POLITICAL - JUDICIAL, COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA SOCIOLOGICAL - ANTI-SEMITISM, PRESS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: R
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2002
• Sequence Number: 118
• Publication Date: March 24, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
COUNTRY
SUBJECT
HOW
CLASSIFICATION RESTRICTED
SECURITY INFORMITION
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
INFORMATION FROM
FOREIGN DOCUMENTS OR RADIO BROADCASTS
East and West Germany; Austria; Great Britain;
Israel; Holland; Denmark; Norway; Switzerland;
Diaspora; US
Political - Judicial, Communist propaganda
Sociological - Anti-Semitism, press
PUBLISHED Daily, four times weekly, and weekly newspapers
WHERE
PUBLISHED East and West Germany; Austria; Israel;
DATE
PUBLISHED
110 701. 01 TMC U.S. COD!. ?f AYCIIDLO. ITf 111 ?US,Iff10Y Of .911.
0110! 01 I n' COYCCYCC 10 011 YICCIIT .Y /II UY.U TU Df 17CO IC Af 00 If
REPORT NO.
CD NO.
DATE OF
25X1A
-1
INFORMATION 1951 - 1952
DATE DIST. 9-l Mar 1953
SUPPLEMENT TO
REPORT NO.
COMMUNIST AND NONCOMMUNIST PRESS REACTION
TO THE AUERBACH CONTROVERSY
5omment: The convictign,on 14 August 1952 in Munich, Germany,
of Philipp Auerbach, former riwish Bavarian Restitution Commis-
tdoner, by a German court on obarges of misappropriating hundreds of
thousands of German marks'be4onging to Jewish victims of Nazism and
his subsequent suicide caused a turmoil not only in Germany but in
the entire world. Sr
This case was not closed with the death of the erstwhile defen-
dant, and opinions expressed in newspapers everywhere are still be-
ing discussed. It was pointed out in many papers that a grave error
was perpetrated by postwar Germany in allowing former Nazis to act
as judges in the trial of a Jew.
The Communist press did not let the opportunity pass withott
blaming the US government for this so-called "gross miscarriage of
justice" and condemn'.ng US and Israeli negotiations with "neo-Nazi"
Germany, where, it asserted, a new approach to anti-Semitism had
been initiated.
The following report deals primarily with the reactiun to the
trial, sentence, and suicide of Auerbach by Communist and non-Com.
munist newspapers available in CIA, published between 10 March
1951 and 30 September 1952. All informaticn was obtained from
the dress of Germany, Austria, and other European countries, as
well as from that of Israel and the Diaspora.
Numbers in parentheses refer to appended sources]
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For. Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
0
According. to the 17 August 1952 Neue uhr- an Essen Ge
Philipp Auerbach, born in Hamburg on December 190 , concentration c p~inmateaper,
during the Hitler period, held high positi?ns in Germany after 1945, such as those
of Oberregierungsrat in Duesseldorf, Bavarian State Commissioner for Racial and
Religious Victims in Munich until November 1048; then, counselor of the Bavarian
Restitution Office in Munich; and finally, head of the Restitution Office of
Bavaria, also in Munich, which po-ition he held until March 1951.(1)
According to the newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau of 3.0 March 1951, on 9 March
1951, Philipp Auerbach was dismissed on a charge o malfeasance from his post as
head of the Bavarian Restitution Office by Dr Rudolf Zorn, .3avarian Minister of
Finance.(2) On 10 March 1951, according to the same paper of 11 March 1951,
Auerbach was arrested for embezzlement and bribe-taking, according to an offi-
cial announcement by Senatprasident Hartmann of the Bavarian Administrative
Office-(3) The 17 August 1952 issue of the Vienna daily newspaper Neues Oester-
reich said that s few days later, Auerbach was placed*illthe prison hospital atsta9el-
heim for diabetrs and a serious kidney ailment. He was under constant medical
treatment until his conviction on 14 August 1952.(4)
. On 14 August 1952, according to the 18 August issue of the daily newspaper
Nurnb!ff Nachrichten, after a trial which had lasted several months, Philipp
Auerbach was sentenced by a German court headed by a former member of the Nazi
Party (5) to 30 months inzprisonm.nt and fined 2,7C0 Deutsche marks, reported the
Berlin daily newspaper Dertagesspiegel of 15 August 1952. He was convicted of
embezzlement, perjury, disloyalty, passive bribery, attempted cxtortion, and
illegal use of the doctor's title, the paper said. Dr Aaron Orenstein, Chief
Rabbi of Bavaria, and two others were also convicted as Auerbach's accomplices
wrote the paper.(6) On 15 August 1952, Auerbach committed suicide by taking
an overdose of sleeping pills, according to the 17 August 1952 Vienna daily news-
paper Arbeiter Zeitung.(7) His funeral was the scene. of rioting by demorstrat-
ing Jewish participants, German police -sed water hoses on them and made several
arrests, reported the Vienna daily newspaper Die Presse of 20 August 1952.
After Auerbach was sentenced, and prior to his suicide, many non-
Communist newspapers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark Hol-
land, and Norway felt that the judgment had been too severe. On
the other hand, several non-Communist papers in various countries ex..
pressed the opinion that the judgment was justifiable. After Auer-
bach committed suicide on the day following his sentence, however,
many newspapers expressed shock and indignation over this event and
demanded that an investigation be made into the: background of the
trial.
A. Reaction in Germany
The Suddeutsche Zeitung of 16 August 1952 pointed out that Auerbach
was the victim of a court which refused to implicate: the many other government
officials involved in this case. It asserted that the responsible government
men in Bavaria were at fault for not having realized that it was impossible to
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
0
employ a man like Auerbach for such work. The paper further stated that Auer-
bach's downfall was inevitable because of his character but felt that hie
downfall should not have beau the result of sL-h a trial, since the world had
not yet forgotten Auschwitz and Belsen.(9)
On 18 August 1952, the some paper expressed the opinion that the
Auerbach case-would not have occurred, had Germany made generous proposals re-
garding voluntary restitution after the war. From the very beginning, this
shortsightedness on the part of Germany was a strike against the subsequently
established restitution program, declared the paper. The paper emphasized that
Auerbach had done his task in the only way in which it could be done under the
given circumstances.(10)
The Frankfurter Neue Presse of 15 August 1952 also asserted that Auer-
bach's sentence was too severe and quite unexpected. It declared that the
court should have considered the illness of Auerbach, his past history of suf-
fering under the Nazi regime, and the twasual circumstances regarding his posi-
tion. Tt pointed out that many people expected a verdict of not guilty or a
mild sentence for minor offenses. The newspaper opined that it was hardly
possible for anyone to understand the position of a man deprived of all his rights
for years who suddenly received power and recognition.(11)
In an editorial in the Frankfurter Rundschau of 15 August 1952, Ludwig
Steinkohl described the sentence of Auerbach as a severe judgment for a man who,
despite hardships suffered under the Nazi regime, took over one of the most
difficult tasks in tae German government. Among other thirgs, Steinkohl stated:
"Certainly, nobody expected Auerbach to be acquitted of all the charges;
still, it was expected that notice would be taken of the bitter years he had spent
in concentration camps. It was up to the Munich court to honor his accomplish-
ments. Auerbach's only consolation is that the last word has not been spoken."(12)
In a feature article in the Neue Ruhr-Zeitung of 16 August 1952, H. Sime-
cek asserted that the Auerbach trial had not been conducted to the satisfaction
of the public. He stated further that the closed case still remained shrouded by
the embarrassing fact that the entire political implications have not been clar-
ified and that all the witnesses did not give complete testimony. He added that
it was too bad that the case had to end the way it did.(13)
Otto Pongratz wrote a feature article in tae Neue Ruhr-Zeitung of 15 Au-
gust 1952, which, .mong other things, stated that during the first weeks of the
trial, an impartial spectator could have gained the impression that a drive against
Auerbach had started, even prior to the trial. Pongratz -intimated that Dr 1.1ul-
zer's residing Judge at trim declaration early in the trial that the case
concerned only the criminal guilt of the accused and had nothing to do with poli-
tics was an unnecessary statement, since the question of criminal guilt naturally
brought up the political background of this =ase, as attested to several times
by Joseph Klibansky, Auerbach's defense attorney, during the trial
Pongratz critically pointed out that the court had committed a faux pas
by setting the date of the trial during the Passover holiday period, (14)
The Frankfurter Neue Presse of 18 September. 1952 asserted that there is
no doubt that those men whose judgment was perhaps the straw which broke the
camel's back wanted to test their conscience as Judges most vigorously, However,
it would be too simple to seek the cause of the last chapter of this tragedy in
the ,'vdgment alone, the paper pointed out mho nyno~ :+A?1wce' +tiot *h'rc e--
persons in Bavaria who are interested in establishing the wickedness of Jews and
who have more cause to test their conscience, The paper added that those per-
sons who found satisfaction in the unfavorable things said about Auerbach dur-
ing tee trial had contributed to his death. The paper concluded that the ]east
that can be done now for Auerbach is to forgive him for his death and to try to
make the best of the situation to the extent that this i.:, still possible (15)
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
0
On the other hand, highly critical of Auerbach's action, the Munchner
Merkur of 15 August 1952 pointed out that the judgment showed that Auerbach
had used his power illegally whenever legal means failed. It also stated that
the appointment of Auerbach to his rosition had been an inexcusable mistake.
The paper declared that the majority of the Bavarian people, who before the
trial had accepted their payment of reparations for Nazi crimes as a self-evi-
dent duty, would not do so to the same extent in the future. The paper empha-
sized that it was quite natural to turn Auerbach's case over to a German court
but warned that it was not natural to accuse Jewry on an equal basis with the
accused in the case, which, it declared, constituted not only a malicious but
also a very dangerous action.(16)
The Niirnbergei Nachrichter of 20 August 1952 credited one of the
jury members in the Auerbach trial with saying that Auerbach's trial was
justified but unsatisfactory because of the conflict between law and right.
According to the paper, the witness also asserted that legal provisions call-
ing for some deviations from the law should have been instituted for the post-
war years,
The same paper also carried a feature article which cmphasized that
Auerbach had many enemies, including ill those persons who do not believe in
the Bavarian restitutions provisions. The paper pointed out that except for
the offenses of which Auerbach was accused, the judge regarded him as a techni-
cally efficient and diligent public servant. The paper then concluded that
it was not surprising that the general population hated a person who had
helped so many thousands to live a better life than they, especially since
many of the former were non-Germans, including Jews, of course.(17)
On the other hand, the Hamburger Freie Presse wrote that the court
deserved credit for having kept the trial within its proper criminal scope.
It asserted that the judgment was in accordance with the criminal evidence
and that there was no doubt that Auerbach had conducted his work with an un-
believable neglect for formal regulations.(18)
The TagesspieQel of 17 August 1952 asserted that the Auerbach tra-
gedy had caused great confusion. The paper declared that there is no doubt
that those circles abroad which were opposed to the trial will now see Auerbach
as a victim of German justice, especially in view of his farewell letter pro-
testing his innocence. The paper also expressed the opinion that Auerbach was
convinced that he had to draw the tragic consequences of the Munich judgment,
when he said in his final speech that it was possible that he had done several
things in his position which had not been quite aboveboard, even though he had
had honorable intentionn,(i9)
The Rhein-Neckar issue of 18 August 1952 described the gravity of the
atmosphere created in Germany by the Auerbach case and expressed the hope that
his suicide would not lead to new discord between Jews and Germans, e-ien if
the judgment does not etand up after investigation. The paper established that
in the final analysis, Auerbach, as well as the court members, are all human
beings and therefore subject to human error.(20)
The Welt am Sontag of 18 August 1952 vtote that Auerbach was not a
martyr. The paper pointed out that the accusations against Auerbach were ap-
parently justified from the criminal viewpoint, and t`.-.e intention of the judges
to be objective could not be denied; however, the paper admitted that Auerbach
had to do questionable things to accomplish what he wanted.(21)
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
0
The Allgemeine Zeltung fur Wurttemberg of 18 August 1952 pointed out
that Auerbach was condemned according t.. the law. However, the paper added,
Auerbach's death acted as a boomerang t, the accusation and the judgment, which
the judges and the accusers now have to justify before their own consciences.(22)
The Nurnberger Nachrichten of 18 August 1952 brought out that re-
liable Social Democratic circles in Bonn had reported Auerbach's suicide to be
proof of his sincerity with regard to his position as head of the Bavarian Resti-
tution Office and was the result of the "terrifically hard judgment" against him.
The paper then quoted the Bonn Social Democrats as having said: Al-
though the attempt of the court to be objective cannot be denied, it can be
doubted whether some on the jury could think without prejudice. It is a matter
of record that Auerbach, a concentration camp inmate for years, was tried by a
court headed by a former member of the Nazi party.
The papei then declared that the fact that Auerbach was a Jew will be
emphasized in connection with this judgment outside of Germany, and it will call
to mind the millions of Jews who were murdered during the Nazi era for no other
reason than that they were Jews.(5)
The Rheinische Post of 18 August 1952 asserted that the Auerbach case
will have world-wide reverberations, since Auerbach's being a Jew will be
stressed. The paper declared that the reaction of Auerbach's friends is under-
standable because of the grief caused by his sudden death. The paper then pointed
out that Auerbach's death revives the memory of millions of Jews murdered dur-
ing the Nazi period and brings up the question as to whether Auerbach was a be-
lated victim of Nazi madness. It cannot be denied that Auerbach was a victim of
turbulent times, concluded the paper.(23)
According to the Neue Zeitung of 19 August 1952, Hermann Probst, head
of Internal Political Department of the Silddeutsche Zeitung, in a weekly com-
mentary over Radio Bavaria, had this to say, among other things, about the
Auerbach suicide: "Auerbach died in despair. He did not want to outlive the
judgment against him. It is no secret that during the trial, he suffered un-
bearable pain, which would have given him the right to postpone the trial. How-
ever, he was determined to hold out until the judgment was spoken. His belief in
this world's justice was destroyed." (24)
The Telegraf of 18 August 1952 maintained that a superficial considera-
tion of the case would make it seem as though Auerbach's suicide confirmed his
guilt; however, a closer investigation would reveal that this was not so. Since
it was evident during the trial that Auerbach was surrounded by political intrigue,
the paper said, it is possible that this was the reason for his losing nerve and
committing suicide. It would be regrettable if the anticipated investigation
of the tragic end of this trial were to increase the already existing political
tension, the paper concluded.(25)
Regarding t--rbach's suicide, Hans J. Reinewski wrote in the Darmstadter
Echo of 18 August 1952 that such action resulting from the judgment makes fair-
minded Germans uneasy and doubtful. Among other things, he asserted. "It is the
duty of our German legal authorities to investigate the judgment and to ..etermine
whether it was in error- We Germai7 owe this not only to Auerbach and his
Jewish fellow sufferers but also to ourselves and to the world. Under no cir-
cumstances should the Auerbach case lead to a new disagreement between Germany
and other nations. We must prove to everybody that we are no anti-Semites, no
Jew haters and no Jew murderers hose people who again try to spread anti-S.?mi_
tic propaganda should be stopped, and those who permit it are neither good
Christians nor good Germans. We must stress that dark chapter in German his-
tory and make efforts to create better relations between ourselves and r,c Jewish
fellow citizens. Auerbach should be the last victim of racial discrimination."(2 )
- 5 -
RESTRICTED
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
0
The Suddeutsche Ze~itung or 18 August 1952 pointed out that the beck-
ground of the trial against Auerbach needed clarification. The paper asserted
that Auerbach had renounced his appeal by seeking death, and concluded that the
case demanded a political answer.(27)
The Frankfurter Rundschau of 18 August 1952 carried an article by Karl
Gerold entitled "Call of the Dead," which expressed the hope that the future
would clearly *determine how and in what infamous manner political and persona].
traps were planted against Auerbach. Gerold, greatly aroused, pointed out that
Auerbach died mentally broken because the court had sentenced him for profit-
eering on evidence brought forward by witnesses of very doubtful character.
The writer declared that when Auerbach was under investigation and when he died,
he did not have any money at all. Quoting Auerbach's statement, "i am inno-
cent," in his farewell letter to his wife, Gerold asserted that this last call
of the dead, who had to die because personal honor was destroyed, must not be
disregarded.(28)
varied reaction to the Auerbach trial and suicide by indivi-
duals in the Federal Republic of Germany can be found in the follow-
ing extracts of letters, which they had submitted to editors for
publication
In one letter, published in the Neu? Zeitung of 27 August 1952, D.?
Fritz Reuss of Burghausen/Oberbayern (Upper Bavaria asserted that Auerbach's
suicide as the result of the judgment passed against him was one of the most
tragic incidents in postwar Germany. He declared further: "Injustice was done,
not from the judicial but from the humanitarian viewpoint. This judgment des-
troyed a man who had just as many faults as anybody else, but who was clever,
diligent, and always ready to lend a helping hand, despite his many years of
dreadful physical and mental suffering. Auerbach's death calls for a thorough
clarification of many questionable incidents, including the political and
financial intrigues involved in this case.(29)
In another letter to the Neue Zeitung of 27 August 1952, Dr Karl-
Heinz Plaas of Lindau stated that the disproportion between guilt and punish-
went in the Auerbach case was very disturbing to all decent peo le. He de-
clared as unimportant the misuse of a doctor's title by a man LAuerbac] who had
brought millions into the Bavarian treasury. He further as'ierted that it was
not necessary for the judge to impose another prison term on this very sick man
who had already been unjustly imprisoned for over a year. He concluded that
sympathy cannot bring this man back to his family and expressed the hope that
the death of Auerbach would not cause another hate wave between Germans and Jews
but rather lead to a conciliation between them.(29)
Still another reader, who preferred to remain anonymous, pointed out
in his letter published in the Nu"rnrvrger Nachrichten on 23 August 1952, that
the judgment against Auerbach and his aui_ide can only harm the Germans in the
eyes of the world. He aleo declared that since the Germans are fighting for
equality, they should avoid anything connected with the horrible racial laws to
prove to the world that the German people were never connected with these dic-
tatorial measures. He concluded that Germans do not have to become personal
friends of Jews, Poles, Russians, or Chinese, but that they do have to be friends
of all human beings to be good Germans. (30)
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
I
25X1A
In another letter, Dr F. G. Furth, a physician /residence not give],
published in the Neue Zeitung of 27 August 1952, asserted that in his opinion,
all court members who formerly belonged to the Nazi party should have with-
drawn from the Auerbach case because of possible prejudice. He firmly pointed
out that former Nazi party members cannot be entirely free of all prejudice even
today and they could not possibly have judged properly a prominent man like
Auerbach.(29)
Another anonymous reader stated in the 23 August issue of the Nurn-
berger Nachrichten 1952, that Auerbach may have made mistakes and perhaps not
always acted correctly in various instances, but that more was involved in this
case than met the eye. He wrote that Auerbach, a Jew, was eliminated to pacify
neo-Nazism, which is again in evidence in Germany. He expressed the opinion
that the suffering of Auerbach during 1933 - 1945 should have been taken into
consideration, which, in effect, would have diminished the severity of his of-
fenses. He concluded that the really guilty ones are those persons hiding be-
hind the scenes.(30)
Expressing disbelief in the over-all guilt of Auerbach, Franz Hoferer,
retired Landrat of Oberlindhart/Niederbaye..n (Lower Bavaria), wrote in his
letter, published in the Neue Zeitung of 27 August 1952, how in 1947, when the
small concentration camp cemetery was being established in Mallersdorf, Auer-
bach had helped him to combat Jewish intruders who were pilfering carloads of
building material and goods. He pointed out that Auerbach at the time had
bitterly criticized the action of these Jews as being sacrilegious and had felt
that the severest punishment was too small for people like these who profiteer
from the dead.(29)
On the other hand, one unidentified reader stated in his letter pub-
lished in the Nu"rnberger Nachrichten of 23 August 1952, that he could not con-
done Auerbach and that, roreover, he could not understand why so much "fuss"
was being made over one man. He declared: "Auerbach committed suicide because
of despair, a bad conscience, and a judgment against him, which stopped his
further plans."(30)
Another recder asserted in an anonymous letter published in the Nurn-
berger Nachrichter of 23 August 1952 that Auerbach was not innocent, but that his
superiors should also have been sentenced, since they were at fault in their
supervisory capacities. He also stated that the whole truth of the Auerbach
case had not been properly explained by the German newspapers-00)
In another letter published in the Neu Zeitung of 27 August 1952,
Willi Hgck of Hamburg stated that the radio announcement that the police would
investigate whether Auerbach "perhaps erroneously" took too many sleeping pills,
although he left an explicit farewell letter, gave rise to the thought that per-
haps someone was trying to clear his conscience from the responsibility of
Auerbach's suicide.(29)
B. Reaction in Austria
The Vienna Neue Wiener Tageszeitung of 15 August 1952 described the Auerbach
trial proceedings as passionate haranguing between defense and prosecution. It
pointed out that the trial became a political issue to the disadvantage of German
justice, primarily as a result of the alleged "prejudice" charged by Auerbach's
defense attorney, Dr Klibansky. The paper concluded that the court incidents are
meanwhile forgotten and that the trust in German justice has remained unmoleste"i,
despite a somewhat deceitful press campaign in German newspaners.('A1)
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
a
The Vienna Weltpresse of 16 August 1952 stated in effect:
"The question ad to whether such a severe Judgment would have been passed in
countries outside of Germany is still being raised. Discrimination against Jews
has already been charged and it will take very little for the Auerbach case to
start either pro- or anti-Semitic violence. Thus, the most interesting trial in
Germany could become the most uncomforting trial of postwar times."(32)
The Vienna Neues Oesterreich of 15 August 1952 also referred to the Auer-
bach trial as one of the most uncomforting affairs in recent times.(33)
On the other hand, the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung of 17 August 1952, after
lengthily discussing the background of the trial, concluded that the trial against
Auerbach left many things unclarified, but that Auerbach's death spared Bavarian
justice many embarrassments.(7)
According to the Salzburger Nachrichten of 17 August 1952, leading Jewish cir-
cles in Germany considered the Auerbach judgment as very hard and unjustified.(34)
C. Reaction in Israel
Regarding the Auerbach case, the Tel Aviv Dapim of 22 August 1952, a Mapai-
sponsored newspaper, admitted that differences of opinion could be expected con-
cerning whether German courts should have the right to sentence Jews in postwar
Germany. However, it pointed out, it is inconsistent for Jews who agreed to re-
main in postwar Germany to claim immunity from the prevailing German laws. Es-
pecially questionable, continued the paper, is the claim for exemption from German
court proceedings by Jews such as Auerbach, whose conscience has allowed them to
become German government officials.
Nevertheless, the newspaper stated further, since Auerbach was no Zion-
ist who would naturally object to being in Son-Israelg government service, it
is understandable why he, an ambitious, talented, and self-confident man, was
tempted to fill such an important position in Germany after the war.
In conclusion, however, Dapim asserted that Auerbach should have realized
that Germany was not ready to accept him objectively in a government position in
postwar Germany so shortly after the Hitler period.(35)
The Tel Aviv Yedioth Hayom of 18 August 1952 expressed the fear that the
Auerbach case would undermine the position of the Jews in Germany (36), while the
Jerusalem Poat of this date stated that a conclusive opinion could not be formed
without knowledge of the records.(37)
D. Reaction in Other Countries
The Dutch newspaper Het Parool, in August 1952, as reported by the Neue
Zeitung of 20 August 1952, severely criticized the entire trial against Auerbach
and concluded as follows: "Regardless of whether Auerbach Is innocent or not,
the more important question arises as to how douot in German justice can be
eradicated. Despite the personal correctness of the judges, this trial cer-
tainly did not strengthen the belief of the general public in German justice."(38)
At the same time, the Danish newspaper Eketrabladec, as reported by the
Neue Zeitung of 20 August 3.952, asserted that even though Auerbach may not be
free of guilt, he should not have been humiliated by former Nazis 7-
free to
some of the judges who were t'ormerly Nazis7. -Phis would indt.-ete, th- Danish
paper said, according to th.. Ncu:? Zeitung, that there is a poor approach toward
,justice in the ncw? c]ercn!uc:; (7.9)
- a -
RkSTRICTED
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang, as reported by the ZP, ueZeitung of
20 August 1952, brought out that the general feeling prevails everywhere that
Auerbach did not get a fair trial. The paper asserted that it was stupid and
inappropriate to let a Jew be judged by a former Nazi, especially in ouch a
delicate and complicated case. The paper then stated that according to the Ger-
man press, there are indications that anti-Semitism is not dead in Germany.
It would be of primary importance for the new republic, the Norwegian paper pointed
out, according to the Neue Zeitung, to see to it that this impression does not
gain ground.(40)
The Basel National Zeitung of 20 August 1952 asserted that the Auerbach
judgment was shockingly hard and tendentious and created the impression that the
court wanted to satisfy those oho hated Auerbach. This judgment, stated the
paper, has made the German public realize that housecleaning of judges is neces-
sary and that former members of the Nazi party cannot properly judge victims
of the Nazi regime.(41)
Pointing out that Auerbach had been sentenced for embezzlement and bri-
bery, New York's German-language Staats-Zeitung and Herold of 16 August 1952
asserted that since Auerbach himself, as well as his lawyer, confirmed that
the trial was fair, it was difficult, or even impossible, to come to another
conclusion. (Auerbach had stated before he sentence was passed that the trial
was fair However, in defense of its former agreement with circles in Ger-
many who tried to effect the discontinuance of the trial or its transfer to
another court, the paper pointed out that such a solution would have been de-
sirable because then, not only Germany's reputation in the world would have been
spared from possible attack, but also the charges of the defense counsel that
the trial was only conducted to "sabotage reparations" would have been re-
futed.(42)
Later, however, Kurt R. Grossmann, who claims first-hand information about
German political affairs, wrote in the 20 August 1.952 issue of the Staats-Zei-
tung and Herold that when at the end of the trial, Auerbach declared it to be
fair, he obviously hoped that the court would come to mild terms, but that he
lost faith when the court passed the sentence. Grossmann asserted that de-
spite the judgment, he did not believe Auerbach was to blame and felt that
duriug the trial, Chief Justice Mulzer was prejudiced to the point of hating
Auerbach, who reminded him of the unpleasant past. The writer also pointed out
that the trial was the result of an unstable political setup in Bavaria, which
Auerbach, as an outsider fhe had come to Bavaria from Duesseldorf in 1943/,
could not penetrate. Moreover, the writer accused the state of Bavaria of hav-
ing perpetrated irregularities itself and concluded that disrlaced persons who
had received only 450 out of every 1,000 German marks due them as restitution
were entitled to sue both the state of Bavaria and Auerbach, who actually
deserved a commendation from Bavaria for the excellent manner in which he carried
out the state's order. (43)
Extreme indignation was expressed by Dr S. Margoshes, who asserted in the
New York Yiddish-language daily Der Tai of 23 August 1952 that the blame for
Auerbach's death, while attributable to the Germans, is shared in part by the
US occupation authorities, as it was they who, in the first place, had been res-
ponsible for Auerbach's appointment to the post of Bavarian Restitution Com-
missioner. Therefore, Auerbach shcald have been tried by an Ai.lled tribunal
rather than by a German court, Margoshes complained; then, whatever the outcome,
public opinion would have been assured that the accused had had a fair trial.
The writer then brought out that ,van coma n"rmen i"-l- +"i' " ^^ the
German Social Democratic Party, concede that it was a mistake to have a Jew, a
former -nmate of a Nazi concentration camp, tried by a court composed of former
Nazi Party members.
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06: CIA-
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
I
In conclusion, Margoshes demanded that the case be appealed to a higher
court, if for no other reason than to clear Auerbach's name. He added. "Surely,
the Nazi judges who hounded him to death should not be permitted to have the last
word. "(44)
On 17 August 1952, Der Tag prominently quoted the London Manchester Guardian
as having said in effect: It is questionable whether the Auerbach trial was
advisable or even justifiable from the moral and political viewpoint. The re-
appearan:e of the German past during the present period does not make a pacify-
ing impression on the surrounding world. The most recent events in Bavaria show
that the old anti-Semitic spirit of National Socialism is by no means dead.(45)
The Manchester Guardian was also quoted in the same vein in the Frankfurt Neue
Zeitun of 20 August 1952 (46) and in the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung of 17 August
1952.7)
The following was extracted from a statement published in the New York
Staats-Zeitung and Herold of 21 August 1952, which was made by Dr Otto Simon of
New York, who had lived in Germany many years and practiced law there: "The
tragedy of the Auerbach case is that it undermines the weak attempts being made
for a reconciliation between the Germans and the Jews. It is regrettable that
the judges were Nazis and that the Bavarian Minister of Justice, who conducted
an unscrupulous propaganda campaign against the defenseless Auerbach and who had
to resign his post, was not also indicted."
The same paper also carried a declaration made by the American Association
of Former Inmates of Concentration Camps and Other Victims of Nazi Persecution,
signed by its chairman, Dr Armand Eisler, and a member, Paul Stein. The declara-
tion read in effect: "Auerbach committed suicide in desperation. He was a
front rank fighter who tried to make good for wrongs perpetrated by the Nazis.
This tragedy should make all people of good will realize that nothing is to be
gained from a campaign of hate. The injustice done, however, should be cor-
rected.(47)
/Fighly critical of the Auerbach case proceedings, Communist
and pro-Communist newspapers pointed out that since the Bonn govern-
ment was corrupt throughout, it undoubtedly was not concerned with
the removal of Auerbach for corruption, but was interested rather
in the revival of anti-Semitism in Germany through the rise of
Nazism. This, according to the Communist press, is in accordance
with US policy, which was responsible for the rise and fall of
Auerbach2.
An article entitled "A Victim of Bonn Anti -Semitism," which appeared in
the 21 August 1952 issue of Neues Deutschland, SED organ of East Germany, was
reproduced in its entirety in the following Yiddish-language. newspapers: Na e
Presse, Paris, pro-Communist; Morning Freiheit, New York, pro-Communist; and
.Folks-Sztyme, Warsaw, Communist. Salient features of the article were as
follows:
"The sentence and suicide of Philipp Auerbach in Munich has provoked just-
ifiable indignation in Germany and abroad. Since Bonn corruption is so well
known, the Adenauer clique is not concerned with removing corruption in the Auer-
bach case, but has undoubtedly gone into the question of reviving anti-Semitism
in West Germany, which was the real reason why a prominent Nazi was chosen to be
the judge in this trial. The anti-Semitic intention was further emphasized when
the beginning of the trial was set for a day during the Passover holiday period,
Approved For Release 2002/08/06: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
It is also significant that the trial too% place when the German-
Israeli negotiations were taking place, regPrding reparations for damages
suffered by Jews.
"The history of Auerbach is simulteueously the history of US policy in
West Germany. As head of the Bavarian Restitutio4 Office, Auerbach received
special support from the US government at a time when it had to appear to the
outside worlc as antifascist. However, at that moment when Washington, in
collaboration witn Aaenauer, decided to remilitarize and renazify West Ger-
many, preparatory to war, Auerbach was dropped in favor of former Nazi war
criminals.
The Auerbach case in West Germany, therefore, indicates that the Bonn
warmongers are following in Hitler's footsteps in the field of racial hatred and
anti-Semitism, because now, with the aid of their friends it the US, they hope
to realize Hitler's unsuccessful plans,
"The indignation caused in the world by Auerbach's suicide indicates, how-
ever, that peace-loving nations will not permit the repetition of a Hitler re-
gime of terror. It is obvious that the Bonn anti-Semites will meet the same
fate as their predecessor Hitler." (48, 49, 50, 51)
M. Vilner wrote in the Paris Naje Presse of 21 August 1952 that the entire
case against Auerbach was organized by West German government circles and re-
presented the implementation of a diabolical anti-Semitic plot aimed at attack-
ing the conduct of Jews generally. He pointed out that the Nazis undoubtedly
succeeded in this respect and that had really been the reason why the Munich
Jews had conducted such vigorous demonstrations at Auerbach's trial and funeral.
Vilner further brought out that Auerbach was no real representative of
Jews and had sold himself to the devil Nazis and USJ, who had exploited him
and disposed of him when it was expedient to do so. The writer asserted that
the Je"s should have been able to determine even before the Auerbach case that
organized anti-Semitism was prevailii:,, in West Germany, as well as in all im-
perialistic warmongering states.
In conclusion, Vilner predicted that the Jews, together with all the peace-
loving nations and people, would participate in the justifiable fight against
anti-Semitism and win it as loyal and free individuals who are not in the habit
of catering to or making pacts with the enemy.(52)
An article by P. Novik in the New York Morning Freiheit of 27 August 1952
asserted that Auerbach's suicide may serve as a warning that the Jewish policy
of conducting negotiations with the Adenauer government and that the Washington
policy of collaboration with the Federal Republic of Germany is suicide from the
standpoint of US and Jewish interests. Among other things, the article stated:
"It is a pity that world Jewish leadership did not see fit to d much sbuut
the Auerbach case.
"The fact that Auerbach was not a leftist and carried all the recommend.s-
tions of so-called respectable Jews did not save him. It is perfectly clear
that prior to Auerbach's axrest, the matter of restitution to Nazi victims be-
came a farce in proportion to the rise of Nazi power in Germany. The question
of Auerbach's guilt has not yet been confirmed, but this question is merely in-
.:idental to the colossal crime inherent in the fact that three out Qf five
judges who tried and sentenced nim were "former" Nazis.
ILI FCIR
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
Margoshes' article which contained the above statement did appear in the
anti-Communist New York Yiddish-language daily Der. IM of 19 August 1952.
Margoshes also astertegi: "It goes without saying that Jewish public opinion
is not at all concerned with protecting Jewish criminals. Had Auerbach and
Orenstein been proved guilty by an honest. and unprejudiced court of justice, no
Jewish hand would hale been raised to protect the culprits from the consequences
of their own actions.' Jews are no angles, and they take for granted that some
of them, succumbing to temptation, should commit crimes. But then, to be re-
cognized as criminals, these Jews must be found guilty by a responsible ani
unprejudiced court. No one can maintain with any degree of justice that the
German court in Munich, with its majority of Nazi judges, could fall into this
category.
It is no wonder that the Jews in Munich called this affair another "drey-
fuss case." It is no wonder that Auerbach answered the sentence with suicide
after declaring his innocence.
Moreover, the German press not only upheld the Nazi judgment against the
Jewish restitution head but even declared that Jews i-, general were just as
Hitler had said they were.
The trial and suicide of Auerbach indicate not only that the Nazis in
the Federal Republic of Germany feel very secure, but also that the Nazis who
occupy court and government positions in West Germany have gone into action.
Apparently, general anti-Semitism in West Germany is not enough. It is
also not enough when a paper there comes out with a story that the Jews built
the crematoriums themselves after the war in order subsequently to accuse the
Hitler regime of having burned million of Jews. Something had to be started
later against Auerbach on a large scale. The action of Nazi judges has
initiated Fitlerite agitation against the Jewish people and places a stamp of
approval on Hitlerite activity.
"It is a wonder that the Auerbach case has not gone unmentioned in the US
press, just as so many other things pertaining to Nazi activity in West Germany
have been omitted. Apparently, Auerbach's sentence, his suicide, and the attack
on the Jews who conducted a demonstration at the funeral were too much to by-
pass, especially when a newspaper like the Manchester Guardian in England con-
demned the trial against Auerbach as a horrible episode in which Jews have been
officially delivered into the hands of Hitlerite judges'.
"Dr Margoshes wrote in the 19 August 1952 issue of Der Tag: 'Seemingly the
German government gave no thought to the possibility that the presence of former
Nazis in the court that was to pass judgment on the Jewish defendant would make
a bad impression on public opinion and lee.d to the belief that the trial was
not conducted fairly and impartially.' Such a'diplomatic' statement would be
ludicrous if the matter were not so tragic. Not only is it permissible for
Nazis to sit in West German courts, but Nazis also sit in the Adenauer govern-
ment. Apparently, the fact that Adenauer and his Jew-hating cohorts favor the
judgment of Jews by Nazis does not occur to Dr Margoshes.
"It has been asked: How is it that Auerbach, who was appointed to his post
by the US occupation forces and was responsible to them, was permitted to be
sentenced by Germans? However, a more important question is, hnw is it that the
occupation forces Permitted Nazis to act as judges? How can atthority be given
to persons who had helped Hitler eliminate millions of Jews? This is not hard
to understand when it is realized that even the US administration in West Ger-
many is comprised of anti-Semites, and that pro-Nazism and anti-Semitism go
hand in hand."(53)
Approved For Release 2002/08/06: CIA-RDP80-
ILLEGIB
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
25X1A
"As was to be expected," Margoshes continued, "the German press had a
field day smearing as criminals not only Auerbach and Orenstein, who were con-
victed, but all Jews in Germany and throughout the world. Perhaps that was the
real intention behind the verdict handed down against Auerbach and Orenstein.
Be that as it may, fair-minded men and women everywhere will concur with Jewish
public opinion that in the interest of justice and fairness, the Auerbach and
Orenstein case should be a~,pealed to a higher court, preferably outside the
boundaries of Germany."(54.)/
The pro-Communist Canadian Vochenrlatt of 21 August 1952 that Jewish
circles everywhere, while not condoning the crimes of the accused, neverthe-
less angrily condemned the trial by n Nazi-rigged court. According to the paper,
these cire-]es stated that in view of the Nazi crimes, persons belonging to the
Nazi Party and associated with its policies, are unfit and have no right to
judge Jews.(55)
Essen, Neue Ruhr-Zeitung, 17 Aug 52
Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurter Rundschau, 10 Mar 51
Ibid., 11 Mar 51
Vienna, Neuei Oesterreich,17 Aug 52
Nuremberg, Nurnberger Nachrichten, 18 Aug 52
Berlin (West) Der Tagesspiegel, 15 Aug 52
Vienna, Arbeiter Zeitung, 17 Aug 52
Vienna, Die Presse, 20 Aug 52
Munich, Suddeutsche Zeitung, 16 Aug 52
Ibid., 18 Aug 52
Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurter Neue Presse, 15 Aug 52
Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurter Rundschau, 15 Aug 52
Essen, Neue Ruhr-Zeitung, 16 Aug 52
Ibid., 15 Aug 52
Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurter Neue Presse, 18 Sep 52
Munich, Munchuer Merkur, 15 Aug 52
Nuremberg, Nurnberger Nachrichten, 20 Aug 52
Hamburg, Hamburger Frele Presse, 18 Aug 52
Berlin, (West), Der Tagesspiegel, 17 Aug 52
Heidel',erg, Rhein-Necxar, 18 Aug 52
Essen, Welt am Sountag, 18 Aug 52
Stuttgart, All.gemeine Zeitung fur Wurttemberg, 18 Aug 52
Dusseldorf, Rheinische Post, 18 Aug 52
Frankfurt/Main, Neue Zeitung, 19 Aug 52
Berlin (West), Telegraf, 19 Aug 52
Darmstadt, Darmstadter Echo, 18 Aug 52
Munich, Su"Oleutsche Zeitung, 18 Aug 52
ri?nkfurt/Main, Frankfurter Rundschau, 18 Aug 52
Frankfurt/Main, Neue Zeituog, 27 Aug 52
Nur r, Nur:)erger Nachrichten, 23 Aug 52
Vienna, Neue Wiener Tageszeituag, 15 Aug 52
Vienna, Weltpresse, 16 Aug 52
Vienna, Neues Oesterreich, 15 Aug 52
Salzburg, Salzburger Nachrichter,, 17 Aug 52
Tel Aviv, Dapim, 22 Aug 52
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06: CIA-RDP_8
 Approved For Release 2002/08/06 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3
RESTRICTED
25X1A
36.
Tel Aviv, Yedioth Hayom, 18 Aug 52
37.
8
Jerusalem, Jerusalem Post, 18 Aug 52
.
5
Frankfurt/Main, Neue Zeitung, 20 Aug 52, quoting Het Parool,
Amsterdam
39.
Frankfurt/Main, Ne
Copenhagen
ue Zeitung, 20 Aug 52, quoting Eketrabladet,
40.
Frankfurt/Main, Neu
Oslo
e Zeitung, 20 Aug 52, quoting Verdens Gang,
41.
Basel, National Zei
tung, 20 Aug 52
42.
New York, Staats-Ze
itung and Herold, 16 Aug 52
43.
Ibid., 20 Aug 52
44.
New York, Der Tag,
23 Aug 52
45.
Ibid., 17 Aug 52
46.
Frankfurt/Main, Neue Zeitung, 20 Aug 52
47.
4
New York, Staats-Zeitung and Herold, 21 Aug 52
6.
Berlin (East), Neues Deutschland, 21 Aug 52
49.
Paris, Naje Presse, 4 Sep 52
50.
New York, Morning Freiheit, 30 Sep
52
51.
Warsaw, Folks-Sztyme, 4 Sep 52
52.
Paris NeJt.. Prcaac, 21 Aug 52
53.
New York, Morning Freiheit, 27 Aug
52
54.
New York, Der Tag, 19 Aug 52
55.
Toronto, Vochenblatt, 21 Aug 52
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2002/08/06 CIA-RDP80-00809A000700210118-3