Debate Regarding Economic Measures Against Jews, 1935
Minutes of a meeting on 20 August 1935 at the Reich Economy Ministry written by Bernhard Loesener.
Source: Yad Vashem Archives JM 2245
At the... meeting of senior officials called on 20 August 1935, Reichsbank President Dr. Schacht first quoted specific examples to illustrate the worrying effects that German policy with regard to Jews was having on the economic situation. His account was climaxed by the observation that, in view of the increasingly radical trend in the policy on the Jews, he was forced to entertain serious doubts whether it would be possible to achieve the economic goals set by the Fuehrer: finding work for the unemployed and reconstructing the Wehrmacht (and obtaining raw materials from abroad)... Schacht rejected any suggestion that he might be called pro-Jewish. All he was doing was to point out the results for his field of operations of irresponsible incitement against the Jews. Schacht was most sharply critical of the independent operations of certain Party agencies - the Labour Front, the National Socialist Trade and Crafts Association (NS-Hago), as well as the activities of Gauleiter Streicher. Reich Interior Minister Frick reported Mr. Schacht's criticism in general and had a memorandum read, which was directed to the Governments of the German Laender , which made clear demands for determined intervention by the police against illegal individual operations against Jews. Frick added the explanation that the police would remain absolutely passive if Party organisations themselves carried out anti-Semitic operations. In that case, however, the responsibility would remain exclusively that of the party. Minister of State Wagner, as Party Representative, declared that the Party also disapproved of individual operations. He explained the existence of attacks on Jews by individuals as resulting from the split between the state and the party and by the divisions among different government agencies. Approximately 80% of the people wish for a solution to the Jewish Question in terms of the party program. The government must take this into account, or it will suffer a backlash in loss of authority. It does not have to happen all at once, it would suffice to take a few measures such as prohibitions against Jews opening new businesses and against giving public contracts to Jews. One should also, for the time being, limit these measures to full Jews, so that legislation should not come to a standstill because of the question of including certain Mischlinge [of mixed race] in this or that decree. Dr. Schacht agreed to this. Because of the signs being put up, he wanted to make a difference between cases in which the owner did so out of his own will and cases in which he was pressured by the party, community or any other agency. He pointed out that the most essential foreign raw materials such as cotton, copper, Nickel, etc. can only be purchased from Jews, as world trade of these materials was for all practical purposes in Jewish hands. Division head Dr. Popitz gave a few examples of the decline in business and the ensuing decline in tax payments as a result of the excesses committed. He wished that the government would set clear boundaries regarding the treatment of Jews. These guidelines, he added, should be followed strictly. Minister Dr. Guertner emphasised that state government orders would have no effect so long as the people are under the impression that the leadership favourably views disobedience to their orders to contain actions, and that they do not really act the way they would like to because of political considerations. Secretary of State von Buelow: We have to consider that any overstepping of the mark involving a foreign citizen will be cause for ten-fold retaliation on German businessmen abroad. These important issues can therefore not be left to small hoteliers or shopkeepers. Some reservations must be considered also in view of the upcoming Olympic games. He further welcomed the order by Minister of Interior Dr. Frick, but warned against making it public, as any such declaration of the Reich government would only be interpreted abroad as yielding to Jewish world propaganda, and would therefore strengthen this propaganda. It emerged from the discussion that, generally speaking, the Party's Jewish program should be retained as to substance, but the methods applied be subjected to criticism. There would be legal measures to put a stop to the limitless growth of anti-Semitic activities on the part of irresponsible organisations and private individuals in every possible area of life. But at the same time there would be special legislation to control Jewry in certain areas, particularly in all economic matters; as for the rest, they were on principle to retain their freedom of movement. No general and unified aim of German policy with respect to the Jews was produced by the debate. The arguments of Ministers responsible for various departments merely revealed that the Jewish Question made their political task more difficult. The observation made by Mr. Schacht that he would not be able to accept responsibility for the completion of the program of Reconstruction unless something were done about anti-Semitic excesses, sounded in its various forms, like an ultimatum. But Mr. Schacht did not draw the conclusion that he must demand a radical change in the Party's Jewish Program, or even the methods by which it was carried out, for example, a ban on the Stuermer . On the contrary, he maintained the fiction of the 100 percent execution of the Jewish Program. Both Mr. Schacht and the Party representative pointed out during the debate that in this question there was a divergence in the basic attitudes of Party and State, which was significant in principle beyond the concrete question under discussion. The representatives of the departments in most cases pointed out practical disadvantages, which developed in their areas, while the party based the need for radical steps against the Jews on political-emotional and abstract-philosophical grounds.
