"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (157 page)

14.
This included the
jüdische Kulturbund
, which organized concerts and theatrical and film performances that only Jews could attend (Walk,
Als Jude in Breslau
[1975], 80).

15.
According to the Tenth Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law of July 4, 1939 (
RGBl.
I, 1097), the Reich Association of Jews was also responsible for Jewish schooling; cf. the decrees issued by the Reich minister for science, education, and culture of November 15, 1938, and of April 26, 1941, on Jewish schools (Blau,
Das Ausnahmerecht für die Juden in Deutschland
, no. 313); Reich Ministry of the Interior decree of June 20, 1942, on the Closure of Jewish Schools (unpublished, quoted in a letter dated July 7, 1942, from the Reich minister for science, education, and culture to the district president, reproduced in ibid., no. 293).

16.
Walk,
Als Jude in Breslau
.

17.
Jews were forbidden access to theaters, cinemas, concerts, and all other cultural events under the instruction of November 12, 1938, issued by the president of the Reich Chamber of Culture, Dr. Goebbels (Hohlfeld,
Dokumente der Deutschen Politik und Geschichte
[1951], 5:502).

18.
According to the Decree on the Public Welfare of Jews of November 19, 1938 (
RGBl.
I, 1649), Jews were barred from public welfare and directed to Jewish welfare organizations. The Decree on Compensation of War Damage in the Reich of July 20, 1941 (
RGBl.
I, 437), excluded Jews from compensation for damage to property occurring as a result of the war.

19.
The Jewish community lost its status as a corporation in public law (decree of March 28, 1938,
RGBl.
I, 338) and was amalgamated with all other Jewish foundations and institutions into the Reich Association of Jews, which was under the supervision of the Security Police (Gestapo). The financial situation of the Reich Association was catastrophic: the increasing number of welfare beneficiaries contrasted with the rapidly diminishing tax income from Jews. See Walk,
Als Jude in Breslau
, 78, for more details.

20.
Walk,
Als Jude in Breslau
, 79.

21.
See, for example, ibid., 31, 78 f., regarding Aryan hairdressers.

22.
Neumann, “Vom Kaiserhoch zur Austreibung,” 14 f., 30.

23.
Walk,
Als Jude in Breslau
, 2, 8, 78.

Part One. Section 1. VII. Commercial and Property Law

1.
In this connection see Hitler, quoted in Rauschning,
Gespräche mit Hitler
(1950), 86 f.

2.
According to Rauschning, ibid., what was passed off in 1938 as an “enraged knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate assassination” had long been planned and mulled over.

3.
Shorthand transcription of a discussion chaired by Göring at the Reich Air Ministry in Berlin, PS-1816; the most important part is reproduced in Poliakov and Wulf,
Das Dritte Reich und die Juden
(1955), 75 ff. Göring was in favor of swift, centralized action: the surest targets were Jewish businesses; shutting these down should be the first step. The Jews had to be thrown out of economic life, “made to pay up, and pensioned off” (75 f.). The chief of the Security Police and the SD, Heydrich, supported by the Reich minister of finance and Göring, demanded the speediest possible emigration of the Jews (79).

4.
See the list in Kluge and Krüger,
Verfassung and Verwaltung
(1941), 222 ff.; and Rilk, “Judentum und Wirtschaft” (1938); Höver, “Entjudungsfragen” (1941) (referring particularly to economic and property law); Riefersauer, “Die Juden in der deutschen Grundstücks- und Wohnungswirtschaft” (1939).

5.
Decree of November 12, 1938, on an Expiatory Action of Jews of German Nationality (
RGBl.
I, 1579), based on the Decree of October 18, 1936, on Execution of the Four Year Plan (
RGBl.
I, 88).

6.
Decree of November 12, 1938, on the Restoration of the Streetscape in the Matter of Jewish Businesses (
RGBl.
I, 1581).

7.
RGBl.
I, 414; for more on the decree, see Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
(1974), 547 ff.

8.
For more details, see Fauck, “Vermögensbeschlagnahmen an jüdischem Eigentum”; Arndt, “Entziehung und Verbringung jüdischen Vermögens,” (1966), 92 ff. See Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch;
Adler includes the text of the comprehensive declaration of assets required by the decree of April 26, 1938. Seizure came under Penal Code sec. 42 in association with Penal Code sec. 430 ff. (seizure of objects used or intended for use in criminal acts). In the event of later declaration, indemnity could not be guaranteed under the Reich Tax Code, sec. 410; in this case the provision did not apply either indirectly or directly (Reich Supreme Court of January 25, 1940, 3 D 833–39,
DR
[1940] [A]: 497 ff.;
DJ
[1940]: 298).

9.
Decree of April 26, 1938, issued by the plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan (
RGBl.
I, 415).

10.
RGBl.
I, 1709. It was based on the Decree of the Führer and Reich chancellor of October 18, 1936, on the Execution of the Four Year Plan (
RGBl.
I, 887) (according to which Göring as plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan was empowered to issue decrees and administrative regulations), in conjunction with the Second Decree of November 24, 1938, by the plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan (
RGBl.
I, 1668) and the Decree of April 26, 1938, on Registration of Jewish Property (
RGBl.
I, 414). For more details on the decree, see Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 495.

11.
RGBl.
I, 627; see also the circular of July 14, 1938, from the Reich minister of the interior (
MinbliV
, 1152); under the terms of secs. 1 and 3 of the decree, a business was defined as Jewish if the owner was a Jew (sec 5 of the First Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law). The business of a public trading company or a limited company was considered Jewish if one or several personally responsible members of the company were Jews. A business also passed for Jewish “if it was effectively under the controlling influence of Jews.”

12.
See Scholl,
Die Entjudung des deutschen Grundbesitzes
(1940). Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 638 ff., is of the opinion that properties remained in Jewish hands until 1945 without being “Aryanized” even though they may have been formally declared forfeited on the strength of the Eleventh Decree. According to confidential information from the Party Chancellery of October 2, 1942 (
Verfügungen
, 2:143 ff.), however, no Jewish property had remained in Jewish hands since 1941.

13.
Decree of October 22, 1938, against Collusion in Misrepresenting Jewish Businesses (
RGBl.
I, 404), which was directed against Jewish nationals who “for selfish reasons wilfully help to conceal the Jewish character of a business with a view to deceiving the public or the authorities.”

14.
Göring at the ministerial meeting on the “Jewish question,” November 12, 1938 (Nuremberg Doc. PS-1816, quoted in Poliakov and Wulf,
Das Dritte Reich und die Juden
, 75 ff.).

15.
Judgment of May 17, 1940, Vienna Administrative Court,
DVerw
(German Administration) (1940): 269 f.: a third party (competitor) had no right of appeal against the sale of Jewish property to another applicant.

16.
At the meeting of November 12, 1938, Göring demanded that the Aryan taking over the business must absolutely be qualified to do so. Regarding the problems of Aryanization of Jewish businesses, see also the report of January 11, 1940, by the presiding judge, State Superior Court, Nuremberg, BA R 22/3381.

17.
Full details in Neumann, “Vom Kaiserhoch zur Austreibung,” 27 ff.

18.
Decision of the Reichsgericht of December 10, 1942 (RGSt. 76, 316 ff.), without further explanation.

19.
Fauck, “Vermögensbeschlagnahmen an jüdischem Eigentum,” 24, speaks of the surrender of goods in January 1939, referring to several urgent memoranda from the Reich Ministry of Economics. Cf. the Third Decree on the Registration of Jewish Property of February 21, 1939 (
RGBl.
I, 282), which required all objects of gold, platinum, silver, and precious stones or pearls to be handed over within two weeks.

20.
See the instructions for implementation of art. 3, sec. 14, of the Fourth Implementing Order to the Currency Regulations of June 12, 1933 (
Deutscher Rechtsanzeiger
no. 137, June 15, 1933). More details in Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 495. No one classed as a national with respect to currency regulations was allowed to export more than RM 10. Jewelry was not mentioned explicitly at first, but in sec. 4 of the Fifth Implementing Order of May 25, 1936 (
RGBl.
I, 467), to the Currency Regulation Law of February 4, 1935 (
RGBl.
I, 105) (prohibition of export of gold, securities, money, etc.), included in the terms
gold
and
precious metal
were other artifacts “not normally made of gold and other precious metals.” The penalty was seizure of the goods in all cases. New Currency Law of December 12, 1938 (
RGBl.
I, 1733).

21.
See also Fauck, “Mitnahme von Devisen und Schmuckstücken”; cf. State Superior Court, Karlsruhe, of August 19, 1937, Ss 56/37,
DJ
(1938): 1394. In a 1941 judgment, the
Reichsgericht
confirmed the sentence of a Jew (and other accused persons) who had relinquished a future claim in foreign currency against a foreigner to imprisonment and fines, because this was deemed not an attempted but an actual negotiation of currency as set out in the Currency Law of 1938 (Reich Supreme Court of September 30, 1941, 4 D 423/41,
DR
[1942] [A]: 129).

22.
Walk,
Als Jude in Breslau
(1975), 78.

23.
According to ibid., Hitler claimed that in a few years there would only be Jewish cemeteries and beggars.

24.
Neumann, “Vom Kaiserhoch zur Austreibung,” 31; among these was the authorization to pack, which was issued by the Currency Office to Jews willing to emigrate after presentation of an inventory of all the objects to be taken on the journey, however trivial, classified separately according to whether they were acquired before or after 1933. For more details, see ibid., 31 f. Neumann, who until 1939 had been a laywer in the Berlin area, describes the tortuous path leading to his departure in March of that year. The only way he could obtain the money to replace personal effects destroyed in the
Reichskristallnacht
was by the sale of securities in compulsory deposit. However, the bonds could be disposed of only with the authorization of the Securities Office, which for its part required the applicant to first submit the receipts for the purchase of goods needed for emigration; only after this could the papers be sold and the bank transfer the money to the suppliers, who would then hand over the goods to the purchaser. Now that gold and silver objects had to be surrendered without compensation, the Currency Office passed the list required for the authorization to pack (see previous note) on to the Customs Surveillance Office, which was to report back to the Currency Office. This report was not issued until the Jewish owner had personally delivered the goods in question. After delivery the individual was informed that he had to pay a gold discount charge equal to 100% of the value of the goods delivered. These sums for their part could be obtained only by way of the same complicated system of sale of securities or the realization (sale) of other capital goods. Payment for travel tickets by Jews emigrating abroad was subject to a similar labyrinthine process: before authorizing release of the documents, the Currency Office required a certificate of approval from the Department of Finance. Until this certificate was available, it was impossible to pay for the documents, but this payment had to be made within a time limit, after which the documents would be invalid (on account of the great demand for tickets). The Department of Finance issued a certificate of approval only when the so-called Jewish tax, i.e., the Reich abandonment tax and all other taxes due had been paid; the certificate then had to be submitted to the bank where the securities were on compulsory deposit, which passed it on to the Securities Office. The Securities Office then authorized the sale of the securities, so that finally the bank was able to transfer payment for the travel document to the travel agency concerned.

25.
For more details on the realization of Jewish assets, see Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 541 ff., with numerous references. The main beneficiary of the Jewish fortunes was, however, the fiscal administration, and this constituted a victory for the Reich minister of finance over the efforts of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), which had wanted to get its hands on the fortunes of the deported Jews too. Cf. sec. 8, par. 2, of the Eleventh Decree of November 25, 1941, to the Reich Citizenship Law (
RGBl
. I, 722), according to which the management and utilization of assets of deported Jews expropriated by the Reich fell within the remit of the chief president of financial affairs, Berlin. A similar legal situation obtained even before the issue of the Eleventh Decree, with the difference that the chief presidents of financial management of the districts in which the properties were situated were responsible for their administration and seizure (Reich Ministry of Finance decree of November 4, 1941, Nuremberg Doc. NG-4905; and of February 27, 1942, Nuremberg Doc. NG-4903).

According to the Reich Ministry of Finance decree of April 22, 1942 (
Verfügungen
, 2:144 [1942]), the sale of Jewish real estate from expropriated Jewish assets was held in abeyance “in order to give soldiers returning from the front sufficient opportunity to acquire such property.” As far as the movable assets were concerned, “gilt-edged” securities in Jewish hands were to be delivered to the
Reichshauptkasse
(Central Cashier’s Office) in Berlin (Reich Ministry of Finance decree of November 4, 1941, Nuremberg Doc. NG-4905; see Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 621 ff., for more details and references). With regard to jewelry, cf. the Reich Ministry of Economics directives of October 16, 1944 (Nuremberg Doc. NG-5248, reproduced in Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 636 f.; Adler also refers to earlier directives of April 29 and May 12, 1941); for the disposal of other Jewish property in favor of the Reich, see the decree of March 21, 1942, from the Reich Minister of Finance to the chief president of financial management (Nuremberg Doc. NG-5340). Works of literature were put at the disposal of the Reich minister for the occupied territories, Rosenberg, “for research on the Jewish question”; “records and record-playing equipment” passed to the Reich Ministry of Propaganda; printing machines to the Printers Trade Group, Berlin; “sewing machines and other artisanal equipment” to the Łód
Ghetto Administration; the latter acted for the Warthegau to administer and benefit from the Jewish assets as a whole by order of the Reich governor (communication from the Łód
Ghetto Administration to the offices in the Warthegau, quoted in Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
, 539 f.).