rest of the population, eventually
came to accept Mussolini’s leadership and his totalitarian regime.
When the official anti-Jewish policy
began in the summer of 1938, Italian Jews considered themselves and
were considered by others to be equal citizens who love their
country. Yet, in September 1938, the first antisemitic laws were
promulgated despite the fact that several thousand Italian Jews
belonged to the Fascist Party. Considering the lack of antisemitism
in Italian society, the new laws were a great shock. It is
important to emphasize that both the non-Jewish and the Jewish
population believed the antisemitic laws were promulgated against
Mussolini’s will and only in order to appease the German ally.
Italian Jews, therefore, assumed that the new laws were meant only
as a temporary discriminatory measure. However, this was not the
case. The antisemitic legislation in Italy originated solely with
Mussolini and not as a result of any Nazi pressure. Yet, the Jews’
trust in Mussolini and in Italian society continued during the
following months when Mussolini introduced into the Italian
antisemitic legislation the confusing concept of Discriminazione
(discrimination). Under this concept, Jews who had particular
merits and privileges could receive exemptions from some
restrictions. Many Jews believed Mussolini would ensure that
individual Jews deemed as good citizens would not be effected by the
antisemitic legislation. A model citizen was one with strong
Italian national, cultural, and social identification. However, as
most Jews were losing their jobs and becoming more and more
alienated, their espoused belief was traumatically revealed to be
false.
By focusing on the aspects of everyday
life and the Jewish responses, one can understand how incorrect is
the positive image of Fascist Italy as a country which implemented a
light antisemitic policy. Daily life was in actuality extremely
harsh and tough under the new legislation, yet family members
learned how to cope with their economic stress, the sense of
despondency, and their feelings of betrayal caused by the forced
division from the rest of society. Italian Jews, for the most part,
did not remain passive when the antisemitic legislation was
ratified. Rather, they searched for solutions in accordance with
their understanding of the situation, social status, and in regards
to each person’s own possibilities and means.
Jews responded to their situation in a
variety of ways, such as writing letters of protest or petition,
mainly to Mussolini, whom many continued to view as their protector,
and were convinced that he would not disappoint them. Between
1938-1943, the Italian government received more than 1,000 letters
addressed to Mussolini and to King Victor Emmanuel III. Those who
wrote letters believed that direct appeals would, in the least,
bring about some amelioration of the Jews’ conditions or, at best,
abolish of the antisemitic laws. As one person wrote in a letter to
Mussolini, “I am not arguing with the law…but allow me to say that
this was not decided out of free will, it was imposed on you by your
German ally…abolish some of the laws, it is not too late…” These
letters reflect a wide range of feelings and individual perceptions,
which have enabled me to come to a deep understanding of the period.
A second and important aspect of my
research deals with the Jewish leadership. Until today, this
subject has not yet been dealt with in depth because of the
sensitivity of the issue. By conducting a comprehensive study of
the two consecutive Italian Jewish leadership groups of Frederico
Jarach and Aldo Ascoli and later of Dante Almansi and Lelio Vittorio
Valobra, it became evident that the Jewish collective memory judges
the whole issue from an emotional point of view. It is commonly
believed that the first leadership group lacked any capacity to cope
with the situation and failed to proudly represent Italian Jewry by
acquiescing to the authorities.
The second leadership is believed to
have totally changed this pattern, acting effectively and
dynamically, and, therefore, restoring the lost self-pride of the
Jewish community. From my historical reconstruction, I came to the
conclusion that it is impossible to make a clear dichotomy between
the two leadership groups because of how the surrounding
circumstances, external influences, and the sequence of events
influenced the actions and impressions of each particular leadership
group. However, from a holistic analysis of each period and
leadership response, I have determined that both leadership groups
were not so different in their thoughts, perceptions, and
strategies. The main difference between the two groups emerge from
a better understanding of the real situation of the Jews, which was
only possible during the period of the second leadership, because of
the passing of time.
The increase of antisemitism, the
ratification of more legislation against the Jews, and the negative
answers to the numerous petitions led to a sobering realization of
the gravity of the situation for the Jews in Italy. Italian Jews
realized that, although they had remained legal citizens, their
civil rights had been severely violated. They were no longer
allowed to live freely. It was difficult for many of them to accept
that Mussolini, the man who had attacked Nazi barbarism, would
eventually turn against his loyal Jewish citizens. However, after
finally realizing that they would not be allowed to live in and
serve Italy as they had done since the Risorgimento, the Jews of
Italy understood that the racial laws were intended to be permanent
and their situation would only worsen. In September 1943, the
Nazis occupied most of Italy and ushered in the time of deportations
to the East, which caused the Jews of one of the most ancient
community in the Diaspora to either flee, go into hiding, or be
deported to their deaths.
I believe that today, more than sixty
years after the Holocaust, we are better able to analyze the period
1938-1943 not only from a moral perspective, but also from a
historical one. This topic poses major and fascinating questions
such as the connection between identity and strategies of reaction
on the individual level and in the public sphere. Clearly, the
Zionists and the anti-Fascists were more likely to understand the
reality into which they were thrown. We must remember that the
reality was extremely confounding and unclear. This was partly
directed by the Fascist state, which tried to confuse its victims,
in order to avoid any antagonism with Italian society as well as the
Jewish community. It was difficult to comprehend the intention of
the state, but with time most of the Jews attained a better
insight. They realized that, despite their profound love for Italy,
they had been shunned and cast out from the society to which they so
strove to belong.
|