Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T13:46:36.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“This Land Remains German”: Requisitioning, Society, and the US Army, 1945–1956

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2019

Adam R. Seipp
Adam R. Seipp*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines debates over the requisitioning of real estate by the US Army during the decade after the end of World War II. Requisitioning quickly emerged as one of the most contentious issues in the relationship between German civilians and the American occupation. American policy changed several times as the physical presence of the occupiers shrank during the postwar period then expanded again after the outbreak of the Korean War. I show that requisitioning became a key site of contestation during the early years of the Federal Republic. The right to assert authority over real property served as a visible reminder of the persistent limits of German sovereignty. By pushing back against American requisitioning policy, Germans articulated an increasingly assertive claim to sovereign rights.

Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Debatten über Beschlagnahmen von Immobilien durch die US-Armee im Jahrzehnt nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Diese erwiesen sich rasch als eines der konfliktträchtigsten Themen im Verhältnis zwischen deutscher Zivilbevölkerung und US-amerikanischer Besatzungsmacht. Die US-Politik wechselte mehrfach, da in der Nachkriegszeit die physische Präsenz der Okkupationsstreitkräfte erst zurückging, dann aber nach dem Ausbruch des Koreakriegs wieder zunahm. Ich zeige, dass während der ersten Jahre der Bundesrepublik die Beschlagnahmen zu einem zentralen Konfliktherd wurden. Das Recht zum Zugriff auf Grundbesitz fungierte als sichtbare Erinnerung an fortbestehende Beschränkungen der deutschen Souveränität. Indem sie sich der US-amerikanischen Beschlagnahmepolitik widersetzten, artikulierten Deutsche einen zunehmend entschiedenen Anspruch auf Souveränitätsrechte.

Type
Article
Information
Central European History , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 476 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Central European History Society of the American Historical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I owe a debt of gratitude to a great many people and institutions for their help with this article. Research funding was provided by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research, and the Texas A&M Arts and Humanities Fellows Program. My particular thanks to Manfred Berg, Tobias Endler, Gerhard Fürmetz, Detlef Junker, Wilfried Mausbach, Kathleen Nawyn, Anja Schüler, and Andrea Sinn. I very much appreciate the hard work and efforts of Andrew Port, Monica Black, and the anonymous readers of the article manuscript.

References

1 “Besatzungsbetroffene solidarisch,” Heidelberger Tageblatt, October 25 1956; “Herzlichen Glückwunsch Frau Moeslinger!” Heidelberger Tageblatt, October 27, 1956; “Gerissene Pianistinnengeduld,” Die Zeit, November 1, 1956.

2 In official correspondence during this period, the terms “real estate” and “real property” were used interchangeably. Both were most commonly translated into German as Grundstücke or Liegenschaften. The English version of a 1952 document from the headquarters of US European Command defined the term as “consisting of, but not limited to, lands and interests therein; rights of way; easements; leaseholds; buildings; wharves; ferry-slips; channels; seawalls; jetties; piers; docks; miscellaneous structures; roads; walks; parking areas; aprons; runways; railroads; utility systems; and improvements and appurtenances attached thereto.” Memo: Real Estate Acquisition, Management, Utilization, and Disposal, USAREUR, May 28, 1952. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (BHStA) StK 14941/1.

3 See, for example, Brenner, Michael, ed., Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland von 1945 bis zur Gegenwart (Munich, Beck, 2012)Google Scholar and Lustig, Jason, “Who Are to Be the Successors of European Jewry? The Restitution of German Jewish Communal and Cultural Property,” Journal of Contemporary History, 52, no. 2 (2017): 519–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Eckert, Astrid M., The Struggle for the Files: The Western Allies and the Return of German Archives after the Second World War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 There are many such studies. See Baker, Anni P., Wiesbaden and the Americans 1945–2003: The Social, Economic, and Political Impact of the U.S. Forces in Wiesbaden (Wiesbaden: Stadtarchiv Wiesbaden, 2004)Google Scholar; Elkins, Walter, Führer, Christian, and Montgomery, Michael, Amerikaner in Heidelberg, 1945–2013 (Heidelberg: Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs Heidelberg, 2013)Google Scholar; Führer, Christian, Memories of Mannheim: Die Amerikaner in der Quadratestadt seit 1945 (Mannheim: verlag regionalkultur, 2013)Google Scholar; Grimm, Herbert, 50 Jahre Amerikaner in Baumholder (Baumholder: Kuratorium zur Förderung von Sport und Kultur in Baumholder, 1998)Google Scholar; and Ritter, Rüdiger, Vorort von New York? Die Amerikaner in Bremerhaven (Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW, 2010)Google Scholar.

6 Estimates of the total size of the American presence vary widely. This figure is derived from the careful work of Dewey Browder. See Maulucci, Thomas W. Jr., “Introduction,” in GIs in Germany: The Social, Economic, Cultural and Political History of the American Military Presence, ed. Maulucci, Thomas W. Jr. and Junker, Detlef (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A lower estimate can be found in Holshek, Christopher J., “Legacies of the US Presence in Germany,” in Amerika in Rheinland-Pfalz: Beiträge zu einem Halben Jahrhundert deutsch-amerikanischer Nachbarschaft, ed. Herget, Winfried (Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1996), 149Google Scholar.

7 Three excellent examples of this are Conze, Eckart, Die Suche nach Sicherheit (Munich: Siedler, 2009)Google Scholar; Herbert, Ulrich, Geschichte Deutschlands im 20. Jahrhundert (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolfrum, Edgar, Die geglückte Demokratie: Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006)Google Scholar.

8 Jarausch, Konrad H., After Hitler : Recivilizing Germans, 1945–1995 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 This point is made in a recent sociological study. See Holmes, Amy Austin, Social Unrest and American Military Bases in Turkey and Germany since 1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the excellent Maulucci and Junker, GIs in Germany.

10 Lemza, John W., American Military Communities in West Germany: Life in the Cold War Badlands (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2016), 5Google Scholar.

11 Thomas Leuerer, “Die Perspektive der Military Communities” in Herget, Amerika in Rheinland-Pfalz, 97.

12 Höhn, Maria and Moon, Seungsook, eds., “Introduction,” in Over There: Living with the U.S. Military Empire from World War Two to the Present (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 A very clear discussion of the legal context of the American military presence in the early Federal Republic can be found in Delbrück, Jost, “International Law and Military Forces Abroad,” in US Military Forces in Europe: The Early Years, 1945–1970, eds. Duke, Simon and Krieger, Wolfgang (Boulder: Westview, 1993), 83–116Google Scholar.

14 http://images.library.wisc.edu/History/EFacs/GerRecon/omg1949n161/reference/history.omg1949n161.i0021.pdf

15 Junker, Detlef, ed., “Politics, Security, Economics, Culture, and Society: Dimensions of Transatlantic Relations,” in The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1958–1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 9Google Scholar.

16 Rödel, Walter G., ed., “The Americans Return: From Occupation to Neighborly Relations,” in Nachbar Amerika/Neighbor America (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1994)Google Scholar, 57, 59.

17 Davis, Franklin M., Come as a Conqueror: The United States Army's Occupation of Germany, 1945–1949 (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 188–9Google Scholar.

18 Fredericksen, Oliver J., The American Military Occupation of Germany, 1945–1953 (Darmstadt: United States Army, Europe, 1953), 120Google Scholar.

19 Elkins, Führer, and Montgomery, Amerikaner, 78, 81.

20 Ziemke, Earl F., The US Army in the Occupation of Germany, 1944–1946 (Washington: Center of Military History, 1975), 321Google Scholar; Dewey Arthur Browder, “The Impact of the American Presence on Germany and German-American Grass-Roots Relations in Germany, 1950–1960” (Ph.D. diss., Louisiana State University, 1987), 61.

21 Grathwol, Robert P. and Moorhus, Donita M., Building for Peace: US Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 2005), 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Letter from Schäffer to Regierungspräsidenten in Bayern, June 15, 1945. BHStA MK 65592.

23 For an effort to explain this convoluted and grossly inefficient system, see Fredericksen, 44.

24 Technically, German Länder operated as trustees (Treuhänder) of the German Reich with regard to real property. See letter from Fritz Schäffer to Regierungspräsidenten in Bayern, September 19, 1945, BHStA MK 65592.

25 Wolfrum, Geglückte Demokratie, 32.

26 Seipp, Adam R., “The Driftwood of War: Expellees, the US Army, and West German Society, 1945–1952,” War and Society, 32, no. 3 (October 2013), 211–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Margarete Hasel, “Der US-Soldat, das unbekannte Wesen,” Communale, December 13, 1984.

28 Speiser, Peter, The British Army of the Rhine: Turning Nazi Enemies into Cold War Partners (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2016), 72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Davis, Come as a Conqueror, 18.

30 “Sternbanner unterm Münchner Himmel,” Süddeutsche Zeitung (hereafter SZ), May 7, 1955; “Befehle höchster Instanzen,” SZ, December 3, 1945.

31 “Der Bürgermeister sagte,” SZ, November 19, 1945.

32 “Räumung oder Weinachtsfriede?” SZ, December 7, 1945.

33 “Aktion Grünwald,” SZ, December 16, 1946; Seipp, “Driftwood of War,” 217.

34 Emily Swafford, “Democracy's Proving Ground: US Military Families in West Germany, 1946–1961” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2014), 33.

35 Royal Arch Gunnison, “Joneses Move in on the Krauts,” American Magazine, 10, 1946.

36 Letter from Laininger to Landratsamt Rosenheim, December 7, 1948, National Archives and Records Administration II (NARA), 260/390, folder 002.

37 Letter of October 2, 1948. BHStA MF 79709.

38 Ziemke, US Army, 441–2.

39 Monthly Historical Report of January 1, 1947, NARA 260/390, box 723.

40 See among others Feinstein, Margarete Meyers, Holocaust Survivors in Postwar Germany, 1945–1957 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

41 Report of September 31, 1946. NARA 260/390/426/04, box 401.

42 Report of May 11, 1949, NARA 260/390, folder 5.

43 Cited in Kraushaar, Wolfgang, Die Protest-Chronik, 1949–1959, 3 vols., vol. 2 (Hamburg: Rogner & Bernhard, 1996), 462Google Scholar.

44 Leiser, Ernest, “The Welby Logans of Germany,” Cosmopolitan, 134 (1953), 86Google Scholar.

45 Blankfort, Alice, “They Live as Conquerors in Occupied Germany,” Survey, 09 (1950)Google Scholar.

46 “Das sollte im siebten Besatzungsjahre unmöglich sein,” Mannheimer Morgen, May 16, 1951.

47 Speiser, British Army, 75.

48 Eingabe über Verhandlungen der Bayerischen Staatsregierung, April 1949, BSHStA StK 14996.

49 Resolution, Interessengemeinschaft der Besatzungs-Geschädigten, Fürth i. Bay u. Umgebung, Sept 24, 1949. BSHStA StK 14996.

50 See correspondence related to the Jahresdelegiertenversammlung, Nürnberg, December 3, 1950. BSHStA StK 14996.

51 Kraushaar, Wolfgang, Die Protest-Chronik, 1949–1959, 3 vols., vol. 1 (Hamburg: Rogner & Bernhardt, 1996)Google Scholar, 229, 415, 460.

52 “1500 Besatzungsgeschädigte protestierten,” Heidelberger Tageblatt, October 31, 1951.

53 “Besatzungsgeschädigte fordern ihr Recht,” Rhine-Neckar-Zeitung, October 31, 1951.

54 Text in Bundesarchiv Koblenz (BArch), B 106 28299.

55 Letters from Interessengemeinschaft der Besatzungsgeschädigten Frankfurt am Main—Höchst to Finance Ministry, March 24 and 29, 1951, BHStA MF 79711.

56 “Demonstration der besatzungsgeschädigten Frauen,” Heidelberger Tageblatt, Unknown, 1951; Kossert, Andreas, Kalte Heimat: Die Geschichte der deutschen Vertriebenen nach 1945 (Munich: Siedler, 2008)Google Scholar.

57 “Das neue amerikanische Kaufhaus ist fertig,” Heidelberger Tageblatt, August 8, 1952; Biess, Frank, Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

58 Grathwol and Moorhus, Building, 67; Carter, Donald A., Forging the Shield: The US Army in Europe, 1951–1962 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 2015)Google Scholar, 24, 129; USAREUR History Office, “The US Army Deutsche Mark Construction Program, 1953–1957” (Heidelberg: USAREUR, 1958), 61.

59 Letter from Wilhelm Obb to Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft, and Forsten, August 14, 1950. Gemeindearchiv Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 1170.

60 Forms in Stadtarchiv Hanau, E1 61.

61 Bericht des Ausschusses für das Besatzungsstatut und Auswärtige Angelegenheiten. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache Nr. 789.

62 An excellent summary of subsequent programs can be found in Deutscher Bundestag, 2. Wahlperiode, 1953, Drucksache 2290.

63 Deutscher Bundestag, 1. Wahlperiode, 1952, Drucksache 3686.

64 Bayerischer Landtag—39. Sitzung. September 7, 1951, 201–2.

65 Letter to Ehard from Dr. Elisabeth Meyer-Spreckels, June 30, 1950, BHStA StK 14996.

66 Plassmann, Max, “Manöverschäden und die deutsch-amerikanische Beziehungen in der Pfalz (1951–1955),” Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 56, no. 2 (1997), 399–430Google Scholar.

67 Browder, Impact, 66, 70.

68 Scharnholz, Theodor, Heidelberg und die Besatzungsmacht. Zur Entwicklung der Beziehungen zwischen einer deutschen Kommune und ihrer amerikanischen Garnison (1948/49–1955) (Heidelberg: Edition Gunderjahn, 2002), 221–7Google Scholar.

69 Schmidt, Wolfgang, “Eine Garnison wäre eine feine Sache: Die Bundeswehr als Standortfaktor 1955 bis 1975,” in Die Erschließung des Landes, eds. Schlemmer, Thomas and Woller, Hans, eds. (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001), 357–441Google Scholar.

70 “Klein-Amerika entsteht in Heidelberg-Rohrbach,” Heidelberger Tageblatt, unknown, 1949.

71 “Die ‘Goldgräberstadt’ in Aschaffenburg,” Main-Echo, September 1, 1949.

72 Gassert, Philipp, et al. , eds. “Einleitung,” in Augsburg und Amerika: Aneignungen und globale Verflechtungen in einer Stadt (Augsburg: Wisner, 2014), 8Google Scholar.

73 “GI-ville, West Germany, Relaxed and Combat-Ready,” Newsweek, September 21, 1953; “Bonn's New Golden Ghetto,” Newsweek 39 (1952).

74 Harley L. Sachs, “A Woman for Sam,” unpublished manuscript in Harley Sachs Collection, US Army Military History Institute.

75 “Housing Units for Americans under Construction on AMP,” Augsburg Post Times, April 18, 1952.

76 Report on Austauschwohnungsbauprogramms. Undated, but 1953. BHStA StK 20473; and Report, Freimachung von beschlagnahmte Wohnraum, March 14, 1957, BMI, BArch, B 106 28300.

77 Protocol, October 26, 1954, in Stadtarchiv Mannheim (StadtA MA), ISG Amt für Verteidigungslasten, 1/1955, 613.

78 Grathwol and Moorhus, Building, 76.

79 “New Playground Opens on AMP,” Augsburg Post Times, October 31, 1952.

80 Memo: Utilization of ranges and real estate for Troop Training (Germany), Col. E. T. Henry, Asst. Adjutant General USAREUR. August 4, 1953, BHStA M Inn 91950. There are several versions of this memo in both languages. The legal terminology of leasing arrangements proved consistently difficult to translate.

81 See the records of one such negotiation over a small parcel near Euben in 1955 found in BHStA StK 15020.

82 Deutsche Mark Construction Program, 16.

83 Seipp, Adam R., Strangers in the Wild Place: Refugees, Americans, and a German Town, 1945–1952 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 209Google Scholar.

84 Letter of December 8, 1954, in StadtA M, ISG Allgemeine Verwaltung, 29/1970, 148; Führer, 68.

85 “US Releases Hotel,” Berlin Observer, October 10, 1952.

86 “Nicht 80, sondern 24 Hektar werden beschlagnahmt,” Rhine-Neckar-Zeitung, April 10, 1952; Margarete Hasel, “Der US-Soldat, das unbekannte Wesen,” Communale, December 13, 1984.

87 “‘Kaufverträge’ können Landraub nicht rechtfertigen,” Badischer Volksecho, September 30, 1955.

88 “Rogers Plan,” Allgemeine Zeitung, August 14, 1956; “US Oberst: GIs sollen ein normales Leben führen,” Allgemeine Zeitung, August 14, 1956.

89 Deutsche Mark Construction Program, 66.

90 Carter, Forging the Shield, 379.

91 Report, May 21, 1957, in BArch, B 106 28300.

92 Andreas Klemmer and Keith B. Cunningham, “Restructuring the US Military Bases in Germany: Scope, Impacts, and Opportunities,” Report 4, Bonn International Center for Conversion, 1995, 17, https://www.bicc.de/uploads/tx_bicctools/report4.pdf.

93 http://www.heidelberg.de/Konversion,Lde/Startseite+Konversion.html (accessed November 2017).

94 http://franklin-mannheim.de/franklin/konversion (accessed November 2017).