362.115/377
Memorandum by the First Secretary of Embassy in Germany (Geist) for the Chargé (Gilbert)72
I called at the German Foreign Office today by appointment and presented the note as instructed by the Department of State in its telegram No. 228 of December 10, 1 p.m., to Geheimrat Dr. Hinrichs, the competent official in the Foreign Office for the kind of questions raised in the note. While the cordiality and friendliness displayed by Dr. Hinrichs were genuine, he evinced a certain nervousness at having received a note which I gathered he found embarrassing and troublesome. He carefully perused the document I handed him and then abruptly turned to me and asked what our intention was concerning the future of American Jews in Germany and whether or not it was our policy to promote their residence and activity here. He then went on to say that he was sure the position of the German Government vis-à-vis American Jewish interests would become clearer if we understood that the legislation which the authorities in Germany considered now essential was not directed primarily against foreign Jews, though with respect to property holdings that question assumed more formidable dimensions; but against the German Jews whose separation from the German people was decided once and for all. He understood very well the attitude of the American Government which could admit no discrimination between citizens on the basis of race and creed, but at the same time he hoped the American Government would appreciate the fact that the German Government could not discriminate in all these matters in favor of foreign Jews. It had done so wherever that was possible. But what would be the situation if, after the first of January, all German Jews in retail businesses had closed their shops, and here and there foreign Jews were allowed to continue to carry on as heretofore? That was of course the practical side of the difficulty. He said that in general he was prepared to say that the German authorities in understanding our position were desirous of meeting our wishes in all these matters as far as that was feasible, and that he trusted we would endeavor to contribute as much as we could likewise to solutions mutually satisfactory. I then raised certain specific points regarding matters under consideration.
I first brought up the question of damages to property suffered by American Jews in the attacks of November 10, 1938. I said that I [Page 416] understood that foreigners would have no difficulties collecting damages from the companies with which they were insured. Dr. Hinrichs said that my understanding was correct and then added that he could tell me confidentially that it had been decided to pay such claims.
I then brought up the decree which forbade Jews to engage in retail business, commercial services, et cetera, after the first of January 1939. I observed that this would affect American Jews in Germany while it would not disturb American non-Jews, which obviously constituted a discrimination. Our position on this point was clear and had been emphasized again by the note which I had just handed him. I said that I thought this created a situation the solution of which would call for a recognition of the American standpoint and contention. Dr. Hinrichs said that the German Government was prepared to go as far as it consistently could in the matter, and requested me to make inquiries as to what American Jewish retail firms would still be functioning in Germany after the first of January. I replied that I believed from the reports which we had had from all the American Consular representatives in Germany concerning damages to property in the November riots that the number would be about six and that I would furnish him with a list of the names and addresses of such firms. He hoped that these American Jewish firms would not delay making arrangements to liquidate as soon after the first of January as possible. He thought that difficulties might be experienced if they continued to do business after the end of February. On account of the large number of Polish, Hungarian and other European Jews, whose places of business would be closed after the first of January along with those of the German Jews, if American Jews were favored it would create an untenable position; as already the police had been remarking that if a Jewish store is under American or British protection it might continue to do business (obviously an allusion to the large department store N. Israel, under British protection, which has continued to do business after the November riots). Dr. Hinrichs pointed out that the German Government maintains that it cannot discriminate in favor of foreign Jews; and inasmuch as the action which it takes is against the Jewish race everywhere in Germany, no discrimination is involved when foreign Jews are affected in the Reich the same as German Jews.
I may say that this position I thought was analogous to the German contention often repeated to me with respect to Article I of the German-American Treaty, which finally stipulates “submitting themselves to all local laws and regulations.” He called attention, too, to the fact that the question in Germany was primarily not juridical, but practical. It was essentially a matter of practical politics. If [Page 417] the German Government, out of consideration for its good relations with foreign countries, would endeavor to protect foreign Jews in the enjoyment of rights which had been denied to German Jews, the popular indignation (meaning, as I thought to myself, the trained Nazi followers whose actions and reactions were accepted as an expression of “popular indignation”) would cause increasing trouble for such Jews, and in the interest of public order such exceptions could not be made very long.
I then brought up the question of Jewish American property. And in this regard I pointed out that this question was important on account of the fact that it was much more extensive and might involve appreciable sums of money. He said that again this law was not directed against American Jewish property in any way. But when it was realized that an exceeding large proportion of urban property, particularly apartment houses, was in the hands of Jews, and 60 percent of that in the hands of foreign Jews (foreign Jewish money having extensively come in for purchases during the inflation), it was clear that the Government could no longer tolerate this situation. He regretted, however, that the issue was raised with the American Government and here again he said the German Government would be willing to do whatever it consistently could to meet our wishes in this respect.
I made it clear that the American Government would have to take a particularly grave view of the fate of American property in Germany and it would go a long way to assure this protection.
Dr. Hinrichs revealed that he was also very much concerned about this matter and said that he would welcome any opportunity to find a satisfactory solution and would be glad to cooperate in doing so. He said that the final regulations regarding this law had not yet been worked out; but that there was no decision made as yet indicating that expropriation would take place. I said that I had taken steps through our Consular officers in Germany to learn the extent of American Jewish-owned property and that when this data is ready I would be glad to present it to him. He said he would be very grateful for any cooperation we could give in arranging a satisfactory outcome of this matter.
At the conclusion of our conversation I told Dr. Hinrichs that I had noted his exposition of the German position in regard to these matters. I said that the American position had been made so clear in its various notes that a reiteration did not seem necessary. I added that within the terms of the American position we would be very glad to cooperate with him in the fullest possible manner.73
- Copy transmitted to the Department by the Chargé in Germany in his despatch No. 499, December 14; received December 27.↩
- Appended note in longhand by Assistant Secretary of State George S. Messersmith reads: “The views expressed by Dr. Hinrichs, as set forth in this memo, can be taken as the indication of the views of a probably decent and harassed official, but in no sense as an indication of German policy.”↩