“The Black Flag of Piracy.” The July 26th, 1935, Incident on the SS Bremen in New York Harbor and a Crisis in German American Relations

Robert G. Waite

Copyright© 2025 All rights reserved by the author

On the evening of July 26, 1935, crowds of travelers, well-wishers, curious onlookers, and opponents of the Hitler regime in Germany gathered at New York’s Pier 49 for the late-night departure of the SS Bremen. The flagship in the German fleet of ocean liners, the Bremen was an elite vessel, christened by Reich President Hindenburg with the American ambassador present, and launched with fanfare on August 17, 1928[1]. Heralded as one of the speediest ships of the day, it could carry 2,229 passengers across the Atlantic, 811 alone in first class, and 500 in second class. Those in first class enjoyed luxurious accommodation, including an elegant salon for relaxation and conversation in a space designed by the prominent architect Fritz August Breuhaus. An advertisement for its New York to Bremerhaven route boasted that it typified “the seas’ highest ideals of service.” The Bremen was a technical marvel that sped passengers between these two ports. Accolades followed. 

In July 1929, it received recognition as having just made the fastest trans-Atlantic crossing yet. In New York City, crowds gathered at the pier for its arrival on July 23rd to celebrate this achievement. By 1935, the Bremen had logged “735,000 miles of Atlantic crossings,” and carried “more than 23,000 passengers,” for the journey taking “an average speed of 4 Days, 21 Hrs.” The Bremen and its sister ship, the Europa, were seen as the most modern and efficient ships of the day. For many, the Bremen embodied the new Germany when it was launched in August 1928, an image the Hitler regime in Berlin was eager to maintain and polish.[2]

As was customary on the evening of departure, the luxury ocean liner opened the ramps for well-wishers, friends of those traveling across the Atlantic, and the curious. This evening, Friday, July 26th,1935, the crowd at Pier 49 was tremendous. Each of the more than 1,200 passengers, a manager of the North German Lloyd Line told a reporter, “will have from three to four relatives wishing to see them off.” Joining them aboard the luxury liner was anyone willing to pay the 10-cent admission. Among the crowd on the Bremen that July evening was a detachment of New York City police officers. The NYPD had learned that opponents of the repressive measures in Germany against the Catholic church, as well as labor activists who wished to call attention to the arrest of Lawrence Simpson, a young American sailor in Hamburg just a month earlier, planned to protest aboard the vessel.[3]    

Standing on the bridge of the SS Bremen, Captain Leopold Ziegenbein viewed the crowd below him. On his order, the whistle sounded at 11:45 PM, signaling it was time for visitors to leave the ship and that the vessel would soon depart. A half dozen activists who had mingled with the crowd now acted. They moved toward the bow of the ship.  Their target was the Nazi flag, the swastika, hanging prominently and illuminated with a spotlight. Crew members tried to halt them. New York City detectives attempted to incept them. Fights broke out. But two made it to the mast, cut down the flag, and tossed the symbol of Nazi Germany into the river.[4]  This was a prominent statement against the regime in Berlin, and it sparked a rift in American-German relations. Their action led Germany to adopt the swastika flag as the official national symbol formally. It also sparked further demonstrations against the repressive measures and the incarceration of Lawrence Simpson in Hamburg.  The press in New York and throughout Germany reacted with front-page stories. Intense discussions between diplomats followed. The forceful removal of the swastika flag from the SS Bremen marked a decisive step in the mounting concern throughout America with the terror of Hitler’s Germany and in the relations between the United States and Germany.[5]

The attack on the swastika flag aboard the Bremen, cutting it from the mast and tossing it into the Hudson River, was part of “a nationwide drive to free Lawrence B. Simpson, member of the International Seamen’s Union, who was kidnapped form the ship Manhattan on July 5 [sic] by the Nazi Secret Police, ”the Western Worker, the San Francisco based newspaper of the Communist Party USA wrote. Simpson’s arrest a month earlier in Hamburg was “the cause of the demonstration at the ship Bremen, when indignant crowds tore the hated Nazi Swastika off the jackstaff and three it into the river.” Two of those arrested were “members of the M.F.O.W. (Firemen) [Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, Marine Firemen’s Union] Free Simpson Committee.”[6]  Threats of further actions against German vessels followed, and protest actions against Simpson’s arrest and the steadily mounting repression in Germany were called for. There was reasonable cause for the concern about the situation in Germany. As the monthly publication of the International Labor Defense reported in its July edition, “The news coming out of Hitler’s Germany piles horror on horror.  New pogrom incitements. Prison and concentration camp atrocities. Sweeping arrests,” as the regime moved to squash lingering opposition.[7]  In early August, representatives of the Anti-Nazi Federation called upon all those present at a rally in Madison Square Garden to pledge to hinder “the arrival of every German vessel in American harbors.” Protests were announced for several days in every harbor and big city. Tensions mounted.[8]

The response of the U.S. State Department to the June 28th arrest of Lawrence Simpson aboard the American ocean liner SS Manhattan came belatedly. Only on July 15th, after the ship had returned to the New York harbor, did the public learn “what had happened to Simpson.”  Then, a shipmate, the Ship’s Delegate of the International Seamen’s Union, “told a reporter for the Daily Worker in New York of the kidnapping.” The news spread quickly, and many advocacy groups took up his cause. The International Labor Defense “set in motion a storm of protest that Germany release him,” and the call was picked up by other organizations, including the National Committee for Defense of Political Prisoners, the Anti-Nazi Federation, and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as organized labor. The “kidnapping of Simpson” was viewed as part of the German regime’s systematic campaign against “Jews, Catholics, Protestants, militant workers, Communists, Socialists, [and] republicans.” The protest aboard the Bremen aimed to call attention to the case of Lawrence Simpson and the broader campaign of terror against the Catholic Church, Jews, and opponents of the Hitler regime. “Everywhere, seamen talked about the kidnapping of Simpson,” and the mounting oppression in Germany. [9]

Already on July 25th, the New York City police learned that “a Communist demonstration might take place at the sailing of the S.S. Bremen.”  The next morning, the Commanding Officer of the Third Division, NYPD, went to Captain W. Drechsel, the Marine Superintendent of the North German Lloyd Line, and “apprised of the contemplated demonstration on part of the Communists” the next day. The NYPD official “suggested that the police, in cooperation with the employees and the guards, stop all persons at the entrance to the pier and ascertain if they were duly authorized persons to visit or go aboard the vessel.”[10] 

On the evening of the ship’s departure, July 26th, some “2,000-3,000 visitors were on hand to say goodbye to their friend,” The New York Times reported. Coming on board only required appropriate dress and payment of a dime. By 11:30 PM, the crowd at the pier had grown in size and included many who came to protest recent oppression in Germany of the Catholic Church, of organized labor, and the arrest of Lawrence Simpson.[11] Some handed out a one-page announcement that cried: “Catholics and Jews!  Protest the religious persecution in Germany!”  Printed by a group calling itself “The Friends of Catholic Germany,” the flyer had been distributed days before the Bremen’s departure. It urged all who read it “to flood the pier with anti-fascist workers and others as an immediate showing of strength to the Hitler government. A large and successful meeting on the pier will help your brother Catholics in Germany.”  A day before the Bremen’s departure, the New York City police had “received a copy of the circular, a one-page sheet, signed by the “COMMUNIST PARTY U.S.A.” calling for a protest demonstration at Pier 86 between 11 P.M. 12 midnight, Friday, July 26, 1935, on the occasion of the sailing of the S.S. Bremen.” Such departures, the flyer stated, are “always used to whip up Nazi sentiment.” What was needed was for “CATHOLICS….JEWS….ANTI-FASCISTS [to] UNITE AGAINST HITLER!”[12]   

The New York City police, anticipating a demonstration at the pier, directed the Commanding Officer of the Third Division to assign “a detail of 50 patrolmen, also one mounted sergeant and ten mounted patrolmen” to control the dock area. In addition, three streets leading to the pier were “closed off,” with the intent of “preventing organized groups from entering this area.” 

About 11 P.M., groups of four and five people began to assemble near the ship. The crowd grew to “approximately 1,500 persons.”  Most were “Communists and their sympathizers, as well as spectators,” though many were “visitors to the steamship” who came to see friends or family members off on their trans-Atlantic voyage.[13] On shore, between 46th and 47th Streets, the crowd of demonstrators grew.  Many carried “large placards with strong anti-Hitler slogans,” and demanded “that American citizens not travel to Germany on a Nazi ship.” Most came to protest recent oppression in Germany of the Catholic Church, of organized labor, the mounting violence against Jews, and the recent arrest of Lawrence Simpson.[14]

Anticipating a demonstration at the dock, the Commanding Officer of the NYPD’s Third Division went, as noted, the previous evening to Pier 86 and spoke with Emil Maurer, Assistant Marine Superintendent of the shipping line. "He was apprised of the contemplated demonstration on the part of the Communists,” a report on the demonstrations wrote.  The Officer “suggested that the police, in co-operation with the employes and the guards, stop all persons at the entrance to the pier and ascertain if they were duly authorized persons to visit or go aboard the vessel.”  Maurer requested, however, “that the police not interfere with the persons coming onto the pier as he believed it might interfere with the regular routine business of the line.”  Furthermore, he advised the police official “that his men were well able to take care of the ship, and that the crew was specially trained, etc.” Maurer outlined further precautions, that tugs would “guard the ship on the waterfront,” that “special police employed by the line, were to be stationed at each gang plank,” and so on. A short time later, the New York City police official met with Captain Drexel, Marine Superintendent of the Hamburg-American Line, to discuss the plans again. As a result of the discussions, “a detail of five Sergeants and fifty Patrolmen, also one Mounted Sergeant and ten Mounted Patrolmen” reported to the Commander Officer of the nearby Third Division. Two streets that approached the pier were “closed off…with a view of preventing organized groups from entering this area.” About 11:00 PM, small groups of protesters began to assemble nearby.  Their numbers “grew to a crowd of approximately 1,500 persons, comprised of Communists and their sympathizers, as well as the spectators who were made up of most of the visitors to the Steamship.” With a ticket to board the ship costing but ten cents, the police estimated that “approximately 40 Communists boarded the ship, and mingled with the 1,200 passengers and approximately 4,800 of their friends.” On shore, between 46th and 47th Streets, the crowd of demonstrators grew.[15]

Leopold Ziegenbein, the ship’s captain, stood on the bridge. As the departure time came closer, he had the whistle blown as a call to those visiting to leave the ship.  That was the signal for a half dozen labor activists to carry out their protest. They moved forward to the bow, pushing aside crew members as they advanced on the swastika flag, highlighted by a spotlight.  The activists scuffled with the crew and New York City police. Two reached the flag and succeeded in cutting down the Nazi symbol. They tossed it into the East River. On shore, a roar went out from the crowd as the flag was torn down. The press reported that a loud ‘hurrah’ could be heard coming from the tourist deck of the Bremen. That was taken up by the crowds on the street who let out “a roar of triumph.” At the exact moment, “the battle with the police began.” A NYPD detective, Matthew Solomon, was knocked to the deck, but he managed to draw his service weapon and shoot one of the protesters. Police arrested six aboard the ship. It was cleared of all but the passengers, and on the pier, protesters, whose numbers continued to grow, jeered as the police hurried away the bloodied protesters and the injured detective from the Bremen.  About 1,000 followed and gathered near the 18th Precinct Station House, where those arrested had been taken. Outside the precinct building, the crowd shouted, “Free the arrested seamen.” More arrests followed.[16]

On board the Bremen, New York City police, the shipping line’s security, and crew members cleared visitors from the vessel. It sailed at 12:30 AM, delayed by 40 minutes. Concerned that some protesters might have remained on board, a dozen police searched the vessel as it sailed to Quarantine. There, they transferred to a smaller ship and were taken to shore. The next day, the Commanding officer of the NYPD Third Division spoke with Captain Drechsel regarding the handling of the previous evening’s protest and the sailing of the SS Bremen.  Drechsel told the officer that “he had sent a telegram to the home office of the Hamburg American Line at Bremen, Germany, in which he had praised the police for the actions taken on July 26th, and that a Mr. Beck, General Manager and Director of the Hamburg American Line would personally call on the Police Commissioner and thank him for the good work rendered by the police on the evening of 26th .” In addition, Captain Drechsel “stated that the German Consul was sending a cablegram to the German Government also commending the police for the work performed in connection with the disorder on board the S.S. Bremen.” It appeared that the police handling of the demonstrators would not become an issue between the United States and Germany.[17]

Over the following days, the press covered the “Bremen incident” at length.  The protest in New York harbor aboard the luxury liner was, however, not the first attack in the United States on the Nazi symbol, the swastika flag, nor an isolated effort to remove the symbol of Hitler’s Germany. Already on February 25, 1934, in Tacoma, Washington, longshoremen off-loading a German ship noticed “Nazi flags flying.” A dock worker, seeing the swastika flags, “dropped work and went home, got a shotgun and succeeded in shooting down three of them by the time the captain had him arrested.” When the police transported him to the station, at the pier, “all the men quit work and demanded that unless the worker was released and the flags were pulled off, there would be no loading.” The ship’s captain withdrew charges, the press reported, and the worker was released.  Other incidents followed.  Two days after the unrest aboard the Bremen, a German day picnic in Milwaukee turned violent and “the Nazi swastika…torn from its mast.”[18] 

In New York, the press, led by the Times, termed the demonstration at the pier and the removal of the Swastika flag aboard the Bremen a “Communist raid,” a disturbance created by members of various Communist organizations. The “rioting”, the journalist continued, had two causes. “One was the anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi protest that the Communists often make, and the other was concerned with a seaman named Lawrence Simpson.” The young sailor, removed from his vessel by police in Hamburg, “has been the centre of considerable agitation in anti-Nazi and Communist circles for more than a month.”[19]

The New York City-based Forward, a daily newspaper that served the Jewish-American audience, called the action on the Bremen “a dreadful riot,” yet viewed it as part of a larger protest against the Hitler regime. “When the three heroic American sailors tore down the hated Nazi flag” the large crowd on shore, the “thousands of demonstrators” on the adjacent streets, called out “with incredible shouts of ‘hurrah’” when the symbol of the new Germany, was tossed into the river. The violent removal of the flag sparked discussion. The New York Times rightly termed it “the emblem of the German Nazi party, but not the national flag of Germany.” Such flags on merchant vessels, such as the SS Bremen, should, distinguished professor of law George Grafton Wilson wrote about the incident in New York harbor, “be treated with respect,” and provided with “reasonable protection in the state of reception.”  Wilson did point out that New York authorities had “taken special precautions in anticipation of the demonstration and that there was no evidence of neglect on their part.”[20]

Reactions in Washington, New York City, and Albany

In Washington, officials at the State Department moved quickly to prevent the incident from becoming a source of international tension. At a press conference in Washington on July 27th, Assistant Secretary of State Wilbur J. Carr “expressed regret” as he hoped to calm the anticipated reaction from Berlin.  While the German press did express outrage, the attaché at the German embassy in Washington “believed that Mr. Carr’s voluntary action would be permitted to terminate the affair.”  The New York Times concluded that the “expression of regret in Washington is expected to forestall formal protest.” The initial efforts effectively calmed tensions and prevented a full-blown diplomatic incident.  Commander Ziegenbein, the ship’s captain, praised the efforts of the New York police “in handling a very delicate situation.” A day later, the New York press reported that the passenger manager of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Line, John Pannes, stated, "The line considers the whole affair closed.   And he added, “We have no criticism to make of the police.” The Managing Director of the shipping line in New York City, Christian J. Beck, issued a statement “praising the efficiency of the police in dealing with the riot at the sailing of the Bremen.” The police arrangements, he wrote, “could not have been improved upon and, when the unfortunate flag incident occurred, the offenders were promptly and efficiently dealt with.” Beck concluded, "The same thing would have happened if ten times the number of police had been on guard.  All praise is due the department both for its foreknowledge of the communistic plat and for its well-organized measures to preserve the peace.” Despite such assurances, the press in Germany raged and editorials were “filled with resentment over what they term an affront to the German flag.” In addition, The New York Times reported that “officials of the Reich do not consider such an expression [of Carr at the press conference] adequate.”[21]

In New York City, 150 delegates from a host of groups met on July 29th at the Anti-Nazi Federation of New York headquarters to frame a program of activity for the next several months.  The four main proposals discussed and decided upon related to the recent incident aboard the Bremen. One urged that a wire be sent the Police Commissioner protesting “the alleged ‘Nazi’ tactics of the police and the shooting in the anti-Nazi demonstration at the sailing of the Hapag Loyd liner Bremen.” A second proposal called for a committee to meet with Mayor La Guardia and “to demand action against certain policemen for their conduct at the demonstration.”  The third proposal urged establishing a “standing committee to plan further demonstrations at the piers of German ships here.”  And the fourth called upon the members of the organizations present at the meeting to “send letters to Commissioner Valentine and Mayor L Guardia demanding the immediate release of all those arrested at the Bremen demonstration and the riot that followed on West Forty-seventh Street.” The representatives also called for the “immediate release” of seaman Lawrence Simpson, who had been arrested a month earlier in Hamburg.[22] The “Antinazi Federation,” the German press reported, announced “further actions against German ships,” and these were directed against “the showing of the swastika flag.” The delegates at the New York City meeting called for a boycott of “Nazi ships.”[23]

In Albany, Governor Herbert Lehman was contacted by Acting Secretary of State William Phillips concerning the disturbance aboard the Bremen. The Governor answered that “upon its receipt…[he] immediately communicated with the office of the Mayor of the City of New York. I was also advised by the mayor that a report prepared by city officials concerning the incident had already been transmitted to the Department of State.  I assume there is no further action you wish me to take in this matter.” President Roosevelt evaded answering a question regarding the incident at a press conference in Washington. It was up to the State Department to smooth the ruffled feelings of German officials.[24] 

Germany Reacts to the Bremen Incident

From Berlin, the Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels cabled on July 29th, “To the crew of the Bremen…most cordial greetings, sincere admiration for your plucky conduct when brutal Communists New York acting as they do everywhere else, in dastardly manner with superior numbers, attempted insolent attack [on the] German national flag.” Goebbels expressed his gratitude to the ship’s commander and crew for fulfilling “our duty, regardless of where we are, to protect our national flag from assault.” He concluded the telegram with “Heil Hitler!  Commodore Ziegenbein of the Bremen responded and affirmed “our unanimous determination to observe duty to protect the flag anywhere, anytime.”  Across Germany, the press termed the incident a “riot,” an “insult to the German national symbol.” The local press widely reported Goebbels’ message of support to the crew of the Bremen.  In Berlin, concern remained high as the regime feared more assaults on German ships in American ports.[25]

On July 29th at the State Department in Washington, the German Chargė d’Affaries in Washington met with the Division of Western European Affairs Chief. He informed him that “a formal note of protest with regards to the incident which occurred on the SS Bremen the other night when the Swastika flag was torn from its staff just before the sailing of the ship” would follow. He termed the incident a “serious insult to the German national emblem.” That, plus other incidents, including Congressman Samuel Dickstein, Representative from New York, calling Hitler a “Mad Dog” in a speech to the House of Representatives, “caused a great deal of resentment in Germany.”[26] On August 1st, William Phillips, Acting Secretary of State, responded. “The appropriate authorities in New York have provided me with a full report on this matter, and I enclose a copy for your information.”  Phillips clarified that “police authorities took most extensive precautions to prevent any untoward incident…and that the incident which occurred was in no sense due to neglect on the part of the American authorities.” 

Furthermore, “a very considerable number of police were detailed to prevent disturbances,” and police officials had made specific recommendations to the ship’s captain.  When the turmoil aboard the ship began, “the police authorities took immediate and efficient action intending to clear the ship of unauthorized persons,” Phillips wrote. During the uproar, Detective Matthew Salomon was attacked and “sustained serious injury.” Those involved in “this disorder” had been arrested and were being held for trial. Lastly, Phillips added, “It is unfortunate that, despite the sincere efforts of the police to prevent any disorder whatever, the German national emblem should, during the disturbance which took place, not have received the respect to which it is entitled.”[27]

For the Hitler regime in Berlin, the incident aboard the Bremen, the tossing of its flag into the waters of New York City, offered the opportunity to shift attention away from the repression it was carrying out within its borders against Jews, the Catholic church, and political opponents.

Now, the leaders and the press could target New York City as a site of intolerance, where violent acts against political opponents go unpunished.  The press in Germany moved quickly to express such sentiments. On July 29th, the Diplomatische Korrespondenz, the unofficial voice of the Foreign Office, termed the incident aboard the Bremen “unequaled,” and added, “the indignation of the German public can be easily understood.” They observed “the steadily increasing unworthy campaign of agitation against Germany.” The Hamburger Fremdenblatt called the incident an “affront to the national colors…about the most embarrassing thing that can happen to nations living in peace.” Furthermore, it claimed that the New York police had advanced knowledge of “the invasion,” yet had failed to take any “preventative measures.”  The responsibility for the incident, the Börsen Zeitung commented, “must be squarely placed at the door of the municipal government of New York.” Mayor LaGuardia was repeatedly blasted for his openly anti-Nazi statements. Furthermore, the response from the State Department in Washington, the apology issued by the Acting Secretary of State, was termed “lukewarm and entirely inadequate given the gravity of the offense.”[28] In Essen, the Reich Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick lashed out against Jews, telling an audience “Let not the Jews of New York imagine that they have done a service to the cause of their German co-religionists by making use of a communist underworld, paid to demonstrate against Germany.”

He went out to minimize the worldwide criticism of the regime’s policies toward Jews and the recent measures against the Catholic Church.  Others blamed the Communists' Council in Moscow.[29]

The State Department, the State of New York, New York City, and the “Bremen” Incident

In America, officials had moved expeditiously in anticipation of a German protest.  Already in the evening of July 30th, “Mr. James Dunn of the State Department, Washington,” telephoned the headquarters of the New York City police and “requested a report concerning the incident on the German Steamer Bremen.” As Dunn explained, “We expect to receive a protest from the German Embassy regarding the ‘flag’ incident on the Bremen last Friday.”  Dunn’s query was forwarded to Mayor LaGuardia, who, in a letter to Secretary of State Hull, wrote: “The request is rather informal, but I am, nevertheless, sending the reports which were submitted to me by the Commissioner in the regular routine on July 29th, which cover the subject full.”  Immediately thereafter, the Acting Secretary of State William Phillips contacted Governor Lehman and clarified the State Department's interest in answering “the German communication in as short a time as possible after its receipt.” [30]

On August 1st, Governor Herbert Lehman responded to a letter from the Acting Secretary of State William Philips regarding the “incident aboard the S.S. Bremen.” The Governor advised that he knew of the request and had contacted the mayor's office in New York City to obtain further information. A police report, Lehman noted, had already been prepared and sent to Washington. The report from the New York police was so thorough, The New York Times reported, “that a report from Mr. Lehman will be only a formality.” The newspaper wrote that the State Department had begun “the preparation of a reply to the German protest against the alleged insult to the German swastika emblem….”[31] A day later, on August 2nd, The New York Time published the police report in full, thereby making it abundantly clear how the authorities in New York had responded to the incident.[32]

In Washington, the State Department was already preparing a response to the German protest. According to The New York Times, “the note is expected to give assurances that the offenders will be rigidly prosecuted and that efforts will be made to prevent a repetition of such an incident.”  At the same time, Representative Samuel Dickstein of New York announced that “no apology was due Germany for the conduct of the New York police over the riot on the Bremen.” Dickstein added, “Mayor La Guardia is to be congratulated for providing adequate police facilities to handle this disturbance.”[33]

The reply of the State Department to the German government was, The New York Times reported, “not an apology, but an expression of regret.”[34] Nevertheless, officials in Washington did express concern over the incident. A columnist explained that while “the flag incident probably is closed as a diplomatic case because of the exemplary and careful behavior of the New York police and the prosecution of the ringleaders of the mob, it is realized by officials that the riot has served to make worse our strained relations with Germany.”  He added that the incident cannot “be dismissed as an isolated case.” For, he continued, “it is recognized as a direct repercussion from the shock of the American people have received from the Jewish and religious prosecutions by the Nazi government.” Add to that the recent attacks on the Catholic Church in Germany and the heightened interest in the case of Lawrence Simpson, the young American sailor arrested in Hamburg a month prior.[35]  

Legal Action: The Bremen Six Arrested and Arraigned

Backers of the six Bremen protesters arrested, those held for their involvement in tossing the swastika flag into the river, and those who faced prosecution for the protest that followed at the police precinct, printed and distributed a “RESOLUTION IN PROTEST AGAINST THE ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF THE ANTI-NAZI BREMEN DEMONSTRATORS.”  Pre-addressed to Mayor Fiorello La Guarda. It was widely distributed and only needed to be filled in with the group's name and how many it represented. The RESOLUTION was emphatic: “We protest against the brutal attack by New York police upon the six heroic anti-Nazi demonstrators…when they boarded the S.S. Bremen on July 26th to urge passengers not to travel on fascist ship.”  Furthermore, “We demand that you intercede and see that the charges are dropped….”  It concludes:  WE DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE AND FREEDOM OF THE BREMEN SIX.”[36]

Protests over the incarceration of the “Bremen 6” continued. On August 6, June Croll, secretary of the Anti-Nazi Federation and an out-spoken activist against the Nazi regime, went to City Hall and asked for “the release of six seamen arrested when the swastika was torn from the liner Bremen on July 26.” Unable to meet with the mayor, Croll left a letter explaining that those arrested had been engaged “in a demonstration because of the ‘illegal arrest and imprisonment’ of Lawrence B. Simpson, an American seaman.” He was being held in a concentration camp in Hamburg.[37]

On August 7th, those arrested for the action on board the SS Bremen and the following protests were arraigned in a West Side court.  Sympathizers of the accused crowded the courtroom. They contested the allegations and launched “a noisy demonstration in the courtroom” when the judge attempted to establish control. “The audience hissed and cheered and yelled and stamped feet,” the press reported. “For a time, all the lawyers were talking at once.  Only “after much gavel-pounding, the magistrate ended the demonstration.”  Several of those arrested for the commotion on the pier faced charges of disorderly conduct. The protesters from on board the Bremen were charged with felonious assault. They also faced the charge of “unlawful assemblage.” The defendants entered pleas of not guilty. At the hearing in the courtroom of Magistrate Louis B. Brodsky, a lawyer representing one of the Bremen 6 advised the court that Vito Marcantonio, a prominent and radical member of Congress, wished to join the defense team. Guarding the courtroom were 27 extra policemen, present because of an anticipated demonstration. There were, however, no disturbances. With Congressman Marcantonio entering the case, the hearing for the defendants was postponed until August 14th.[38]

Over the next several days, interest in the case of the Bremen protesters being adjudicated in a New York courtroom heightened. On August 9th, 20,000 “filled Madison Square Garden” for a rally organized by the Anti-Nazi Federation. Among the demands was the call to withdraw from the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. A high point came when the six seamen arrested aboard the Bremen on July 26th were presented to the audience. They rose to applaud them, and they “waved hats, hands and handkerchiefs, cheering and applauding for ten minutes,” The New York Times reported. Speaking for the other five seamen, William Bailey addressed the crowd. He thanked them for their support and called upon them “to pack the courtroom on Aug. 14 to see that we seamen receive our justice.” Bailey told the audience, “I am a Roman Catholic and that is one reason why I participated in the demonstration [aboard the Bremen] to protest against religious persecution in Germany.” He continued, “the other reason was to protest against the arrest of the American sailor Lawrence Simpson of the liner Manhattan by the Nazi government in Hamburg.” The audience, the press reported, “cheered wildly.” Other speakers urged the crowd to send telegrams to Secretary of State Hull demanding the release of Simpson.[39]

After a further delay, the hearing on the disturbance aboard the Bremen began on August 23rd, in the West Side Court of Magistrate Louis B. Brodsky.  The courtroom was “jammed to overflowing by spectators,” eager to learn how the cases of the six defendants would be handled.  The opening was characterized by “flights of oratory by defense lawyers,” a reporter for The New York Times wrote. The first defendant was Edward Drolette, a seaman charged with assault, violation of the Sullivan Law, and unlawful assembly. Drolette was the protester who attacked Detective Solomon and injured him “with a pair of brass knuckles.”  After hearing the testimony, the court adjourned until the following week. Outside the courtroom, a large crowd assembled and was disbanded by police.[40] At an August 28th hearing, a detective testified about the attack on his colleague Matthew Salomon, a central charge in this case, and the shooting of the attacker, Edward Drolette. The hearings were, however, abbreviated at the request of Representative Marcantonio, who noted contradictions between police testimony and a police report submitted to the State Department in Washington.[41] The court adjourned and resumed on September 4th with a three-hour hearing. After listening to the arguments of the prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Irving Bell, and defense counsel, Representative Vito Marcantonio, Magistrate Brodsky then asked the attorneys to submit briefs.  He stated that he would announce his decision on Friday, September 6th, two days later[42]

People of the State of New York vs. Arthur Blair, William Bailey, Vincent McCormack, William Rose, George Blachwell, Eduward Drolette  Before:  Hon. Louis B. Drodsky City Magistrate

When the court reassembled, Magistrate Brodsky read his seven-page decision. It began with the charges against the defendants, namely that they had boarded the S.S. Bremen at 11:48 PM on July 26th “with intent to commit an act tending to a breach of peace and particularly to tear down the ship’s emblem from it’s [sic] staff; that these defendants did then and there assemble with many others, and then and there tear down said flag.” Furthermore, while carrying out this act, Detective Matthew Soloman “was violently assaulted and beaten….”  Those were the facts of the case and the charges: unlawful assembly and assault. Having established the basic and non-disputed facts of the case, Brodsky proceeded to summarize the arguments of the defense counsel, Representative Marcantonio, who placed the act in the context of American history and American values.[43]

“It may well be, perhaps, as was so forcibly urged upon me in attempted exculpation of the tearing down of the standard bearing the Swastika from the mast head of the Bremen,” Brodsky wrote, “that the flying of this emblem in New York harbor was, rightly or wrongly, regarded by these defendants and others of our citizenry, as a gratuitously brazen flaunting of an emblem, which symbolizes all that is antithetical to American ideals of the God-given and inalienable rights of all peoples to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In Germany, “free speech, freedom of the press and lawful assembly” have all been suppressed. 

The suppression of individual rights and the denial of many to practice “the learned professions; the deprivation of the right to…earn a livelihood, the enslavement of women and workers, the imprisonment of sweet sisters of charity of flimsy grounds” constituted “a revolt against civilization…an atavistic throwback to pre-medieval, if not barbaric, social and political conditions.” His critique of the current repressive measures in Germany directed against Jews, Catholics, and civil rights in general was blistering.[44]

Brodsky turned from the repression in Germany to the defendants, to their motivations. He wrote that he was aware “of the fact that to these defendants, again rightly or wrongly, the prominent display of this emblem even carried with it the same sinister implications as a pirate ship sailing defiantly into the harbor of a nation, one of whose ships it had just scuttled, with the black flag of piracy proudly flying aloft.” He added that the “disturbances attended the sailing of the Bremen were provoked by this flaunting of an emblem to those who regard it as a defiant challenge to society.” In its argument, the defense “so eloquently argued…that the Boston Tea Party was now viewed, in historic retrospect, as a glorified violation of the law of unlawful assemble.” Furthermore, “in their minds this emblem of the Nazi regime stands for and represents war on religious freedom; the disfranchisement of naturals solely on religious or ethnological grounds….” [45]  

Having established the moral grounds for the protest aboard the Bremen, Magistrate Brodsky turned to the legal issue, namely, unlawful assembly. “There was no evidence of any meeting to assemble on the S.S. Bremen, nor of any conversations between any of the defendants which took place before they came to the Bremen or after they reached it.” And, he added, “Strangely enough, there was no evidence in this case by any of the parties that the ship’s emblem had been taken down from its staff.” 

In short, “the record in this case, furthermore, is barren of any proof under the common law or the statute of any of the elements constituting unlawful assembly.” Brodsky then wrote at length on the long standing “right of people to meet in public places to discuss in open and public manner all question affecting their substantial welfare and to vent their grievances; to protest against oppression, political, economic or otherwise and to petition for the amelioration of their condition or correction of these abuses and to discuss ways and means of attaining those ends were rights vouchsafed them by the Magna Charter, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights….” Furthermore, he added, “Our Federal constitution reaffirms this invaluable right of the people by declaring in Article 1 of its amendments….” So important is this right that “courts [have]guarded the right of assembly and protest” and denied it “only on rare occasions.”[46]

In his decision, Magistrate Brodsky discussed at length the lack of proof supporting the allegation of unlawful assembly. And he cited several cases as precedent.  Furthermore, he wrote, “There is no authority for the proposition that persons are assembled lawfully, such an assemblage was unlawful merely because of other persons looking on think that assembly may lead to a breach of the peace.”  In short, Brodsky found no evidence in this case to support that allegation. He concluded that “there is no evidence of such elements in the case before me….”[47]

In this case, Brodsky wrote, “I am dealing with a criminal offense where nothing must be left to guess or conjecture, but where all the elements constituting the crime must be proven by satisfactory evidence.”  And he emphasized “that neither the preconceived or common design to commit or the purpose of committing what is claimed here constituted the unlawful assembly was presented for my consideration by the People.” He concluded that the charge against the defendants of unlawful assembly “has not been prima facie sustained by the evidence presented, and I accordingly dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendants.”  Only the charge against Edward Drolette, who assaulted Officer Solomon “with metal knuckles,” was upheld.  He was convicted under Section 1897 of the Penal Law.[48]

Germany Reacts to Judge Brodsky’s Decision: “violent and offensive utterances”

In the German press, the reactions to Judge Brodsky’s decision focused on his terming the swastika flag, the emblem of the Nazi Party and the new Germany, “the black flag of piracy.” The response was immediate, fierce, and widespread. Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, wrote in his diary, "Judge Brondski [sic] in New York has insulted the German national flag. I sicced the press on it. [The press] is foaming at the mouth with anger.”[49] Local newspapers picked up the story throughout Germany and echoed Goebbels’ reaction.  The Sachischer Erzählerheadlined an article with: “New York Jewish Judge Insults the German Flag” in its September 9th, 1935, edition. It reported the release of the “communist flag desecrators” and quoted at length from the decision. The same issue was written in the newspaper about “the Protest of the German Ambassador” in the court’s verdict. Other newspapers carried accounts of Brodsky’s decision, including excerpts, and they voiced their outrage. The press reported that even New Yorkers condemned the judge’s actions and quoted from The New York Times and The New York Herald Tribune. Often cited was a lead article in the Herald Tribune that asserted:  “We’ll lose respect for our flag abroad if officials in our own country can use their position as ‘soap box orators’…from which they disrespect the flags of other nations.”[50]

In cities throughout the Reich, the press continued its condemnation of the decision of Magistrate Brodsky and voiced outrage over the “slandering of Germany,” his calling Bremen a pirate ship.”  In Berlin, Reich Ministry of Justice Hans Frank addressed an assembly of legal community leaders. He told them: “Judge Brodsky is a Jew and Jews cannot insult our flag or our National Socialist Germany in any fashion.” A daily newspaper in Hamburg carried the headline “German Protest Against the Disgraceful Verdict.” The headline said, “We won’t permit our Volk and flag to be insulted.”[51]

Condemnation came from regional newspapers. The Hamburger Tageblatt ran on its front page a long article headlined “Shameful Verdict in New York!!  Judge Louis Brodsky Insults Our People [Volk] and Our Flag.” Harsh in its condemnation of Brodsky, the article cautioned that “Louis Brodsky is not America, and his ruling is not the ruling of the American people.  That we have to make clear. However, Louis Brodsky is an American judge and issues ‘legal verdicts’ in the name of the American people.” The article asserted that “the American people should, however, know that we don’t equate them with Louis Brodsky.” For “the bonds of friendship and understanding” remain strong. And “we know that all honest Americans feel a deep shame with this verdict.”[52] The following day the headline in the Hamburger Tageblatt read: “The German Protest Against the Shameful Verdict:  We Will Not Allow Our People and Our Flag to be Insulted.” The article reported that on Saturday evening in Washington, the German Ambassador presented Secretary of State Hull “the formal protest of the Reich government against the exhortations of the New York judge Brodsky who in his decision in the trial involving the assault on the ‘Bremen’ permitted himself to refer to the German Reich’s flag as ‘a pirate flag,’ that any riff-raff can insult with impunity.” Furthermore, Brodsky used his courtroom, it noted, “to issue an outrageous judgement, characterized by stupidity and an inexcusable deliberate attack on the German spirit and laws and at the end [he] set free the band of flag damagers.” The journalist continued his attack on Brodsky and termed him “not a typical American,” but one who “uses his position…to attack peaceful diplomatic relations…”[53]

The attacks on Magistrate Brodsky continued. In its September 8th edition, the Hamburger Tageblatt announced on the front page, “Brodsky is a Jew!” The article stated that “the speculation that the New York magistrate Louis Brodsky is a Jew is now confirmed.” The same edition announced that “New York is Outraged over Brodsky,” that “two big newspapers condemn the outrageous verdict.”[54]

On the diplomatic front, Magistrate Brodsky’s decision prompted formal complaints from the German government. Already on Saturday, September 7th, German Ambassador Hans Luther went personally to the office of Secretary of State Cordell Hull to make the outrage of his government very clear. “It was his duty to make earnest complaint about the violent and offensive utterances of a New York City judge relative to the German flag,” Secretary Hull noted in a memorandum on the conversation. The ambassador requested that the American government “deal with that situation.” He again emphasized the “very offensive and serious nature of the utterances of this judge and the importance to satisfactory relations between our two Governments.” The United States needed to show “more concern than heretofore in similar circumstances.” In response, Hull explained to the Ambassador that he “had not had a chance to assemble officially the full and accurate facts of the reported occurrence,” but he would “be glad to proceed at once to do so through the Governor of New York.” Hull clarified that his office had little control over the local municipalities.[55]

On September 14th, Secretary of State Hull stated to the press on the “Bremen” incident and specifically the “recent protest of the German Ambassador in connection with the decision” of the case of those who removed “the German flag from the bow of the S.S. Bremen on July 26….” Hull noted that the accused were charged under “the penal law of New York, prohibiting unlawful assemblies.” Furthermore, the court's decision, whose “correctness of which the Department cannot undertake to pass…did not support the charge of unlawful assembly, dismissed the complaint.” Hull then shifted to the heart of the complaint coming from the German Ambassador, namely “the statements made by the magistrate in rendering his decision, which that Government interprets as an unwarranted reflection upon it.” The judge’s opinion, Hull continued, was “so worded…as to give the reasonable and definite impression that he was going out of his way adversely to criticize the German Government,” criticism that was “not a relevant or legitimate part of his judicial decision.” Hull cautioned that while “State and municipal officials are not instrumentalities of the Federal Government” and therefore exercised no control over them, he stated that “an official having no responsibility for maintaining relations between the United States and other countries should, regardless of what he may personally think of the laws and policies of other governments, thus indulge in expression s offensive to another government with which we have official relations.”[56]

A week later, Rudolf Leitner, Counsellor of the German Embassy in Washington, met with Secretary Hull. Hull, after summarizing his previous statement to the press and “getting entirely away from this transaction, and speaking entirely individually and informally to the Counsellor,” told Leitner “we had many millions of…Catholics in this country and some four millions of Jews equally patriotic,” as Hull singled out the two groups recently under attack in Germany. Furthermore, he wished “to emphasize and to repeat that so long as wild news reports about serious and violent controversy continued to come out of Germany, regardless of what was actually and in truth happening in Germany, the German Government must realize our extreme difficulty in dealing with many individuals who here were disposed to reply or in retaliation to indulge in violent and critical language and other intemperate expressions….” Hull concluded by telling the diplomat that the German government could be “helpful in our extremely difficult…situation in this respect by cooperating to prevent the wild news reports to which I was referring.” In other words, if Germany had toned down its repression of Jews and, more recently, of Catholics, the United States would not have faced such protests as occurred recently on the SS Bremen.[57]

Reactions to Judge Brodsky’s decision in the American press

In America, the press carried accounts of Judge Brodsky’s decision and the protests of German diplomats.  A headline in the New York Times called the verdict “Brodsky’s Swastika Slur.”  The lengthy article summarized the meeting in Washington between American and German diplomats. By then, Judge Brodsky “considered the case closed” and “declined to comment on the official German protest.” The New York press was largely critical of Magistrate Brodsky, and its coverage focused on his remarks and not the legal arguments. The editor of The American Jewish World wrote, “No one quarrels with Magistrate Brodsky’s dismissal of the five anti-Nazis.  The real bone of contention is his language in rendering his verdict. “To be sure, protest from the German government were to be expected, “and that Nazis here and abroad would utilize Brodsky ringing indictment for the renewed tirades….”  The editor continued, “What was not expected, however, was the criticism in the American press which accuses Brodsky of having committed a serious indiscretion that opens the way for a new diplomatic protest by the Nazi regime.” Furthermore, the anti-Nazi remarks by the Governors of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and a Senator from Utah that “vigorously condemned Nazi barbarism they were giving expression to American abhorrence of racial and religious persecution.” The sharp distinction, he added, between the reactions to these comments came, perhaps, because Brodsky is a Jew.[58]

The New York City-based weekly The Commonweal, the nation's oldest Catholic journal of opinion, was especially critical. The September 20th, 1935, issue carried a lengthy editorial questioning Magistrate Brodsky’s legal reasoning.  While the charge against the six accused was that of “unlawful assembly,” the editor wrote, “there appeared to be doubt” about five of the accused, whether “they had been caught in the act,” that is, scuffled with police aboard the Bremen. He wrote that “the court might have stressed” in its decision. Brodsky “raised another question,” the editor continued, namely “how could one speak of ‘unlawful assembly’…when the sensibilities of American citizens are wounded by the sight of a flag which denies their most cherished liberties? To the accused,” Brodsky wrote in his decision, “the swastika emblem was nothing less than the ‘black flag of piracy’ proudly flying aloft.” To the editor, “it is evident that in this whole matter the law was the last thing that interested Magistrate Brodsky.” And he added that Brodsky, “I was tickled pink by an open and honest assault upon a national symbol which to him, a good and upright Jew, signifies all that hatred and intolerance have to offer.” The editor also blasted the protestors arrested as not “American citizens defending their principles from attack, but Communists out to wage war on the hated emblem of Fascist domination.”  Lastly, he asserted that the publicity simply called “attention to an act of Jewish reprisal which is, from the legal point of view, indefensible.” Such acts, he concluded, simply stirred more antisemitism.[59]

The Reichs Flag Law, September 15, 1935. The Swastika becomes the German national flag

On September 9th, Reich Propaganda Minister Goebbels wrote of the German response to the incident on the Bremen and the decision of the New York City court. “Our answer, in Nuremberg [at the annual Nazi Party rally] the Reichstag meets and declares the Swastika flag the sole national flag. [Hitler] is in full gear.” [Fuehrer ganz gross in Fahrt]. On September 12th, Hitler addressed the rally and announced three new laws. The first, “The Reich Flag Law of September 14, 1935,” stated that “The Reichstag has unanimously concluded the following law and hereby announces: Article 1. The Reich colors are black, white, and red.  Article 2, the Reich and national flag is the swastika flag. It is the flag of commerce as well. Article 3, the Führer and Reichs Chancellor determines the shape of the Reich War Flag and the Reich Service Flag.” And lastly, “this law takes effect on the day following its declaration.”. The second law announced that day, the Reich Citizenship Law, and the third, the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, are better known.  The new laws, decreed by Hitler, were reported on throughout the Reich.[60]

Abroad, the measures attracted attention. The first of the new laws, approved in advance by Hitler, Time magazine wrote, “ended the clumsy arrangement under which the German tricolor and the Nazi swastika have been flow together as national flags.  Henceforth, Germany’s sole flag is the swastika.” Throughout the uproar following the incident aboard the SS Bremen, the swastika flag that was targeted by the protestors was discussed in the press as if it were the German national flag and its significance.  In a lengthy article, The Catholic Transcript offered a brief history of the swastika and as it strived to make sense of why this symbol was adopted by the Reich as the official flag. Yet, as a reader of The New York Times commented in an August letter to the Editor, “the swastika is not the German flag, which is the old imperial flag restored to life by the present Reich Government in the place of the despised flag of the Weimar Republic,” the black-red-gold flag. “The swastika is nothing but the emblem of a political party.” That, however, mattered little to German officials. Hermann Göring, the powerful Minister without Portfolio in the new government, told the crowd at the Nuremberg rally that “It [the swastika] is the anti-Jewish symbol of the world,” and he continued, “the swastika has become for us a holy symbol.” That “completely answered a Jewish judge in Manhattan named Brodsky who recently called the swastika a ‘pirate flag,' ”commented a journalist in Time.[61]

The Black Flag of Piracy: oppositional groups in America mobilize

Across the nation, the judgment in the case of the Bremen 6 gave new momentum to organizations opposing Hitler’s Germany and its repressive policies against political opponents. These groups often quoted Magistrate Brodsky’s terming the swastika “the black flag of privacy” and his assertion “that the flying of this emblem in New York harbor was, rightly or wrongly, regarded by these defendants and others of our citizenry, as a gratuitously brazen flaunting of an emblem, which symbolizes all that is antithetical to American ideals of the God-given and inalienable rights of all peoples to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Though a subtext in his decision, these words fired up both the press in the Reich and opponents of the Hitler regime in America. Both used it to rally support and to focus attention. Now, for opponents in the United States, there was a local issue, the Bremen 6, and a native son, Lawrence Simpson, to focus on. Also, opponents of the Hitler regime worked quickly to focus attention on and rally support for these two issues. In America, the International Labor Defense, established in 1935 to provide legal aid to what it saw as victims of a class-based legal system, led the charge.  It had been an unrelenting advocate for the incarcerated leader of the German Communist Party, Ernst Thaelmann.[62] 

While Brodsky and the wording of his decision were criticized widely, particularly his terming the swastika flag as the flag of piracy, the New York City-based International Labor Defense worked to keep the case of Lawrence Simpson, the young American sailor arrested and taken off his ship in Hamburg, before the public. ILD rallied support for Simpson, and already in late September 1935, its New York office published and distributed a 16-page booklet on the case.  Written by Mike Walsh, The Black Flag of Piracy is a strong statement and a powerful condemnation of both the inaction of the State Department in Washington and the escalating repression in Germany. It begins with an account of three Gestapo agents boarding Lawrence Simpson’s ship as it approached Hamburg. “They knew what they were after,” and went to his quarters, “broke open his locker.” They found and seized “anti-Nazi literature, a cigarette-paper box of stickers such as are commonly distributed by the hundreds of thousands in the United States by enemies of fascist tyranny.” When the ship docked, Simpson was hustled off, “kidnapped,” Walsh wrote, “in violation of international law.” Simpson then “disappeared…into one of the many torture chambers for which Nazi Germany has become infamous the world over.”[63]

In the months that followed the session in Magistrate Brodsky’s courtroom, tensions between the United States and Germany remained high. Across America, opponents of the Hitler regime stepped up their activities and directed much of their efforts toward securing the release of the imprisoned American sailor Lawrence Simpson. His ongoing incarceration and the lack of formal charges served as a practical rallying point for opponents of the Hitler regime. For here was a young American citizen held for more than a year in a concentration camp before charges were filed. In addition, protests and actions against the flying of the Nazi flag, the Swastika, persisted. A headline in the July 18, 1936, edition of the New York newspaper Der Arbeiter, warned “Do the Nazis Want a Second ‘Bremen’ Incident?” The article referred explicitly to the ongoing incarceration of Lawrence Simpson and his upcoming trial. “Simpson faces a long sentence if America does not act,” the article stated. Despite a meeting of Anna Dannon, Director of Red Aid (Rote Hilfe), and Ernst Fox, head of the Simpson Defense Committee in Seattle, with the Chief of the West European Division of the State Department in Washington, James Clement Dunn, who promised to do something to gain Simpson’s release, “nothing has been done to this day.” The article continued: “Only massive pressure on Dunn can the State Department under Hull be moved to save Simpson from the Fascist blood court.” It urged that the resolution of every assembly calling for the release of Simpson be sent to Washington. “Should there be a second ‘Bremen’ incident to move the Nazis and the State Department to listen to the demands of hundreds of thousands of anti-Fascists?,” Dannon cautioned. To prevent such an incident, police presence at the docks was strengthened significantly for the subsequent scheduled visits of the Bremen to New York City. For the August 13th departure, a detail of 100 police, 50 detectives, and 22 mounted police “protected the pier…till the ship sailed.” On board the Bremen were 60 of the company’s police.[64]

In Berlin, the threat of another ‘Bremen incident’ gained the attention of Heinrich Müller, head of the Gestapo. In a September 19th memorandum to the Foreign Office, Müller referenced the New York newspaper Der Arbeiter article. Müller summarized and quoted from the article, its warning of a “second ‘Bremen’ incident.” He urged the Foreign Ministry to be alert to these warnings, particularly because the crew of the Bremen had recently learned that “a new action against a German vessel was planned,” for such an action had already been announced in a New York newspaper. Müller urged the Foreign Office to contact the representatives in New York City and ensure they contact the New York City police.  “For these reasons, the New York police officials should take special measures regarding the arrival and departure of German vessels,” Mueller cautioned.[65] There were, however, no further protests aboard German liners in New York Harbor.  But workers refused to offload German vessels at harbors on the east and west coasts. The animosity among laborers toward the Hitler regime remained strong.

Berlin used the protest aboard the Bremen to shift attention away from the repression throughout the country.  In late July, the Hamburger Tageblatt, one of the city’s daily newspapers and widely read, carried a headline announcing “American Communists Plan New Disturbances in New York.” A week later, the headline read “New Acts of Terror Against German Ships Announced.” Newspapers across Germany carried similar stories which aided Berlin in terming its wave of repression as defensive measures necessary in a hostile world where Communists block shipping and assault the national symbol, the swastika flag.[66]

The hastily organized and improvised action on board the SS Bremen in New York harbor came as the result of the wave of arrests and imprisonment of labor activists in Germany, a time when the regime also intensified its attacks on the Catholic church. Throughout 1935, the Gestapo in several German cities made arrests to decimate the working-class opposition fully. These hit many of the bigger cities of the Reich, including Hamburg and Bremerhaven, the homeport of the SS Bremen. The Catholic Church, a few of whose leaders had cautiously spoken out against specific polices of the regime, was also targeted. Now, in September 1935, arrests of priests across the Reich followed, as the regime’s repression of the church intensified. Some clergymen, it was reported in America, were accused of having made critical remarks from the pulpit about measures of the Nazi government.”[67] As news of the expanding repression reached America, activists and anti-Nazi organizations such as the International Labor Defense, the Anti-Nazi League, the National Committee for Defense of Political Prisoners, the International Seamen’s Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union stepped up their activities. They organized letter-writing campaigns and demonstrations at German consulates. In addition, “demonstrations against the flying of the swastika” continued to be reported across America. At a July 26th, 1936, German Day Festival in Milwaukee, for example, police arrested “two anti-Nazi German-Americans” after a demonstration “during which the Nazi symbol was torn down and trampled upon.”[68]

These groups gained further incentive to act as the news of the arrest in Hamburg of a young American sailor, Lawrence Simpson, spread across the nation. Simpson, a member of the International Seamen’s Union and the Communist Party, had for more than a year smuggled anti-Nazi publications, stickers, and materials for the local Communist Party into Hamburg. 

Now, across America, the public had a figure, one of their own, to rally for, to express their opposition to the repressions of the regime in Berlin. The protest aboard the Bremen on July 26th came a month after the arrest of Simpson and was a direct response to that.  While the demonstration and the ensuing criminal case gained widespread publicity, it did little to affect the release of Simpson. He remained incarcerated in the Fühlsbuttel Concentration Camp near Hamburg until the spring of 1936. Then, Simpson was taken to Berlin’s Moabit prison in anticipation of his trial before the dreaded Volksgerichtshof. On September 28, 1936, well over a year after his arrest and the action aboard the SS Bremen, Simpson had a brief court appearance; it lasted less than half a day. The court adjourned and returned to announce its verdict – guilty.  He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.[69] After further protests in the United States, which pressured the State Department to act on his behalf, and after Simpson’s appeal to Hitler, he was ordered released.  Lawrence Simpson arrived back in New York on January 1, 1937, greeted warmly by those who had protested against the Nazi oppression of the Catholic church, Jews, those in the labor movement, and those who acted on July 26, 1935, aboard the SS Bremen. In America, the battle against Hitler and his regime of terror continued to grow.[70]

About the author: Robert Waite studied at the universities of Würzburg and Munich. He earned a PhD in History at SUNY Binghamton. Since 2010, he has been the Gasthistoriker at the German Resistance Memorial Museum in Berlin, Germany. He also teaches a "Hitler's Germany" seminar at Berlin's Free University.

Sources

[1] „Die gröβten deutsche Schiffen, Düsseldorfer Stadt-Anzeiger Nummer 227 (Augsut 16, 1928).

[2] “Aus der Gesellschafts-Halle des Dampfers ‘Bremen’,“ Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration 65(1929-1930).  “Passengers Praise Luxury of Bremen,” New York Times (July 23, 1929). “Thousands To See Bremen,” New York Times (July 20, 1929).  “100th Round Trip” New York Times (July 29, 1935).  Peter Duffy, The Agitator:  William Bailey and the First American Uprising Against Nazism (New York, 2019), pp. 26-29.  James Q. Whitman, Hitler’s American Model (Princeton, N.J. 2017), pp. 18-26.

[3] “Ship Line Defends Itself,” New York Times (July 31, 1935).  “Reds Rip Flag Off Bremen, Throw It Into Hudson; 2,000 Battle the Police; Many Hurt in Wild Melee,” New York Times (July 27, 1935).  Bill Bailey, The Kid from Hoboken.  An Autobiography (San Francisco, 1993), pp. 257-258.

[4][4] “Reds Rip Flag Off Bremen, Throw It Into Hudson.” “Groβenschlacht im Hafenviertel,” Dortmunder Zeitung (July 29, 1935).  Duffy, The Agitator, pp. 120-123.

[5] “Der Ueberfall auf die ‘Bremen’,” Dortmunder Zeitung Nr. 346(Juli 29, 1935). ”Storm Of Indignation Follows Red Attack On Nazi Flag In New York,” The China Press (July 29, 1935). “Respect for National Flag,” American Journal of International Law 29(1936), pp. 662-663.

[6] “Freedom for Sailor Kidnapped from Ship By Nazis Demanded,” Western Worker 4(August 15, 1935).  “Neue Terrorakte Gegen deutsche Schiffe angekündigt,“ Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 214(August 8, 1935).  Bailey, Kid from Hoboken, p. 258. 

[7] “Germany, “Labor Defender (July 1935), p. 16.

[8] “Neue Terrorakte gegen Deutsche Schiffe,“ Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 214 (August 8, 1935).

[9] Mike Walsh, The Black Flag of Piracy (New York:  International Labor Defense, September 1935), pp. 3-5.  “Neue Terrorakte Gegen deutsche Schiffe angekündigt,” Hamburger Tageblatt, Nr. 214 (August 8, 1935).

[10]  Police Department, city of New York, From:  Commanding Officer, Third Division, To:  The Police Commissioner, Subject:  Disturbance at Sailing of S.S. Bremen from Pier 86N.R.,” in:  State of New York Public Papers of Herbert H. Lehman, Second Term 1935 (Albany, 1938). p. 710. 

[11] “Reds Rip Flag Off Bremen, Threw It Into Hudson.” 

[12]  “CATHOLICS of NEW YORK.  PROTEST NAZI TERROR,” National Archive and Records Administration [NARA], Record Group 50, Department of State, Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763. “Catholics of New York, Enclosure 2,” in:  The Department of State, Press Releases Vol. XIII (August 3, 1935), pp. 104.

[13] “Demonstrators Condemn ‘Religious Persecution’,” New York Times (July 27, 1935).  “Catholics of New York,” in:  “’Bremen’ Incident,”  “Police Reports in Connection with Bremen Incident, Police Department…July 27, 1935; and “Police Department, City of New York, Third Division, July 29th, 1935, Subject:  Disturbance at sailing of S.S. Bremenfrom Pier 86 N.R.,” in:   Public Papers of Herbert H. Lehman, Forty-Ninth Governor of the State of New York, Second Term 1935 (Albany:  J.B. Lyon Company, 1938), p. 708-10.

[14] “Reds Rip Flag Off Bremen, Threw It Into Hudson; 2,000 Battle Police,” New York Times (July 27, 1935).  “Riot In New York At German Ship Bremen,” Forward (July 28, 1935).

[15] Police Department City of New York, July 29th, 1935.  From:  Commanding Officer, Criminal Alien Bureau, To:  the Chief Inspector, Subject:  COMMUNIST DISTURBANCE AT PIER #86, NORTH RIVER, NARA, Record Group 50, Department of State, Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763.  “Riot In New York At German Ship Bremen,” Forward (July 28, 1935).  “Reds Rip Flag Off Bremen, Threw It Into Hudson.”  “Riot In New York At German Ship Bremen,” Forward (July 28, 1935).

[16] Police Department City of New York, July 29th, 1935.  COMMUNIST DISTURBANCE AT PIER #86, Police Reports in Connection with Bremen Incident.  Police Department…July 27, 1935,” p. 2.  “Riot In New York At German Ship.”  “Bremen Demonstration Is Turned Into Riot By Police Tactics,” The Catholic Worker Volume 3, No. 4 (September 1, 1935). Walsh, Black Flag of Piracy, pp. 5-6.  Daniel Czitrom, “’Who the hell worked out a plan like that?’  New Light on the 1935 Bremen Riot,” The Volunteer (February 27, 2018).  “Reds Rip Flag Off Bremen, Throw It Into Hudson; 2,000 Battle the Police.”

[17] “Police Department City of New York, July 29th, 1935.  COMMUNIST DISTURBANCE AT PIER #86, Police Reports in Connection with Bremen Incident.  Police Department…July 27, 1935,” p. 3.  “Police Ascribe Bremen Riot To Line’s Laxity,” New York Herald Tribune (July 28,1935).

[18] “Nazi Flag Downed By Militant Stevedore,” Western Worker 3(March 5, 1934).  “Swastika Torn Down In a Milwaukee Riot,” New York Times (July 27, 1935), and “Swastika Torn Off Mast In Milwaukee Picnic Riot,” New York Herald Tribune (July 27, 1935).

[19] „Berlin Is Angered By Ship Riot Here,” New York Times (July 28, 1935).  “The Bremen Incident,” New York Times (July 28, 1935).

[20] “Riot In New York At German Ship Bremen; Swastika Torn Down And Thrown Into Hudson River,” Forward (July 28, 1935).  George Grafton Wilson, “Respect for National Flag,” The American Journal of International Law 29(October 1935), pp. 662-663.

[21] „Berlin Is Angered By Ship Riot Here,” New York Times (July 28, 1935).  “[Enclosure 3], Police Department, City of New York, July 29th, 1935, Subject:  Communist disturbance at Pier No. 86, North River,” in:  The Department of State Press Releases, Vo. XIII (August 3, 1935), p. 105.  “Nazi Press Is Wrathful,” New York Times (July 29, 1935).  “Nazis Call Halt In Drive Against Jews, Catholics, “Washington Post (July 30, 1935).  “Ship Line Retorts,” New York Times (July 31, 1935).

[22] “Nazi Foes in City Draw Up Program,” New York Times (July 30, 1935).

[23] “Weitere herausforderujng,” Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten Nr. 125(July 30, 1935). 

[24] “ TELEGRAM RECEIVED, Albany, New York August 1, 1935, William Phillips, Action, Washington, D.C…Herbert H. Lehman,” National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland (hereafter NARA), Record Group 50, Department of State, Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763.  Confidential Press Conference #225, Executive Offices of the White House, July 31, 1935, in:  Press Conferences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945. FDR Presidential Library and Museum, Series 1, Press Conference Transcripts, p. 65.

[25] “Nazi Press Is Wrathful.” “Amerikas Kommunisten plannen.  Neue Unruhen in New York,“ Hamburger Tageblatt, Nr. 204 (July 29, 1935).  „Neue Terrorakte Gegen Deutsche Schiffe angekündigt,” Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 214 (August 8, 1935). „Dr. Goebbels an die Besatzung der ‚Bremen‘, Dortmunder Zeitung, Nr. 346 (July 29, 1935); Hamburger Fremdenblatt (July 29, 1935); and Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten, Nr. 125 (July 30, 1935).

[26] Deutsche Botschaft, Washington D.C., den 29. Juli 1935, Herr Unterstaatssekretaer:,” NARA, Record Group 50, Department of State, Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763.  he German Charge’ (Leitner) to the Under Secretary of State (Phillips), Washington, July 29, 1935; Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Dunn), [Washington,] July 29, 1935, Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1935, p. 484.

[27]  August 1, 1936, Herr Rudolf Leitmer, August 1, 1936, NARA, Record Group 50, Department of State, Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763; and Herr Rudolf Leitner, Chargė d’Affaires Sir:  ’Bremen’ Incident’ …texts of notes exchanged between Chargė d’Affaires of Germany…and…William Phillips, regard the flag incident aboard the S.S. Bremen,” in:  Department of State, Press Releases Vol. XIII (August 3, 1935), pp. 100-101.

[28] „Reich Anger Rises On Ship Riot Here.  Semi-Official Publication Takes Washington to Task and It Denounces Foreign Press,” New York Times (July 30, 1935).  “Deutschland wartet auf Genugtuung,” Dortmunder Zeitung Nr. 346(July 29, 1935).  “Deutschland wartet auf Genugtuung,“ Hamburger Fremdenblatt Nr.208(July 29, 1935).  David M. Esposito and Jackie R. Esposito, “LaGuardia and the Nazis, 1933-193,” American Jewish History 71(September 1933), pp. 38-53.

[29] “Frick Blames N.Y. Jews For Bremen Affair,” The China Press (August 5, 1935).  “Bremen Episode Laid To Moscow,” Daily Boston Globe (July 29, 1935).

[30]  City of New York Office of the Mayor, July 30, 1935, Honorable Cordell Hull; and Police Department City of New York, Third Division, July 29th, 1935, From:  Commanding Officer, Third Division, To The Police Commissioner (DIRECT), Subject:  DISTURBANCE AT SAILING OF S.S. BREMEN FROM PIER 86 N.R., NARA, Record Group 50, Department of State, Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763.  “Governor Lehman Receives Communication from Acting Secretary of State Regarding Demonstration Occurring on German Steamer Bremen, Department of State, July 30, 1935,” in:  Public Papers of Herbert H. Lehman, 1935, p. 707.

[31] Ibid.  “U.S. Drafts Reply Toi Berlin Protest,” New York Times (August 1, 1935).

[32] “U.S. Defends City in Bremen Rioting,” and “Enclosures:  Report of the New York Police Department, July 29, 1935.”  “Text of Police Department’s Report on the Bremen Riot,” New York Times (August 2, 1935).  “Mayor LaGuardia Replies to Governor Lehman Enclosing Police Reports on Bremen Incident submitted by Him to Department of State,” August 5, 1935, and “Police Reports in Connection with Bremen Incident,” July 27, 1935,” Public Papers of Herbert H. Lehman, 1935, pp. 708-715.

[33] “U.S. Drafts Reply to Berlin Protest,” New York Times (August 1, 1935). 

[34] “Bremen Incident. U.S. reply to Germany Not an Apology,” South China Morning Post (August 1, 1935).

[35] Bertram D. Hulen, “Nazis Trouble Washington, “New York Times (August 4, 1935).

[36]  LaGuardia and Wagner Archives LaGuardia Community College, Roll 140, Frames 1613ff.

[37] „Aid for Riot Prisoner Asked,” New York Times (August 6, 1935).  “Seamen Continue Anti-Nazi Protest.  Four Seized in Bremen Riot Hold American Crews Resent Sailor’s Arrest in Hamburg,” New York Times (August 7, 1935).  “Bremen Demonstration Is Turned Into Riot By Police Tactics.”

[38] “Anti-Nazi Hearing Put Off.  Case of Six Men Delayed After Marcantonio Sends Request,” New York Times (August 15, 1935).  Marcantonio to Aid Defense of ‘Bremen 6’ at Trial Monday,” Daily Worker Vol. XII(August 15, 1935).  On the career of Marcantonio, see Gerald Meyer, Vito Marcantonio: Radical Politician, 1902-1954 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 24, passim.

[39] “Bremen Rioters Cheered by 20,000,” New York Times (August 9, 1935).  “Crowd at West Side Court Boos as 7 Are Arraigned,” New York Herald Tribune (August 8, 1935).

[40] On Brodsky, see Duffy, The Agitator, pp. 151-124. “Noisy Session Opens Bremen Riot Trial,” New York Times (August 24, 1935).

[41] “Riot Hearing Put Off, “New York Times (August 29, 1935).

[42] “Bremen Riot Case Heard, “New York Times (September 5,1935).

[43] People of the State of New York vs. Arthur Blair William Bailey Vincent Mc Cormack William Howe George Blackwell Edward Drolette, Before:  Hon Louis B. Brodsky City Magistrate, NARA, RG 59, Department of State Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6763, pp. 1-2; and NARA, RG 59, Department of State Decimal File 1930-39, Box 6787.  Duffy, The Agitator, pp. 170-175. 

[44] People of State of New York vs. Arthur Blair et. al., pp. 1-2.  Whitman, Hitler’s American Model, p. 25-26.

[45] People of State of New York vs. Arthur Blair et. al., pp. 3-4.

[46] Ibid., pp. 5-6.

[47] Ibid, pp. 6-8.

[48] Ibid., pp. 9-11. „The Bremen Six,” International Judicial Association Monthly Bulletin, Vol. 4 (September 1935), pp. 1-2.  “Nazis Dealt Stinging Rebuke As Judge Frees Flag Rioters,” Washington Post (September 7, 1935).

[49] „9. September 1935,“ Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, Teil I, Band 3/1, April 1934-Februar 1936 (Munich:  K.G. Saur, 2005), p. 289-290.

[50] “Newyorker jüdischer Richter beleidigt die deutsche Flagge.  Freispruch für kommunistischen Flaggenschänder;“ „Neuyorker verurteilen das Verhalten des Richters Brodsky.,“ Der saechsische Erzähler (September 9, 1935).

[51] “Protestsitzung der deutschen Rechtswahrer,” General-Anzeiger für Bonn und Umgegend 46 (September 9, 1935).  “Der deutsche Protest Gegen das Schandurteil,” Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 245 (September 8, 1935).  “Flaggenschänder freigesprochen.  Schandurteil in New York!!  Richter Louis Brodsky beleidigt unser Volk und unsere Flagge,“ Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 244 (September 7, 1935).  See, for example, “Was ein New Yorker Richter russischer Herkunft zu sagen wagt.  Er beschimpft Deutschland und die Reichsflagge,“ “Protest der deutschen Juristen,“ and “Wer ist der Richter Brodsky?,“ Echo der Gegenwart Nr.209 (September 9, 1935); “Beschimpfung Deutschlands durch einen Newyorker Richter,“ and“ Protestsitzung der deutschen Rechtswahrer,“ General-Anzeiger für Bonn und Umgegend Nr. 15 331 (September 7/8, 1935).

[52] “Flaggenschänder freigesprochen.  Schandurteil in New York!!,“ Hamburger Tageblatt:  Zeitung der Nationalsozialistisschen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei, Nr. 244 (September 7, 1935).

[53] “Der deutsche Protest Gegen das Schandurteil.  Wir lassen unser Volk und unsere Fahne nicht beleidigen,“ Hamburger Tageblatt, Nr. 245 (September 8, 1935).

[54] “Brodsky ist – Jude!,” and “New York uber Brodsky empört,” Hamburger Tageblatt, Nr. 246 (September 9, 1935).  “Eine schwere Schuld.  Newyorker verurteilen das Verhalten des Richters Brodsky,“ National-Zeitung (Berleburg) Nr. 211 (September 10, 1935).   “‘Insult‘ Arouses Berlin.  Press Lashes At N.Y. Judge For Decision In Flag ‘Slur’,” Washington Post (September 8, 1935).

[55] “Memorandum of Conversation Between Secretary Hull and the German Ambassador, Herr Hans Luther,” Department of State, Office of the Secretary, September 7, 1935, Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collection, Reel 29.  “Memorandum by the Secretary of State [Washington] September 7, 1935, Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1935, 488-489. “Bremen Incident,” Department of State Press Releases, XIII (September 14, 1935), p. 196.  “Chronicle of International Events,” American Journal of International Law 30(1936), p. 135. “U.S. Receives Reich Protest On Brodsky’s Swastika Slur,” New York Times (September 8, 1935).  “Brodsky’s Reference to German Flag Stirs Nazi Protest to State Dept., The American Jewish World, Vol. XXIV(September 13, 1935).

[56] “”BREMEN’ INCIDENT. Statement by the Secretary of State,” in:  The Department of State Press Releases, Vol. XIII (September 14, 1935), pp. 196-7.  “DEPARTMENT OF STATE  FOR THE PRESS  SEPTEMBE 15, 1935,” Library of Congress, Papers of Cordell Hull, reel 83.

[57] Memorandum of Conversation Between Secretary Hull and the Counsellor of the German Embassy, Herr Rudolf Leitner, S.S. BREMEN incident, Department of State Office of the Secretary, September 14, 1935, Library of Congress, Papers of Cordell Hull, reel 83.

[58] “U.S. Receives Reich Protest On Brodsky’s Swastika Slur,” New York Times (September 8, 1935).  “Brodsky’s References to German Flag Stirs Nazi Protest to State Department,” The American Jewish World, XXIV(September 13, 1935).  Duffy, The Agitator, pp. 177-178.

[59] “Magistrate Brodsky Decides,” The Commonweal XXII(September 1, 1935), p. 483.

[60]  “Reichsflaggengesetz.  Vom 15. September 1935, Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt [RGBl], Teil 1, Nr. 100, p. 1145; „Reichsbürgergestez,“ RGBl, I, p. 1146; and “Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre,“ RGBl. I, pp. 1146-7.  Strafgesetzbuch Strafprozeβordnung Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (Berlin, 1935), p. 505.  Max Domarus, Hitler.  Reden und Proklamationen 1932-1945, Volume I, 2nd Half-Volume 1935-1938 (Munich:  Süddeutscher Verlag, 1962). P. 534.  See, for example, “Die Beschlüsse des Reichstages,“ Wilhelmsburger Zeitung, Nr. 216 (September 16, 1935).

[61]  “Old and New,” The Catholic Transcript XXXVIII (September 19, 1935).  S.J. Rappoport, “To the Editor of The New York Times,” New York Times (August 16, 1935).  “GERMANY.  Little Man, Big Doings,” Time (September 23, 1935), p. 43.

[62] “For the FIRST TIME Charges against THAELMANN,” Labor Defender (July 1935), p. 10, 20.  Ernst Thaelmann, Fighter Against Fascism and War (New York, May, 1935).

[63] Walsh, The Black Flag of Piracy, p. 3.

[64]  “Wollen die Nazis einen zweiten ‘Bremen‘-Fall?,“ Der Arbeiter (New York City) (July 18, 1936). „Police Guard Bremen,“ New York Times (August 14, 1935).

[65] Politiische Archiv Auswärtige Amt, Berlin, R100267, Fiche Nr. 1, E494961-2, Preussische Geheime Staatspolizei, Berlin, 19. September 1936, Betr: Ausschnitt aus der New Yorker Zeitung ‚Der Arbeiter‘ vom 18.7.1936. 

[66] “Amerikas Kommunisten plannen Neue Unruhemn in New York,“ Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 204 (July 29, 1935).  „Neue Terrorakte gegen Deutsche Schiffe angekündigt,” Hamburger Tageblatt Nr. 214 (August 8, 1935).

[67] “Further Arrests of Priests Mark Nazi Persecution,” The Catholic Transcript Vol. XXXVIII (|September 19, 1935).

[68] The Black Flag of Piracy, p. 4.  “Anti-Nazi Protest Flying of Swastika,” Press Service American League Against War and Fascism, July 31, 1936, Swathmore Peace Collection.

[69] “Reich Convicts U.S. Sailor on Sedition Count,” in: Washington Post (September 29, 1936). 

[70]  “Urteil,” Bundesarchiv Berlin, R3017/34484, Bd. 2, pp. 1-17.  “90 Cops ‚Greet‘ Simpson, Back From Nazi Jail,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle (January 4, 1937).  “Simpson Returns From Nazi Prison.  Welcomed by Ship Strikers. He Signs Up Immediately for Picket Duty,” New York Times (January 4, 1937).