Despite the German Zionists’ opposition to inhumane nationalism and their awareness of the dangers of anti‐Semitism, Krojanker believed that they should not ignore the authentic forces revealed in the [Fascist] movement:

A distinction must be drawn between the party as an organization with its leadership on the one hand, and the vital forces standing behind it on the other. It must also be said that party machinery and the external structure still have to undergo a process of fundamental change. Hitler may be the beginning but he is not the last word on this movement. Remaining throughout all upheavals, there will be the growing vital force and its two objectives: the national and the social.

It may for a certain time be possible to exploit this force for evil ends, yet in itself it is real and great. It grows out of that mythos without which Germany today would look a great deal sadder than she does, for people in their despair need a banner to which they can lift up their eyes while rolling in the dust.⁷

Unlike the Jewish supporters of the liberals, Zionists took the concept of nationalism seriously, and they were thus able to be more sympathetic toward the political developments in Germany.

These principles induced the editors of the Jüdische Rundschau to turn once more to circles of the nationalist Right with offers of agreement on a basis of mutual respect and fair play. In September 1932, at the height of a wave of terror, when it was known that Schleicher was negotiating with Hitler on the latter’s candidacy for the post of Chancellor, the Zionist organ wrote:

Though we as Zionists are of course opposed to a new government controlled by the National Socialists and the new line of policy to be adopted by them, we have always striven, despite the anti‐Semitism of the national movement of young Germany, to understand this trend and its psychological and spiritual foundations, and the drive for renewal revealed therein as an historic force.

We believe it is Jewry with its national consciousness that will be able to find the way to a modus vivendi with a German nationalism strengthened from within and relieved of the dross of mob anti‐Semitism. This of course will not be possible in the form of identification [a reference to the “German nationalist” Jews led by Max Naumann] which, aside from the inherent lie involved, would expose Jewry to ridicule.⁸

The paper stressed that the formation of a government led by Hitler meant the end of any possibility of assimilation. Only the Zionists, thanks to their open acknowledgment of their Semitic origins, were likely to become partners in any negotiations with the new government to alleviate the situation of Jews in Germany.⁹

Following the change of régime, some of the Zionist leaders believed that although they represented only a small minority, they would succeed to the liberal leadership of German Jewry. Zionists, it was argued, would bear responsibility for the preservation of German Jewry under the nationalist régime which was about to rise. Such a development would impose new priorities on the Zionists, and consequently they would have to adopt a more positive attitude toward Diaspora life, in contradiction to the traditional “Palestino‐centric” approach of German Zionism.¹⁰

This position was presented by Dr. Alfred Landsberger, a former chairman of the ZVfD, in an article entitled “Special Duties of German Zionism.” He argued that Palestine could not solve the problems of the suffering masses of Jews throughout the world. It could not even give shelter to a significant number of them, this being to no small degree the fault of German Jewry, who had negated Zionism and were even hostile to it.

Had they allocated even a minute fraction of the wealth they lost during the economic crisis, thousands of them could have been setting up their homes in Palestine. Though the aliyah of a few thousand Jews would not have solved the economic and moral crisis in which German Jewry found themselves, it would have forged a close link with Eretz‐Yisrael and at the same time paved the way toward a united front of the Jews in Germany. In light of these facts, German Jewry would remain dependent on Germany for some time to come:

The German Jew is deeply rooted in the spiritual life of Germany. He acquired and feels as his very own possession the German language, the German scene, German spirit in its highest manifestation, and he cannot forego any one of them as long as he lives in Germany. In our view, all attempts at cutting loose from this German life are senseless […] we can advance the Hebrew language but for us in Germany it will never become our mother tongue […] we therefore want to fight for our existence, as Germans, like all others.

[…]

The centrality of Palestine in the policies of the ZVfd also had ramifications in Zionist or Zionist‐inclined youth movements. These struggled hard against socialist and communist infiltration among Jewish youth. Particularly affected were Brith Haʻolim and Hashomer Hatzair, which had socialist leanings.

As early as 1928 Brith Haʻolim forbade its members to belong to the Communist Party. Now it had to extend this ruling also to communist trade unions (RGO), “Anti‐fascist Action,” as well as youth organizations of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Socialist Workers’ Party (SAP).

Brith Haʻolim did not base these decisions on political arguments — though through them it did in fact deny its members involvement in German political struggles — but on educational considerations: in recognition that youth movements, if they wanted to achieve their educational aims, must engage the full attention of their followers, who could not also belong to German socialist organizations.

[…]

On April 1, the inconceivable happened. The [NSDAP] declared an economic boycott of Jews. It is difficult to convey the sense of shock and consternation which overcame the Jewish public. The whole Jewish press came out to comfort and strengthen the Jews in their pain and confusion. The most appropriate expression, however, came from the pen of Robert Weltsch on April 4:

April 1 can be a day of Jewish awakening and revival, if the Jews wish it. If the Jews will show maturity and pride. […] The boycott organizers ordered the display of signs with a yellow patch on a black background. This act is of enormous symbolic value. Its purpose was to mark us with a sign of shame, to degrade us. We shall wear it as a sign of distinction […] the Jewish reply is clear […] it may be compressed in the curt remark by Moses: “I am a Hebrew.” That is the moral meaning of the present event.³²

(Emphasis added.)