Book Chat: Exodus to Shanghai

By Hannah Lee

Heartbreaking are the testimonies of Jews who sought every avenue of escape from Nazi-controlled Europe, but were foiled at every turn, with diplomatic and bureaucratic obstacles. They had limited access to accurate news. They had limited resources to buy their freedom and even the ones with means and the forethought found themselves victims of covetous maneuvers. Nazi regulations forbade bringing most valuables from the country and limited cash to 10 Marks or $10 per person.

First-hand testimonies are found in a book published in July, Exodus to Shanghai: Stories of Escape from the Third Reich by Steve Hochstadt. As part of the academic Palgrave Macmillian studies in oral history, Professor Hochstadt’s research focused on the odyssey of 16,000 Jews who escaped from Nazi-run Europe and found refuge in Shanghai, China when all other doors had slammed shut. The book distilled the transcripts of 13 narrators chosen from over 100 oral histories conducted with the survivors.

Most of the narrators left their homes in the frantic and brief period between the Anschluss (the occupation and annexation) of Austria in March 1938 and the beginning of war in September 1939. They came from Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia and represent a cross section of all refugees. The book does not cover the odyssey of the religious Jews from Poland, including the entire Mirrer Yeshiva, who spoke Yiddish and dressed differently from the cosmopolitan Berliners and the Viennese.

Desperate and resourceful women found out that a visa to Shanghai could release their men from concentration camps. Assistance came from the philanthropic organizations, Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden in Germany and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee in New York, including tickets to Shanghai for the poorest families.

In the 1930s, Shanghai was the banking center of Asia and “an open port where the Chinese Nationalists and Communists, organized gangsters, Western capitalists, and the Japanese military competed for authority,” wrote Hochstadt. “Extremes of wealth and poverty jostled in the crowded streets.” Upon arrival, the refugees experienced culture shock in the form of the tropical heat, an alien language, and wartime inflation.

The marvel was that the refugees quickly developed a community in exile, with Jewish institutions and forms of self-governance. The Austrians even created a café life on the streets of their new home. The most ambitious and successful creation was the Shanghai Jewish Youth Association School, affectionately known as the Kadoorie School. About 600 students enrolled in a curriculum of religious and secular subjects, taught in English by the refugees and modeled after Jewish schools in Germany.

“The remarkable thing about Jewish life in Shanghai until 1943 is that there was no persecution,” wrote Hochstadt. The Japanese already controlled most of the city but, while they were allies of the Nazis, they adopted a completely different policy toward Jews. They finally took action on February 18, 1943, when they forced all “stateless refugees” who’d arrived after 1937 to live within less than a square mile in the neighborhood of Hongkou. However, the February Proclamation showed “the ambivalent nature of the Japanese attitude… the word Jew was not mentioned in the Proclamation ,” and the existing Baghdadi and Russian Jewish communities in Shanghai were spared.

With the end of the war, these refugees again had to find new places to live. Nearly all refugee families wanted to leave Shanghai as soon as possible. “Very few had been able to create a life they wanted to continue in China. Remaining in post-colonial China…meant learning and adopting Chinese culture; only a handful of European Jews accepted that challenge,” wrote Hochstadt.

Illustrative of the enormous difficulties for displaced persons after the war, one of the last groups to leave Shanghai, 106 of them without U.S. visas, were supposed to travel across the Pacific on the “General Gordon,” but the Chinese refused to allow the ship to anchor offshore.  So, on May 1950,

the refugees had to take a train to Tientsin, then board barges in heavy seas to get out to the ship. When they arrived in the United States, they were put on a sealed train and transported across the country to Ellis Island…In June, another boat took them to Bremerhaven [Germany], and they entered DP camps, where they stayed for one more year. Finally they were given visas to the United States in 1951.

By the time of the Chinese Communists’ Cultural Revolution in 1966, the Jewish communities of Shanghai “were just a memory.”

The book gives the history of the slight majority of the Shanghai refugees who came to the United States. Life in the United States meant assimilation, letting go of their German culture. They had to adjust to a new world order. One refugee, Lisbeth Loewenberg, reminisced about her adjustment to stability:

My first job that I found after one week when I walked around, that was with Collier’s magazine. This place took subscriptions, they had salesmen go running around and selling subscriptions to Collier’s and Good Housekeeping and Cosmopolitan, and so on, and I processed these orders. People took subscriptions for one year. I said, “But how do people know that after one year they will still be at that address?” I couldn’t believe in permanence anymore. I was completely shocked that some people took two-year subscriptions. It floored me. But you don’t know where you are going to be tomorrow, was my reaction. And life has actually always seemed to me not permanent.  It’s all just transitory.

Remarkably, these refugees, most of whom had been children or teens during the years in Shanghai, can even look back and say, as did Doris Grey, that they were “the best years” of her life. Another, Gerald Kohbieter, said, “It was a lifesaver. The Chinese were polite people, and they put up with a lot with us…There were some frictions, but all in all, I must say there were good hosts.”

The resilience of youth allowed many of them adapt to, and even profit from their refugee experiences. Lisbeth Loewenberg said,

All the barriers fell. It didn’t make a difference, what does your family do…because everyone was there and started from scratch, nil, nothing, in Shanghai. All things being equal, if all people start under the same adverse conditions, this is where your true ability will show or your true survival instincts or your enterprise…Don’t ever blame the condition, blame yourself.  Because under the most impossible conditions, some people will make it one way or another.

A friend pointed out to me that W. Michael Blumenthal who served as United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Jimmy Carter was one of these refugees.  He arrived in the United States in 1947 at age 21.

Professor Hochstadt earned his Ph.D. in History from Brown University, taught at Bates College in Maine for 27 years, and is now professor at Illinois College. He has just published another Holocaust oral history, Death and Love in the Holocaust: The Story of Sonja and Kurt Messerschmidt (Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine).

http://blog.pjvoice.com/diary/2962/book-chat-exodus-to-shanghai

Negotiation 101: A Cross-Cultural Case Study

By Hannah Lee

How much you know about yourself counts as much as how much you know about your opposing partner at the negotiating table, said the much-loved and much-lauded Professor Emeritus of Engineering Barrett Hazeltine in a presentation on Sunday for the Brown Alumni Club of Philadelphia at Bryn Mawr College. The case study he presented was the on-going negotiation between Google and the government of China, which began in 2005. What I learned was far more applicable to me in my personal relationships.

Plan before hand, said the Professor, and know what you want. In Google’s case, the goals range from: providing users high-speed access to information, earning profit, and enhancing its reputation, i.e., promoting itself as the search engine of choice. Google’s mission used to be, “Do no evil,” but, noted the Professor, the company no longer touts its ethical origins while pursuing profit.

The government of China, in contrast, wants to protect its own Internet search company, Baidu [ranked #4 in the world in 2006 after Google, #3, MSN, #2, and Yahoo, #1]. It faces a brain drain of scientific and technological expertise, and wants “the sea turtles to come home.” While China wants access to cutting-edge technology, it also wants to set limits on Internet use to maintain its political power.

Next, you have to understand the other side, taught Dr. Hazeltine, who began teaching at Brown in 1959 and won the Senior Class award for teaching for 13 consecutive years until it was named in his honor in 1985. The Google negotiators had difficulty interpreting the cross-cultural signals. Chinese protocol prohibits saying no or making other strong statements. To save face, a Chinese negotiator may nod, but the gesture does not reflect consent.

“Process” is also different for Chinese bureaucrats than for American technocrats.  Consensus is often arranged beforehand, or behind the scenes. The Chinese tend to look at the whole picture while Americans tend to deal with line-by-line details. Google has learned to unbundle issues and make multiple product offers, each “a whole picture” by itself.

During the negotiations, you must build trust and listen to the other side, expounded Professor Hazeltine, who now has 577 students– almost 1/10 of the undergraduates– enrolled in his popular ENGN 9 course, Management of Industrial and Nonprofit Organizations. “We’re born with two ears and one mouth for a good reason”– we should listen more than we speak. In Google’s discussions with the Chinese, informal meetings are crucial in building trust.

Be patient, advised the Professor, and be ready for post-settlement deals. In 2010, Google protested Chinese censorship of its search engine and moved operations to Hong Kong. Last week, Google and all of its major services were blocked in China on Friday, as the Communist Party met to appoint new leaders for the first time in a decade. The case is not closed yet.

One interesting tip from the audience came from an alumna who has found it useful to invent a hierarchy, even when she has the ultimate authority to make a decision, because she wanted more time to consider her options. This I later learned was an example of a classic negotiation tactic called “agent with limited authority,” in which the limits can be real or assumed.  With my children, I’ve given them carte blanche to label me the “bad cop,” when they need an excuse to fend off peer pressure.

Another audience member suggested a major difference between the Americans and the Chinese is the concept of time. Yes, agreed the Professor, citing the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 that ended the Vietnam War– the Americans reserved hotel rooms for the negotiations, while the Vietnamese bought real estate.

Professor Hazeltine’s newest course in social entrepreneurship and appropriate technologies stems from his years teaching consulting in Botswana, Malawi, and Zambia.

Another personal lesson came after the official presentation, when my husband and I met another inter-racial couple and we shared with each other the pitfalls of misunderstanding each other’s cultural cues. Marriage is comparable to business and international diplomacy, in which the two partners may come from different backgrounds and they have to find common ground and a common language to express their goals. Learning Professor Hazeltine’s strategies for negotiation may even help strengthen your marriage, but hopefully you’ll fare better than Google has in its relations with China.

http://blog.pjvoice.com/diary/2730/negotiation-101-a-crosscultural-case-study

Author Chat: Israel Among the Nations

By Hannah Lee

It’s the best of times for Israel and the worst of times, says Jonathan Adelman, in a presentation exploring Israel’s new relationships with former enemies and their implications for Israeli foreign policy. Professor Adelman is affiliated with the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver and the author or editor of 10 books on international affairs.  He has been sent by the U.S. State Department on 14 international speaking tours to a dozen countries, including England, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, India and Japan.  He spoke on behalf of Israel Bonds at Lower Merion Synagogue earlier in October.

Israel’s challenges for defense, compared to the United States, is its lack of strategic depth — it has only three major cities: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa — and a population density in which 92% of Israelis live on 3400 square miles.  (The Negev in the south has 58% of the land mass, but only 8% of the population live there.)

It’s the best of times because Israel enjoys a robust economy, with the highest average living standards in the Middle East and a per capita income in 2000 that exceeded that of the United Kingdom. On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups and it ranks  second in the world for venture capital funds after the United States.

It’s also the worst of times, with a destabilized Middle East and the greatest existential threat to the world in the last 100 years with the prospect of nuclear capability in Iran. (The estimates for their possession of an atomic bomb range from only 3 months to a year.) It is a nation of almost 6 million  Jews surrounded by 27 million Arabs. However, he’s no Biblical Jeremiah  preaching doom. He sees hope in Israel’s relationships with the former Soviet Union, India, and China.

As a Soviet scholar, Adelman ironically sees Russia as the preferred enemy to Iran, because the Russians are pragmatists, not ideologues, and he thinks that the KGB in effect protected the world from over 40,000 nuclear weapons.

India is Israel’s new friend: it recognized the state of Israel in 1992 and in January of this year, it signed a free-trade agreement that’s worth $15 billion a year. There is military cooperation and an understanding of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism from its neighbor, Pakistan.

Russia is another surprising ally, where a recent American Jewish Committee poll found more Russians in favor of Israel than from anywhere else, even though two-thirds of these same people would not vote for a Jewish leader for their own country.  Why the new warmth?  Israel was founded on the mold of Russian socialism; 60% of its citizens are from the former Soviet Union*; and it has lost everything else in the Middle East, including Syria. They acknowledge that Mossad and Tzahal, the Israeli Defense Forces, are the best intelligence and military outfits in the world.

Learning from the Chinese who’d successfully harnessed the earning power of its overseas Chinese in its rapid transition from communism to capitalism, the Russians have invited Israelis to manage their own Silicon Valley, Skolkovo.

China is another wary new friend with Israeli consulates in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.

Relations with Japan are okay, but Israel cannot rely on Japan, with its dependence on Persian Gulf oil, a weak military, and a surprising recent history of anti-Semitism (as documented in the number of anti-Zionist books landing on their bestselling lists).

I did not attend Professor Adelman’s second presentation on “The Middle East and the New World Order,” about why the Middle East (except for Israel and Turkey) seemed unaffected by global social transformation — and if the future may be different.

Note: Wikipedia reports that according to Israel’s Central Bureau of
Statistics, in 2008, of Israel’s 7.3 million people, 75.6 percent were
Jews of any background.[1] Among them, 70.3 percent were Sabras
(Israeli-born), mostly second- or third-generation Israelis, and the
rest are olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) – 20.5 percent from Europe
and the Americas, and 9.2 percent from Asia and Africa, including the
Arab countries.

http://blog.pjvoice.com/diary/2652/author-chat-israel-among-the-nations