862.4016/1399
The Ambassador in Germany (Dodd) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 29.]
Sir: When I sailed for the United States the middle of March, I had the feeling that the Jewish problem here was showing signs of improvement. Open antagonism against the Jews had somewhat abated, and Schmitt, the Minister of Economics, and other responsible leaders had issued strict warnings against interference with private business and initiative. I indicated this in discussions of the problem with Jewish leaders in New York, and urged them to keep the boycott movement in check in order to prevent a renewed flare-up against the Jews here.
I have now the honor to inform the Department, however, that the prospect of a cessation appears far less hopeful. Since the National Socialist Party’s announcement of a two-months’ campaign against the “grumblers and faultfinders,” and the bitter attacks launched against the Jews by Goebbels96 in his opening speech of the campaign (reported in Embassy’s despatches Nos. 810 of May 9 and 820 of May 15,97 respectively), there has been renewed evidence that the Nazis’ policy with respect to the Jews has not been modified. Except perhaps that the methods of discrimination have become more subtle and less advertised. Of course, the cue given by Goebbels in his speech was taken up by the Nazi press; the Angriff appealed to its readers to keep a sharp eye on the Jews and report any of their shortcomings; the example set by Julius Streicher’s weekly Der Stürmer in printing bloodcurdling stories of ritual murders has been followed [Page 296] by a journal called Fredericus published in Berlin by Herr Kube, a Prussian Counselor of State and a high-ranking official of the SS. In addition to this, various Party leaders, including Frick, Minister of the Interior, have found appropriate occasions to attack the Jews in public speeches.
But certain changes in business organizations in which Jews held controlling interests or were associated have been accomplished with a minimum of publicity. The withdrawal from the Frankfurter Zeitung of the Jewish families which have held the controlling interests in that well known paper for many years, was reported in a brief announcement to the effect that the majority stock held by those families had been taken over by the minority shareholders’ group. On June 9, the Ullstein press announced the purchase of the minority stock in that concern, held since the reorganization last fall by the Ullstein family, by a consortium headed by the Deutsche Bank-Disconto Gesellschaft, and the withdrawal of the members of the Ullstein family hitherto associated with the undertaking. In both of these instances the question may be left open as to influences brought to bear to effect the elimination of Jewish interests.
More concrete examples indicate, however, that though the laws enacted to remove the Jews from official and semi-official positions and prescribing the application of the numerus elausus to the professions were not intended to apply to private industry, every possible obstruction is put in the Jews’ way in their dealings with the authorities. The following instances are illustrative: A large rubber goods manufacturer was informed that, in order to have his bids considered by the municipal authorities, he must submit evidence that he employed no Jews (several Jews were dismissed as a result); a Jewish house-owner made application for the remission of taxes in order to carry out repairs required by the authorities; his request was refused, and he was informed that further applications would be recognized only upon the presentation of evidence of his Aryan origin. Even the German Red Cross, in its recent drive for contributory members, required the contributors to certify to their Aryan origin.
These instances and others of lesser importance reveal a different method in the treatment of the Jews—a method perhaps less calculated to bring repercussions from abroad, but reflecting none the less the Nazis’ determination to force the Jews out of the country.
In consequence of the numerous laws enacted with a view to removing the Jew from official and semi-official positions and the professions, and their generous application by the authorities (the number of Jewish lawyers in Berlin has dropped from 1911 on April 7, 1933 to 1227 on April 1, 1934, while the number of Jewish notaries has declined from 1210 to 537), practically one field of endeavor only is left open [Page 297] to him—that of business. And while the warnings of some more far-sighted leaders of the Party have been effective in checking the ruthless interferences in business which threatened to disrupt the entire German economic system last year, they have not prevented the more radical anti-Semitic elements from carrying on their campaign against the Jews in a less violent if equally effective form.
Two other instances of anti-Semitism will probably be of interest to the Department. The courts at Karlsruhe and Breslau have permitted two Germans to divorce their Jewish wives, the justification therefor being the importance of the racial principle. Such mixed marriages were considered by the judges to be injurious to the German race, as they produce progeny that are alien in character. In the case decided by the court at Karlsruhe the husband had voluntarily and knowingly contracted marriage with a Jewess, but subsequently repented of his act when he realized the racial significance.
The second instance is the expulsion from the German Students’ League of certain student corps. It appears that a number of the graduate members had married women with Jewish blood. The Students’ League ordered the corps to expel these old members and upon their refusal, excluded them from the League. It appears that Herr von Neurath, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is a member of one of the corps affected.
Respectfully yours,