University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The History Collection

Page View

Military government weekly information bulletin
No. 35 (April 1946)

General,   pp. 11-16 PDF (4.1 MB)


Page 11

enera(
IS LAW NO. 52 EFFECTIVE?
HERE IS MO'S ANSWER TO THE OUESTION
Some faulty intrepretations of Military
Government Law No. 52 indicates that
the full force of its intent, might fail to
accomplish 'the object iof its        implemen-
tation. To illustrate this point, the follow-
ing extract of a letter from        a Landkreis
detachment is quoted:
".... In the course of seven months experience
with property control and finance, this office has
come to the conclusion that Law No. 5 2 is merely a
temporary expedient measure and in no way tends to
prevent former active National Socialists and Mili-
tarists from regaining strength and reaccumulating
wealth on a long-range basis, thereby reestablishing
themselves in positions of influence and power. The
loopholes contained in Law No. 5 2, which will allow
for the above conditions, are seen as follows:
"There is nothing in Law No. 52, for instance,
which prevents a parent, who retained his property on
the basis of political cleanliness, from willing his
estate to a descendant or other person who was an
active Nazi of the type whose property would normally
come under property control. Also, should a parent
pass away without leaving a will, his Nazi heir, if
this be the case, would, according to German law,
automatically inherit the parent's estate.
"Regarding persons with blocked accounts, there are
no provisions prohibiting such people from receiving
debts owed to them prior to the time their accounts
were blocked. In this area there are instances where
just this took place. In many cases the debts collected
amounted to many thousands of marks.
"If certain of the above mentioned conditions and
circumventions of Law No. 52 exist at the present
time, what will occur in the future when Military
Government has in part or completely relinquished
control?"
For    the    information     and    guidance
of Military Government field agencies ex-
tract of reply by the Office of Military
Government (US Zone) to the above
letter is printed below:
In your paragraph 2 you have. claimed
in effect that the law has no lasting ef-
fect. Military Government Law No. 52
is  an   expeditious    method     of  blocking
(freezing). the property of all persons
coming within its provisions, even though
it is of a temporary character. By its very
terms it applies not only to property in
possession of the individual at the time
the blocking becomes effective, but also
to all property which may be acquired
by the individual at a later date. Property
so blocked is held within the custody of,
or is operated by, Military Government;
but the policy for the ultimate disposition
of such property still remains undeter-
mined. Your prophesy, that under a long-
range control of property the blocked
owner occupies a position enabling him
to accumulate wealth and thereby regain
the "strength" which was intended to be
denied him, cannot be supported by any
of the provisions of Military Government
La'w No. 52 or the policies which are
now in force to implement its provisions.
Let us AIssume that either one or both
situations stated in your paragraph 4
should come into actual existence. Under
such conditions the property acquired by
the beneficiary of the will of the owner,
or as the heir-at-law of the 'owner, would
be blocked a'nd controlled under Law No.
52 in the same manner as any other pro.-
perty subject to its provisions. The title
of, 'or interests in, property acquired in
;Jis manner are not excepted from the
provisions of Law No. 52.
Inyourparagraph 5 you have suggested
a situation in which a blocked owner
receives money due atid owing to him.
This ,situation is not prohibited under the
provisions of Law No. 52 but, immediately
upon the a~cquisition of any such funds
or property, the latter become blocked by
La'w No. 52. In fact, Article II provides
for the expressed prohibition forbidding
a~ny of the persons enumerated in Article
I from alcquiring or receiving, dealing in,-
etc., any property referred to in Article I.
Should an individual's property be blocked
11


Go up to Top of Page