This Month in Holocaust History
On November 23, 1939, Governor General Hans Frank ordered all Jewish Poles in German occupied Poland who were over the age of ten to wear a white armband with a blue Star of David on them. Between 1939 and 1941, Jews throughout German-occupied Eastern Europe were forced to wear distinguishing marks, such as armbands or yellow star badges. Different badges were used during the Holocaust period to identify Jews. Further distinctions on badges were made in some of the ghettos for members of the Jewish police, the Jewish Council (or Judenräte), and doctors.
It was generally the responsibility of the Jews to purchase, create, and distribute the badges. If caught without a badge in areas where they were obliged to wear it, Jews could be fined, imprisoned, or shot. The Nazi policy of forcing Jews to wear badges isolated the Jews from the larger population. It aimed at humiliating the Jews by labeling them as ‘other’ and allowed for targeted public harassment of Jews.
The German authorities were not the first to require Jews to wear a distinguishing symbol. During the Middle Ages, Jews throughout Europe were forced to wear different forms of markings to set them apart. By the end of the eighteenth century, following Jewish emancipation in most European countries, these orders ceased. Josef Goebbels first suggested a distinguishing mark for German Jews in May 1938. Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Reich Security Main office, suggested it in the days following the 1938 November Pogrom in Germany and Austria. Though the policy was not implemented until late 1939, once it was, it quickly spread to areas of almost every country that Nazi Germany occupied including Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, and occupied France. The “Jewish Badge” was never implemented in Denmark.
Jews and some non-Jews reacted to the law throughout Europe. In France, the French police did not enforce the law and many non-Jewish residents wore a star in solidarity with the Jews. In Holland, an underground newspaper printed “Jews and non-Jews are one and the same” on 300,000 stars.
Inaccessible Bermuda was chosen as the conference’s venue in order to limit the number of reporters and private representatives attending. Members of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the World Jewish Congress were not permitted to attend. The issues that could be discussed was also severely limited by the organizers.
However, like the Evian Conference, the Bermuda Conference reached few solutions. Most observers agree that the Conference was a public relations sham to appease mostly Jewish groups, which had organized public protests about the situation in Europe, and to mask President Roosevelt’s true intentions of American inactivity. The reluctance to intervene resulted from the antisemitic and anti-immigration mood in the State Department. Regardless of President Roosevelt’s intentions and goals, the Bermuda Conference failed to propose any meaningful immediate rescue efforts. Not even reports confirming mass murders led to heightened governmental concern. The strategy continued to remain one of “rescue through victory.”
President Roosevelt’s paradoxical behavior remains a question. Why did he convene two international conferences while essentially closing American doors to refugees? It is important for us to explore these complex moral and ethical questions with our students, because they continue to be relevant today. When and why do political leaders get involved in foreign affairs? How can we as citizens help our own government assist people who are in need? To what extent are citizens responsible for the actions of their elected governments?
Inaccessible Bermuda was chosen as the conference’s venue in order to limit the number of reporters and private representatives attending. Members of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the World Jewish Congress were not permitted to attend. The issues that could be discussed was also severely limited by the organizers.
However, like the Evian Conference, the Bermuda Conference reached few solutions. Most observers agree that the Conference was a public relations sham to appease mostly Jewish groups, which had organized public protests about the situation in Europe, and to mask President Roosevelt’s true intentions of American inactivity. The reluctance to intervene resulted from the antisemitic and anti-immigration mood in the State Department. Regardless of President Roosevelt’s intentions and goals, the Bermuda Conference failed to propose any meaningful immediate rescue efforts. Not even reports confirming mass murders led to heightened governmental concern. The strategy continued to remain one of “rescue through victory.”
President Roosevelt’s paradoxical behavior remains a question. Why did he convene two international conferences while essentially closing American doors to refugees? It is important for us to explore these complex moral and ethical questions with our students, because they continue to be relevant today. When and why do political leaders get involved in foreign affairs? How can we as citizens help our own government assist people who are in need? To what extent are citizens responsible for the actions of their elected governments?
Contact Us
.svg)