"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (39 page)

Through such illegal measures the state took possession of Jewish property. The proceeds either fell to the Reich authorities or were sold for a song into private hands. This blocking of foreign currency, the sale of real estate, and the negotiation of securities rendered emigration almost impossible for Jews, who were often able to retain only the clothes they wore and a few personal belongings. Frequently their baggage was seized and put up for auction.
²²
The expression attributed to Hitler—that the Jews were allowed to leave “only with a backpack and ten marks” was not far from the truth.
²³
Countless bureaucratic harassments (permits, certificates, authorizations, special taxes) ensured that every last mark was extorted from the emigrants.
²⁴
Emigration became a form of banishment.

The decree of December 3, 1938, and all other regulations in context with it were not complete or were at least subject to misunderstanding, in that they contained no provisions on the legal consequences of the limitations on disposition or seizure. In reality, these measures constituted neither a temporary “safeguarding” of Jewish property nor its “administration” while preserving its substance, as the decree of December 3, 1938, would have us believe, but a full-blown appropriation (“utilization”) of the real estate and movable property of Jews in favor of the state. The decrees were implemented by internal instructions, logged in the budget of the Reich finance minister, and served to enrich all branches of the administration.
²⁵
The degree to which the concept of Jewish property was extended is indicated by the fact that in the Occupied Eastern Territories even Jewish manpower came under that heading, that is, was regarded as the property of the Reich.
²⁶

c. The Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law, November 25, 1941

The discriminatory treatment of Jews reached its climax in the Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law of November 25, 1941,
²⁷
issued in parallel to the deportations of Jews,
²⁸
which were becoming numerous in the fall of 1941. According to this, the property of Jews deported beyond the borders of the Reich fell to the Reich in its entirety and was to be used “for the promotion of all the aims related to the solution of the Jewish question” (sec. 3).
²⁹
The decision whether the conditions for forfeiture of property were fulfilled lay with the Security Police (sec. 8).

Forfeiture of property was accomplished by highly bureaucratic means as follows: before being deported, the persons involved had to prepare a detailed declaration of their property,
³⁰
which served as the basis for the investigation carried out by the tax offices and the Gestapo. The seizure order, issued by the tax office and later by the Gestapo,
³¹
was delivered to the victim before deportation (in part by the court bailiff). The legal effect of such a seizure order was only of a declaratory nature, however, since the seizure was considered to be automatically in effect on the basis of section 8, paragraph 2, of the Eleventh Decree.
³²

d. The Dispossession of Jewish Property on the Basis of Other Regulations

The Eleventh Decree was, as usual, only the legalization of an act of pillaging that had already come about. Whereas the decrees of April 26 and December 3, 1938, referred “only” to specific objects, other regulations had already been given a broad interpretation so as to confiscate the
whole property of Jews
.

The deportation of Jews began in spring 1940. The seizure and confiscation of Jewish property were originally carried out by the presidents of the districts (
Regierungspräsidenten
),
³³
but later the Reich Security Main Office and the offices of the
Reichsführer
-SS took over these tasks.
³⁴
This gave rise to a virtual tug-of-war among the authorities over the right to administer (and make use of) of Jewish property,
³⁵
a contest that the administration won in this case.
³⁶
Before the enactment of the Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law, the basis for this wholesale confiscation of property had been the Law on the Seizure of Assets of Enemies of the People and State of July 14, 1933,
³⁷
which was later also introduced in Austria and the occupied Czechoslovak territories (the German Sudeten Territories and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia).
³⁸
According to this law, the state could seize the property of any persons regarded as subversive, even when they were not deported (deportations started only in 1940). Also important here was the Law on the Revocation of Naturalization, published the same day;
³⁹
it contained a clause authorizing the seizure of property of disfavored persons who were out of the country. Such dispossession occurred “in favor of the Reich” (instruction of the Führer and
Reichskanzler
of March 29, 1941),
⁴⁰
based on the idea (which grew even stronger after the Eleventh Decree of November 25, 1941, had been issued)—at least in the eyes of the Security Police or the Party leadership—that Jewish property could
as a matter of principle
be regarded as “hostile” or “subversive” property,
⁴¹
although these terms were not defined. Furthermore, Jewish assets were even designated as objects of thieves, receivers of stolen goods, and hoarding
⁴²
and thus
automatically the property of the Reich
.
⁴³
Here too it was “juridically” concluded that the dispossession orders pursuant to the law were not constitutive but only declaratory. Such actions increasingly had the character of acts of pure revenge: acts of plunder in order to get hold of the property of rich Jews—in spite of the fact that this property existed only on paper, as a result of the total exchange embargo. When the victims applied for public relief, they were told to seek Jewish community support.
⁴⁴

In part, the (police) authorities waited until the Eleventh Decree of November 25, 1941, had been issued (because the above-mentioned laws on the confiscation “of hostile and subversive property” of July 14, 1933, did not refer explicitly to Jews but in general to “undesirable” persons, so that only “undesirable” Jews rather than Jews in general were affected) and then implemented the decree ex post facto (in order also to get their hands on the property of those Jews who had been deported before the decree had become effective).
⁴⁵
To acquire the property of Jews to whom the decree was not applicable (those who had committed suicide or who had died in exile before November 25, 1941), the authorities applied the laws of July 14, 1933, mentioned above in parallel with the Eleventh Decree,
⁴⁶
by an excessive interpretation: instructions from the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) simply declared the “endeavors” of all deported Jews to whom the Eleventh Decree applied to be “hostile and subversive,” thus satisfying the conditions of this law, with the aim of integrating the explicitly racial Eleventh Decree of 1941 into the “general” laws of 1933.
⁴⁷
The police authorities did not succeed in getting their hands on Jewish property
abroad
. In order to “compensate for this loss,” a “counteraccount” was opened up: since the property of Jews of foreign nationality deported from the Reich could allegedly not be seized in favor of the foreign state, the authorities (the Foreign Ministry and the Reich Security Main Office [RSHA]) proceeded to draw up a kind of “account” through which this property (although private) should be offered to the Reich and the property of German Jews abroad should be offered to the foreign state.
⁴⁸
Whether this deal was carried through is unclear.

The fact that there were so many “legal” grounds for seizures of property meant in practice that the legal situation according to the Eleventh Decree did not correspond to reality. This decree exempted, de facto, German Jews—so long as they were not deported—from loss of their nationality and thus from forfeiture of their assets. In addition, immediately after the Eleventh Decree was issued, the Security Police (who increasingly encroached on the prerogatives of the internal administration) began to seize
all the property of the German Jews
, or whatever was left of it, in crass contrast to the terms of the Eleventh Decree. All Jewish real estate had already been under state control since 1938, all securities were blocked, and gold, silver, and other valuable objects had had to be surrendered since 1939.
⁴⁹
The appropriate authorities merely waived the normal procedure—normal at least by (normative) decree—because many Reich ministries would have had to be consulted, and it may be justifiably presumed that they preferred to leave such delicate questions to the Gestapo. Thus, the favored technique of secret directives used before the issue of the Eleventh Decree of 1941 continued to be used after it, “in order to prevent[!] Jews in the Reich from smuggling out their property.”
⁵⁰
The restrictions referred to below were therefore not based on the Eleventh Decree of 1941 but on the “proper competence” of the Security Police (in the context of its task to prepare for the emigration or deportation of the Jews);
⁵¹
in so doing they went far beyond the terms of the Eleventh Decree.

Shortly before the Eleventh Degree was published, a decree of the Reich Security Main Office dated November 13, 1941, ordered that all objects above a specified minimum value in the possession of Jews, such as typewriters, bicycles, optical apparatus, musical instruments, gramophone records, skis, or textiles, were to be registered and handed over;
⁵²
these items were then seized by the Gestapo to equip the Gestapo offices in the overrun territories, as set out in an instruction by the Reich minister of finance.
⁵³
The free disposition of objects of low value was prohibited, for could Jews destined to extermination still have any right to independent dispositions? This question was settled by a secret instruction of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) dated November 27, 1941, which at the request of the RSHA the Party Chancellery was to communicate to the “compatriots” (
Volksgenossen
), by which doubtless Party members were meant, by word of mouth only.
⁵⁴
Whereas hitherto the blocking of dispositions had formally applied only to real estate, not to movables—with the exception of securities, gold, and jewelry—the restrictions were now extended to all dispositions of Jews, including their mobile property, and all such dispositions became subject to a “permit.”

The disposition of movable objects (their sale, for example) had to be reported within a certain time limit so that the Gestapo could investigate whether “unjustified[!] moving of property [had] taken place.”
⁵⁵
Dispositions without permit were declared null and void; violations of the permit provisions were “naturally” punished by protective custody (in concentration camps) and the seizure of all property. Similar punishment was imposed on those of German blood who bought such Jewish property without authorization. The Reich minister of economics was to inform all banks and savings banks, and the postmaster-general was to inform all postal banking offices, of these police orders. Instructions issued by the Reich Association of Jews in Germany regulated the details.
⁵⁶

Here, too, of course, the instruments lagged behind the actual events, for before the enactment of the police instruction of November 27, 1941, Jews had been obliged to sell their property in order to survive. Such sales were possible only through the Jewish communities, with the consent of the Gestapo (no donations to Jewish family members were permitted).
⁵⁷
The instruction of November 27, 1941, was therefore merely a confirmation of existing practices.

In addition, the term
permit
in the police instruction of November 27, 1941, was merely an empty formula masking the preparation for the total dispossession of Jewish property owners. The proper authority for real estate matters was no longer, as had been usual, the “normal” district agency (
höhere Verwaltungsbehörde, Regierungspräsidium
);
⁵⁸
it was now the Gestapo, which never issued permits except in cases of “absolute necessity” (a situation recognized only when there were taxes to pay).
⁵⁹

Through such measures the entire property of Jews of German citizenship was seized and put at the disposal of the Reich. Since permits were issued only exceptionally, as we have seen, the “restrictions on the disposition of property” were in effect nothing other than a confiscation of the property, which their Jewish owners were permitted to use temporarily until it fell definitively to the Reich after their deportation. Very few usable objects were left to be handed over, however, for by 1942 Jewish citizens had been divested of every last possession of any value. As early as January 1942, all furs and woolen clothes had to be relinquished without compensation, and these were followed in the middle of that year by all other dispensable articles of clothing, all electrical appliances, and all other usable articles.
⁶⁰
Thus, these restrictions cut the Jews off almost completely from everyday things. They were thus denied all means of subsistence, the allocation of fabric, shoes, and so forth, all of which were controlled with a legitimation paper called the clothing card (
Reichskleiderkart
)—not provided to Jews; further, they were refused allocations of fuel and entitlements to rations of vital foods and items such as coffee and tobacco.
⁶¹
In addition, food parcels from abroad were seized,
⁶²
inconvenient shopping times for Jews were instituted,
⁶³
and Jews were virtually completely excluded from public welfare benefits (this as early as 1938).
⁶⁴
So the Jewish population of Germany sank to a class of pariahs without any independent means, having to turn to the Jewish communities for help.
⁶⁵
This wearing down of their material existence was designed to prepare them mentally and physically for deportation.