 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the war both my grandfather and Rosa Eisner filed for restitution.
Wilhelm Schatka
My grandfather`s restitution files are full of fraudulent behavior, orchestrated with “I do not find”, “I do not remember”, “I do not answer” when he being confronted with doubts and critical questions.
For example he claimed he couldn’t find the purchase agreement regarding the Eisner property, although it is proven that he had provided this document to an authority in Düsseldorf after the flight. Without providing the purchase agreement he probably hoped to be restituted on the basis of the initially agreed purchase price. So he had filed for a restitution of 40,000 RM, although having paid only 29,000 RM as the authorities later found out.
To the question if he bought one of the assets for what he was filing for restitution was purchased from a politically persecuded person he answered "not applicable".
Read here an excerpt of the application for the restitution.
Whenever pieces of evidence were useful for him he was able to find them, e.g. a receipt for the rest-payment of 4,000 RM for the Eisner property in 1938.
The authorities confronted my grandfather with Rosa Eisner´s testimony that a mortgage of 11.000 RM was still due ( 11.000 RM corresponds to 40.700 € given a conversion rate of 1 RM = 3,70 €). Thereupon he asserted that he could not remember any mortgage. Rosa Eisner surely was mixing up things and most probably was referring to the difference between the purchase price provided for in the first purchase agreement and the purchase price agreed upon later.
Read here the testimony of my grandfather.
A letter of Rosa Eisner who politely asked him to pay the outstanding 11,000 RM, he didn’t even answer.
Read here a letter of Rosa Eisner,
which she wrote in 1959 to Erich Schatka with the kind request
to forward it to my grandfather.
Furthermore the authorities could prove, that a bank account, for which he filed for restitution, belonged in reality to his brother Hermann who had already been restituted for that bank account. He also claimed to have had bank accounts with high deposits in Breslau, but the Zentralstelle für die deutschen Ostsparkassen (Central office for the German East-Local-Savings banks) could not find any proof that these bank accounts had ever existed.
Read here the letter of the authorities.
Moreover, the authorities considered it implausible that he would have had – as he claimed- purchased all properties in cash or with just short-term-loans. He claimed to have fully paid for a property which in 1945 had the status of a building shell.
I, too, consider this implausible: Which business man pays long term investments like real estate without raising of long term credit and a property in full before handover? And does a shoe-shop of 80 m² (860 ft²) pays 8 wages and a family of 8 and would there still be enough money left to purchase a new property every three years and pay it in cash?
Allegedly he was able to afford all this by living virtuously, being hard-working and parsimonious and because his wife supported him to a wide extent in so doing, as somebody testified. The witness moreover testified also without being questioned so far, that he was not involved in black-marketeering. It is presumably more appropriate to assume that he became rich because he nicked Jewish property far below market value. And he didn’t disclose the probably necessary long term loans to the restitution authorities. And as to the witness mentioning black-marketeering without being asked, this makes you believe the complete opposite of what the witness so eagerly intended to testify.
My grandfather justified the purchase of the Eisner property by stating that Ludwig Eisner had implored him to buy the property. As a witness hereof he produced not a member of the Eisner family whose whereabouts were known to him throughout the restitution procedures, but the former deputy head of the Guttentag administration Wilhelm Kirmes who testified that everything was legal. Given the position of the witness during the Nazi-administration, it is fair to assume that this person had been a fierce Nazi himself. Because of the details he was familiar with, e.g. about the standard values, it cannot be excluded that he had personally participated in the said deals; eventually the Nazi-authorities had approved the real estate deals and probably had agreed with my grandfather about the rest-payment of 4,000 RM.
Read here the testimony of Wilhelm Kirmes.
It is also conspicuous that my grandparents never participated when the Guttentag people met every two year in Haan (Western Germany). Were my grandparents afraid of meeting members of the Eisner family. This wasn’t unlikely, Alice at least one time went to such a meeting.
Furthermore it is implausible, that my grandfather stocks in 1945 were bursting of goods for which he wanted to restitute. It is well known, that at that time Germany was running out of food and clothing. And none the less he claimed to have had a stock full of shoes and production materials for shoemaking…
The authorities didn’t believe a single word my grandfather told; this is evident throughout the file as a kind of subtext. For 16 years they tried to find a proof for their opinion. In 1971 they eventually gave up and paid a restitution also for the property of th Eisners. The payment was based on the purchase price of 29,000 RM. A payment on the basis of the marketprice was refused by the authorities, which was the common method.
Erich Schatka
Also Erich Schatka filed for compensation. The question if he bought his company from a person persecuded by the Nazis he negated.
Read here his application for restitution.
Question No. 29 is the question if he aquired his company from Jews or other persecuded people.
Witnesses were interviewed and even they were not asked if Erich Schatka purchased his company from a Jew, some of them reported it.
Read in the following the testimonies of the first witnesses:
Blachhut
Gnilka
Lorz
The Lastenausgleichsamt (restitution office) confronted Erich Schatka with their testimonies.
Read here, what the Lastenausgleichsamt (restitution office) recapulated.
In Julyk 1964 Erich Schatka finanally presented a letter of Rosa Eisner which he precautionary requested from her already five years earlier. In this letter Rosa Eisner confirms that Erich Schatka paid everything what was negotiated.
Read here the letters from Rosa Eisner to Erich Schatka and his lawyer.
He contacted Rosa Eisner and she sent the letter in which she stated that she doesn’t have outstandig bills. This letter was not helpful for Erich Schatka because in her own restitution process Rosa has said that Erich Schatka paid 10,000 RM less than the Chamber of Industry and Commerce had valued.
Read here the communication between the restitution offices.
The Lastenausgleichsamt (office for restitution) started to ask new witnesses.
Lesen Sie die Zeugenaussagen der ersten Runde der Zeugenbefragung:
Zeller
Spendel
Kolberg
Jakubek
The process was delayed by 8 years. Erich Schatka needed money for his new supermarket in Paderborn, therefore he was really upset.
They said that the interior of the Eisner shop was more than 30 years old and that Erich Schatka renovated everything. They said also that the products were mostly slow selles because Ludwig Eisner was selling out for 5 years. But the witnesses couldn’t say anything about the purchase price and if Ludwig Eisner got the money to his free disposal.
Probably it was true, that the interior was more than 30 years old, because Ludwig and Rosa Eisner founded their shop in 1906. Wrong is probably that Ludwig Eisner was selling out for more than 5 years. But probably it is correct that Ludwig and Eisner Eisner managed their shop under different circumstances since 1933. The active debts probably make it hard to buy new products. But all the testimonies were irrelevant because the Chamber of Industry and Commerce had considered that in it’s valuation. The question was if Erich Schatka paid 10,000 RM less than the value and if Ludwig Eisner got the money to his free disposal. But this question the witnesses couldn’t answer. Rosa Eisner could not be questioned, because she was already dead.
The Lastenausgleichsamt resignated. Because there were any witnesses after all the letter of Rosa Eisner became important and the Lastenausgleichsamt paid the restitution in 1968.
Read here how the restitution office gave in.
Rosa Eisner
At the same time Rosa Eisner (Ludwig was already dead) was provided a compensation, too, although it only amounted to 13,600 DM. The following war recognized:
The following was not compensated:
If Rosa Eisner ever asked for and got a payment from their live insurances, I couldn't found out.
Also Dr. Lothar Eisner filed claims for compensation. They were provided or not provided as follows: