by The Destruction of the European Jews, Vol. 1-3 (Third Edition) Yale University Press (2003) (pdf)
also with regard to Jews so long as Jews continue to be employed
privately.”14
The conference was held under the chairmanship of the Interior
Ministry’s Jewish expert, Ministerialrat Lösener. One of those present
(Göring’s representative) declared that he wanted only a ruling to the
effect that the Jews had a separate labor status. The proposed decree
did not interest him at all. The conferees thereupon compromised on
two decrees, one to establish the principle, the other to contain the
details. ■’
The principle of separate labor status was finally promulgated in
the decree of October 3, 1941, signed by Staatssekretär Körner of the
Office of the Four-Year Plan.16 The Labor Ministry’s implementation
decree, dated October 31, 1941, and signed by Staatssekretär Engel,"
provided that Jews had only the right to be paid for work actually done.
Then it listed the payments to which Jews were not entitled—and
which they had not been receiving for quite some time anyhow. But the
decree
contained
also
several
new
provisions
that
were
important.
Jews had to accept every job assigned to them by the labor offices.
It. Seldte to Ummers, April 16, 1940, NG-1143.
12. Stuckart to Ummers, April 30, 1940, NG-1143.
13. Staatssekretär Syrup to interior Ministry. January 3, 1941, NG-1143. For detailed regional rulings, see Oberregierungsrat Hans Küppers, “Die vorläufige arbeitsrechtliche Behandlung der Juden," ReichsarbeUsblau, Part V, pp. 106-10.
14. Syrup to Interior Ministry, January 3, 1941, NG-1143.
15. Kaiser to Killy, January 9. 1941, NG-1143.
16. RGBl 1,675.
17. RGBl 1,681.
147
EXPROPRIATION
Jews had to be employed in groups. Jewish youths between fourteen
and eighteen years of age could be employed at all hours. Jewish invalids (except war invalids) had to accept all assignments. In summary, industry had been given the right of almost unlimited exploitation: to
pay minimum wages for maximum work.
S P E C I A L I N C O M E T A X E S
The Finance Ministry now had the job of taxing Jewish wages (or what
was left of them). The idea of a special Jewish income tax actually
originated at the end of 1936, when the first drafts were drawn up in the
Interior Ministry. Hitler himself wanted this tax for punitive reasons,
for 1936 was the year of the first assassination of a Nazi leader by a Jew
(the
Landesgruppenleiter
Wilhelm
Gustloff
in
Switzerland).
The
income tax was desired as a kind of penalty.' A subsequent draft, prepared
by
Division
III
of
the
Finance
Ministry,
actually
provided
for a fluctuating tax increase correlated with the conduct of Jews as
public enemies,’ but the punitive idea was dropped when the Justice
Ministry objected to the measure as legally unsound and politically
dangerous, particularly because of the possibility of retaliations against
German minorities abroad (a typical Nazi fear).’ Goring, too, did not
like the decree, although he used the penalty idea for his so-called fine
after the assassination of the second Nazi, vom Rath.'
Notwithstanding
all
the
objections,
the
early
tax
correspondence
did come up with some results. One of these was the abolition, in 1938,
of income tax exemptions for Jewish children.5 In the words of the tax
decree of 1939, which reenacted the provision, “children” were per-
1. Staatssekretär Reinhardt {Finance Ministry) to Foreign Office, attention Amtsrat
Hofrat Schimke; Economy Ministry, att. MinistrialbQrodirektor Reinecke; Propaganda
Ministry, att. Regieningsrat Braekow; Deputy of the Führer (Hess), att. Hauptdienstlei-
ter Reinhardt; Plenipotentiary of the Four-Year Plan (Göring); and Staatssekretär Lam-
mers (Reich Chancellery), February 9, 1937, enclosing letter by Stuckart dated
December 18, 1936, NG-3939.
2. Memorandum by Zülow and Kühne (Finance Ministry/Div. Ill), April 25, 1938,
NG-4030.
3. Reinhardt letter, enclosing Stuckart correspondence, February 9, 1937, NG-
3939.
4. Memorandum by Zülow and Kühne, April 25, 1938. NG-4030.
5. Reinhardt letter, February 9, 1937, enclosing letter by Prof. Dr. Hedding (Finance Ministry) to Staatssekretär Stuckart, dated January 17. 1937, NG-3939. Reinhardt to Foreign Office, November 27, 1937, NG-3939. Thx Law of 1938, RGBl I, 129, p. 135.
148
STARVATION MEASURES
sons who were not Jews.6 The reason for specifying the status of the
child rather than the status of the wage earner was to ensure that a
Christian father of a Jewish child would not get a rebate and that a
Jewish father of a Mischling child would retain the exemption. In short,
this measure was aimed at parents whose children were classified as
Jews.7
The
early
correspondence
also
contained
a
proposed
tax
justification
which
was
different
from
the
punitive
idea.
This
justification, first mentioned by Stuckart, lingered in the minds of the
bureaucrats long after the measure itself had been shelved. Stuckart
had reasoned that Jews did not make contributions to Nazi charitable
and relief organizations. In lieu of such contributions, he argued, the
Jews should pay a special income tax' This brilliant idea could not be
wasted. On August 5,1940, the proposal was translated into action, not
against the Jews but against the Poles, who were then being imported in
increasing numbers into the Reich. The tax was called Sozialausgleichsabgabe (Social Equalization Tax). It was a 15-percent special income tax with an exemption of 39 reichsmark per month. The contribution
was levied on top of the regular income tax.’ After the measure had
been decreed against the Poles, it was extended to the people for whom
it was originally intended—the Jews. This was accomplished by the
decree of December 24, 1940, signed by Staatssekretär Reinhardt of
the Finance Ministry.'“
S T A R V A T I O N M E A S U R E S
The economic strangulation of the Jewish community did not stop with
wage cutting and tax increases. After all the deductions, the Jews still
had a little income, which the bureaucrats regarded as a bundle of
Jewish claims upon German goods and services. This was bad enough.
But since the Jews had only a few marks, they had to claim with these
marks what they needed most—food. And food was not just a com-
6. Decree of February 17,1939, RGBl 1,284.
7. In 1938, the bureaucrats in the Finance Ministry were very enthusiastic about
the idea of abolishing tax exemptions. Among the
proposals was a suggestion to deprive
blinded Jewish war veterans of the dog-tax exemption generally enjoyed by the war
blind. Memorandum by Zitlow and Kithne, April 23, 1938, NG-4030.
8. Reinhardt letter, February 9, 1937, enclosing Stuckart proposal, NG-3939.
9. RGBl I, 1077.
10. RGBl I, 1666. For details of implementation, see Ministerialrat Josef Oermann
(Finance Ministry), Die Sozialausgleichsabgabe (2d ed.; Berlin, 1944).
149
EXPROPRIATION
modity. In German, food is called “means of life” (Lebensmittel). In
World War I the German army had gone hungry. In World War II food
was looted from all areas of occupied Europe to be distributed in
Germany under a careful rationing system. It is therefore hardly surprising that the German bureaucracy began to impose restrictions on the distribution of food articles to Jewish purchasers. The Jews were
not to get their share.
Rationing
was
the
responsibility
of
the
Food
and
Agriculture
Ministry. Every three or four weeks the ministry sent rationing instructions to the regional food offices (Provinzialernahrungsamter in Prussia and Landesernakrungsamter in other provinces). At the regional level, the food offices sometimes supplemented these instructions in
accordance with local supplies.
The food supply was divided into four categories: (I) unrationed
foods; (2) basic rations for normal consumers; (3) supplementary rations for heavy workers and night workers, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, and sick persons and invalids; (4) special allotments of rationed foods when in plentiful supply, or of unrationed but generally unavailable foods when available. (These varied from time to
time and from place to place.) The Agriculture Ministry proceeded in
its restrictions upon Jewish food purchasers in the characteristic step-
by-step manner. Starting with special allotments, the ministry worked
itself up to supplementary rations, finally cutting basic rations and
unrationed foods.
On December 1, 1939, Acting Minister of Food Backe instructed
the regional food offices to deprive Jews of the special food allocations
for the ration period December 18, 1939, to January 14, 1940. As a
result, Jews were to receive less meat, less butter, no cocoa, and no
rice. Coupons were to be invalidated before the issuance of the ration
cards. In case of doubt as to whether the ration holder was a Jew, the
police or party offices could be consulted. The instructions were not to
be published in the press.' The instructions for the next ration period
(January 15 to February 4, 1940) again provided for the cutting of
special rations, this time in meat and legumes.1 2
The regional food offices did not apply these instructions uniformly. Either confused or overeager, they cut into the supplementary rations of children, heavy workers, and the incapacitated, and even
into the basic rations of normal consumers. On March 11, 1940, the
regional food offices were reminded that basic rations and differentials
1. Backe to regional food offices. December 1, 1939, Nl-13359.
2. Food Ministry (signed Narten) to regional food offices. January 3, 1940, NG-
150
STARVATION MEASURES
for children, and so on, were not to be touched. The specially allotted
rations, however, were to be cut. Similarly, unrationed foods, which
were generally unavailable and which were distributed only from time
to time by means of customers' lists, were to be taken from the Jews.
For the current period, the unrationed items included poultry, game
fish, and smoked foods.
The clarification order then enumerated for the guidance of the
food offices the following procedural rules and recommendations. All
ration cards held by Jews were to be stamped with a J. Special ration
coupons could be invalidated by the J. Household ration cards were to
be exchanged for travel and restaurant coupons only in cases of absolute necessity; Jews could make their short trips without food. Finally, the food offices were empowered to set aside special shopping hours
for Jews in order to make sure that Aryan purchasers were not “inconvenienced." In effect, this provision ensured that items sold on a first-come-first-served
basis
never
reached
Jewish
customers.3
Shopping
hours for Jews were fixed in Vienna between 11 a.m. and I p.m. and
between 4 and 5 p.m., in Berlin between 4 and 5 p.m. only, and in Prague
between 3 and 5 p.m.4
In spite of the clarification order of March 11,1940, mistakes at the
regional level continued. One such mistake resulted in a somewhat
bizarre
incident.
Berlin
received
a
shipment
of
real
coffee
(i.e.,
Bohnenkaffee rather than Ersatzkaffee). The population had to register
for the coffee and, in the absence of any prohibitions, five hundred
Jews were among the registrants. When the food office discovered the
registrations, it struck the Jews off the lists and imposed fines on them
for disturbing the public order. One Jew brought the case into a local
court (Amtsgericht). The food office argued that the Jews should have
known that they were not entitled to coffee, but the court overruled the
Food Office on the ground that a fine could not be based on an
“artificial
interpretation
of
the
law
[gekünstelten
Auslegung
des
Gesetzes]." When a new Justice Minister, Thierack, took over in 1942,
he discussed the case in the first of his famous “instructions to the
judges [ Richterbriefe].” This is what Thierack said:
The decision of the Amtsgericht borders in form and content on deliberate embarrassment [ Blosstellung] of a German administrative body vis-
à-vis Jewry. The judge should have asked himself with what satisfaction
the Jew received the decision of this court, which certified to him and his
five hundred racial comrades in a twenty-page argument his right and his
3. Narten to regional food offices, March 11, 1940, Nl-14581.
4. Boris Shub (Institute of Jewish Affairs), Starvation over Europe (New York,
1943), p. 61.
151
EXPROPRIATION
victory over a German office, not to speak of the reaction of the people’s
sound instinct [gesundes Volksempfinden] to that impertinent and presumptuous behavior of the Jews.’
The Jews who “won” the case were, incidentally, deported to a killing
center immediately.4 No more coffee for these Jews.
In 1941, determined to close every loophole, the Agriculture Ministry took measures against the shipment of parcels from foreign countries. These parcels supplemented the diet of Jews who were fortunate enough to have helping friends and relatives in neutral states. But the
ministry could not bear the thought that Jews should receive food
twice, from their relatives and from the German people. Accordingly,
the Food Ministry requested the customs administration of the Finance
Ministry to send weekly reports
to the food offices of parcels known or
suspected to be intended for Jews. The contents were then subtracted
from the food rations.7 8 9
Gradually the ministry became more stringent in its instructions to
the food offices. Item after item was reduced or taken off entirely. On
June 26, 1942, the Food and Agriculture Ministry invited representatives of the Party Chancellery, the Reich Chancellery, the Office of the Four-Year Plan, and the Propaganda Ministry to meet in conference for
a final review of the question of food supplies for Jews.1
Judging from the official summary,5 6 the conference was remarkably
smooth. All proposals were adopted unanimously. The conferees were
informed that, in accordance with instructions by the Food Ministry,
Jews were no longer receiving cakes. Moreover, a number of food
offices had already prohibited the distribution of white bread and rolls.
All those present agreed that it would be “appropriate” to direct all
food offices to withhold white bread and rolls from Jews. Next, the
conferees learned that the ministry had already instructed the food
offices not to distribute any egg cards to Jews. The representatives at
the conference thought that it would be justifiable” (vertretbar) to
exclude Jews from the purchase of all meats.
Third, the bureaucrats were unanimous in the belief that it would
5. Richterbrief No. 1 (signed Thierack), October 1, 1942, NG-295.
6. Dr. Hugo Nothmann (Jewish survivor), in Hans Lamm. "Ober die Entwicklung
des Deutschen Judentums im Dritten Reich” (Erlangen. 1951; Mimeographed), p. 312.
7. Finance Ministry (signed Seidel) to Obertinanzprâsidenten, April 20. 194], NG-
1292.
8. Food and Agriculture Ministry (signed Moritz) to Ministerialdirektor Klopfer
(Party Chancellery), Reichskabinettsrat Willuhn (Reich Chancellery), Ministerialdirektor Gramsch (Office of the Four-Year Plan), and Ministerialdirektor Bemdt (Propaganda Ministry), June 26,1942, NG-1890.
9. Conference summary, dated July I, 1942, NG-1890.
152
STARVATION MEASURES
be “correct” (richtig) to lift the equality of treatment still enjoyed by
Jewish children. (Until now, Jewish children had received the same
supplementary quantities of bread, meat, and butter given to German
children.) Accordingly, it was decided to cut these supplementary rations. That would have given to Jewish children the rations of adult German consumers. However, since this was still too much, the bureaucrats agreed to decrease the rations of Jewish children to the level of rations given to Jewish adults. Consequently, if Jewish adults lost