Unfulfilled Promises

Restoration of the private property nationalized by the Bolsheviks has been one of the principal demands of the Baltic population since the very first days of the occupation of the Baltic by the Germans. Moreover, the restoration of private property and an extensive self-government bordering on independence were the slogans and promises that the Germans had inscribed in their banners in the war against the Bolsheviks before they had reached the Baltic. They were also the characteristic principles emphasized by the Germans, who claimed that thereby they basically differed from the Bolsheviks. During the entire period, however, the fulfillment of these promises has been postponed.

In the winter of 1942-43, when the situation at the front was not very favorable for the Germans, bitter reality compelled the conquerors to smile upon the Baltic inhabitants in order to restore at least the minimum faith that they themselves had destroyed. It is therefore not astonishing that in order to attain this they resorted to the idea of the restoration of private property, which is so popular among the population.

Moreover, one can assume that the German conquerors both by granting permission to organize national legions and the loud propaganda about the forthcoming restoration of property wanted to split up the inhabitants and thereby to paralyze the demand for the independence of the Baltic States, a demand that was raised. in. the summer of 1942 by the. Lithuanian intellectual representatives in their memorandum, and was also emphasized in the memorandum submitted by the Latvian Director General Valdmanis to the German occupation authorities in November 1942 and later supported by the entire Latvian Directorate General. The German authorities had promised to give a reply to the memorandum last mentioned not later than by March 1943.

Consequently, on February 18, 1943, Alfred Rosenberg, Reichsminister for the occupied eastern areas, issued a “Decree regarding the Restoration of Private Property in the General Districts o f Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania” which reads as follows:

In the General Districts of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the following premises are hereby established in regard to the forcible economic measures created by the Soviet Union.

It is expected that the owner of the private property restored will observe the obligations emanating from the property, particularly those applying to .the German war economy.

In accordance with Article 8 of the Führer's edict regarding the adminis-tration of the newly occupied eastern areas, dated July 17, 1941, and also in accordance with Section 2, Article 2, of the Decree regarding the economic private property in the occupied eastern areas, dated May 28, 1942 (VB1. R MOst S. 21), I order in conformity with the Deputy for the Four Year Plan that:

  1. Private property in the General Districts of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on general principles is again permissible. The land officials shall again resume their functions upon the reopening of the land and mortgage records.
  2. The native inhabitants who were deprived of their property by the forcible measures of the Soviet government shall upon claim be restored the ownership of built and vacant real estate lots and enterprises. The transfer of private property shall be done in an administrative manner. It shall become effective with the issuance of a title of ownership.
  3. In disputes claimants who have proved to be politically and economically trustworthy shall be granted preference.
  4. The transfer of private property, is excluded if and as long as it is against public interests, particularly the interests of the war economy. On the same basis the transfer of private property may be connected with taxation.
  5. Should the former owner be dead, the property shall be transferred to the heirs.
  6. The property rights to land are again revived with the transfer of the property in favor of the entitled person or his heirs.
  7. Special regulations shall apply to nationalized property formerly belonging to private or public juridical persons, German settlers, other German citizens or returned settlers (Nachumsiedlern).
  8. The Reich Commissar for Ostland shall issue the necessary legal and administrative regulations for the execution of this decree.
  9. The Decree shall go into effect upon the date of its promulgation.

Berlin, February 18, 1943.

Reichsminister for the occupied eastern areas

(Signed) A. ROSENBERG

This basic decree of Reichsminister Rosenberg was followed by the “First Decree regarding the Restoration of Private Property in the General Districts of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania,” which Reich Commissar for Ostland, Lohse, signed on February 27, 1943, and which characterized the general practical measures taken to restore private property.

One does not need to be a trained lawyer to grasp the core of the articles of this decree. To anyone who knows how to read it is clear that what is “permissible,” for instance, in accordance with article 1 of Rosenberg’s decree is to the same degree restricted by articles 3, 4, and 7, that the entire matter fails to attain its purpose. In accordance with the unanimous reports of refugees, this decree has raised hatred against instead of trust in the Germans, and any observer receives unmistakable evidence of the existence of a deep mistrust of the authorities of occupation and that the inhabitants have understood how to read the decree correctly.

Even more. The decree served as the basis for the beginning of new rumors and assertions regarding the “inherent deceit and falseness of the Germans.” Moreover, many people, particularly from the intellectual circles, saw in the decree of Rosenberg an intentional attempt of the authorities of occupation to arouse disunity within the nation, for in accordance with article 3, in restoring private property a privileged class would be created which would be granted preference by the occupation authorities before all others. This was considered to be an open insult to the sense of justice of the entire nation, for the people deemed the return of the property nationalized by the Bolsheviks to be not a favor granted by the occupation authorities, but an indisputable right.

One can therefore fully agree with the views of the refugees when they unanimously assert that after the announcement of Rosenberg's decree, hatred against the Germans has grown in all classes of the population. And it is generally emphasized that the Germans will never again be trusted, no matter what they might promise and what they might pretend.

The authorities of occupation themselves have admitted that the decree regarding the restoration of private property in the form presented by them has served to undermine still more the trust of the Baltic population in the Germans. In his speech of June 22, 1943—the third anniversary of the Russo-German War—Commissar General Drechsler complained bitterly, for example, of the ungratefulness and malevolence of “certain elements” of the Latvian people. These people who demanded the restoration of private property found it possible the very next day after the announcement of the decree to that effect to undermine the trust in the German organs of administration and their honesty in carrying out their intentions. In order to prove the contrary, Drechsler seized upon statistics and announced that during the period from February 27 to the beginning of June 1943, 19,700 farmers had had their property restored to them.

At the first glance this figure may appear quite impressive. However, that is only upon the first glance, for

  1. Drechsler failed to mention that before the Bolshevik nationalization there were 237,350 private farms in Latvia. The figure given by Drechsler therefore represents not more than 8 % of all farms.
  2. Drechsler furthermore did not mention with a single word that the given number of farms was restored to that category of farmers who in the eyes of the occupation authorities either were themselves or members of their families were “politically and economically trustworthy.” Everyone knows that this selection is observed, for in issuing the documents authorizing the restoration of property the motives as to why property is restored to the pertinent person are openly given.
  3. Drechsler also cleverly failed to mention that this policy, which attempts to split up the Latvian farmers into sheep and goats and turns the natural and inalienable rights of the people to their property into an object of haggling, is in principle unacceptable to the Latvian nation and is the actual reason for the criticism of the “malevolent instigators.”

That the Baltic population deeply resents the conversion of the restoration of property rights into an act of favor and grace is also understood by the “bearers of sovereignty” in the Baltic. One clearly observes that in the attempts made by them to justify themselves. In his address at the 500 year anniversary of the City of Bauska, Drechsler casually protests that it is quite wrong to think that the Germans look upon the restoration of property rights as upon an act of favor,—it lies in the nature of the matter that the farmer occupies his farm.

However, what is the Latvian farmer to think of these protestations when in the same spot, after the address of the Commissar General, a number of farmers from Bauska County received their titles to restored property in a special ceremony, wherein the following words were openly read to each of the favored ones: “You receive the property rights to your farm for such and such service rendered?” One of the refugees, an elderly mechanic, who had recently deserted from a German ship, undoubtedly expressed the general feelings of the Latvian farmers when he somewhat crudely but unmistakably said: “The Germans are scoundrels and cheats of an even worse type than the Bolsheviks, only they are subtler . . .” And another refugee concluded with the statement: “The difference between the Bolsheviks and the Germans is only that the first fell upon us like wild beasts, whereas the others give us drops of poison mixed with sweet syrup—the purpose of both nevertheless is one and the same . . .”

Latvia Under German Occupation in 1943, an informational publication by the sovereign authority of the Republic of Latvia, is in the public domain according to the Copyright Law of the Republic of Latvia, §6¶1 and §6¶4. We have contacted the Latvian Foreign Ministry regarding its republication. Please attribute appropriately.
latvians.com qualifies as a protected collection under Latvian Copyright Law Ch. II § 5 ¶ 1.2.
© 2024, S.A. & P.J. Vecrumba | Contact [at] latvians.com Terms of Use Privacy Policy Facebook ToS Peters on Twitter Silvija on Twitter Peters on Mastodon Hosted by Dynamic Resources