Friedrich Moritz Mainzer

Friedrich Moritz "Fritz" Mainzer (born March 17, 1875 in Darmstadt ; † August 15, 1955 in London ) was a German lawyer from Darmstadt, persecuted by the Nazi regime and emigrant from the German Reich between 1933 and 1945 . After the end of the Second World War he represented clients from London in reparation proceedings and in the enforcement of compensation claims for victims of National Socialist persecution . The later Federal Foreign Minister Heinrich von Brentano was one of the assessors trained by Friedrich Mainzer .

Life and work before 1933

Friedrich Moritz Mainzer is the son of “Großhl. Hofg. Advocate Dr. Baruch Mainzer ”, later Counselor, and his wife Mathilde, née Simon von Mainz, who lived at Neckarstrasse 18 in Darmstadt at the time. Baruch Mainzer had had his own legal practice in Darmstadt since 1869, which his son Friedrich Moritz later joined.

Nothing is known about Mainzer's childhood and youth. He studied law at what was then Ludwigs University in Giessen, where he passed the faculty examination in 1896 with the grade “very good”. His further career also seems to be characterized by excellent achievements, as Awigdor Leopold Oppenheim, who later appeared for him and his heirs as a lawyer in the reparation proceedings, pointed out: “Dr. Friedrich Mainzer was an unusually qualified lawyer. He had passed the assessor examination on December 21, 1900 with the grade 'very good' and it was confirmed to him that he was in the first place among all the candidates examined at the same time With a good exam, Mainzer received the offer to join the civil service as a public prosecutor. However, he renounced this offer and entered his father's office. After he died in the same year, Friedrich Moritz Mainzer took over the office. At that time it was already in the family house at Bismarckstrasse. 48, where it was later devastated by the Nazis.

The legal dispute in which he represented the Darmstadt Rabbi David Selver in a dismissal process against the Jewish community of Darmstadt at the beginning of his professional career was rather unusual for a later business lawyer . In the very complex process, in which the main issue was whether the Jewish community had a right to terminate the grand ducal civil servant Selver, Mainzer was able to avert the termination and enable his client to withdraw from his office under pension law.

→ Main article : The dispute over David Selver's resignation

Mainzer, who was married to Elfriede Barbara Adler (born March 29, 1880 in Ludwigshafen - † April 30, 1960 in London) - a "usually elegant, cool lady" - was admitted to the bar at the regional court and the higher regional court in Darmstadt, as well as at the Chamber for Commercial Matters in Offenbach. In an affidavit dated July 9, 1951, he stated: “I had an extensive practice consisting essentially of consultative work. I had severely restricted my work in the courts. ”What this“ consultative work ”(advisory work) was all about can be seen from a declaration by Elfriede Mainzer:“ The following relationships existed with banks and cartels: Dr. FM Mainzer was legal advisor to the major banks in Frankfurt a. M., also advisor to the IG paint group; he was on the supervisory board of many companies, especially in paper mills, shoe factories and the leading sparkling wine factories. " After Elfriede Mainzer, two other lawyers worked in the office, two or three assessors and as many trainee lawyers, an office manager, a registrar (person who was responsible for the administration of the files), six secretaries and other assistants. In retrospect, one could speak of a prosperous commercial law firm, about whose economic situation Friedrich Moritz Mainzer said in 1951: “My practice was quite lucrative. Even when, as a result of the Nazis' Jewish policy, the professional activity of Jewish lawyers generally suffered greatly, this did not apply to me very much, because my practice was essentially consultative and because the elimination of the court practice reduced my expenses. "

Marlies Plotnik mentions in her memoirs that Mainzer did not exaggerate with his claim of the very lucrative practice, but also tended to demonstrate his prosperity on display:

“Mainzer was not a popular personality in Darmstadt, although he and Elfriede were really 'assimilated Jews'. They did not belong to any Jewish community or organization, of course. I don't know if they were actually converts or not. But everyone didn't like them because they had a lot of money and they were flaunting it. Father and Mainz often did not agree on what fees they should charge for their legal services. But I know that father had great respect for his partner. Mainzer had a photographic memory, was a great litigator with an incredible presence, and had excellent taste; he even played the piano very well. A versatile man with a very high IQ - and the appropriate inflated personality.
The Mainzers had built a magnificent modern house with a separate building for the chauffeur on a large plot of land. My father never approved of her opulent life with her two huge Mercedes-Benz limousines. "

The years leading up to emigration

Even if Mainzer had previously emphasized that the effects of the National Socialist seizure of power for his law firm were still relatively minor, after 1933 he had to endure a lot of humiliation and hostility. He reported this in a letter dated March 17, 1952 to the Reparation Chamber, which clarified the extent of the harassment to which he and his clients were exposed:

• On April 1, 1933, the day of the boycott of the Jews , posters were posted on his home and in front of his office with the inscription “The Jew lies, the Jew cheats”.
• On April 3, 1933, he was temporarily arrested "for counter-revolutionary activity".
• “On May 1, 1933, my partner and colleague, Attorney Rothschild, was struck off the list of attorneys because the ordinance said neither his father nor his son had died in the war. His father was badly wounded. "
• Employees stopped working for him because they were afraid of their professional advancement. As an explicit exception, he mentions a Dr. Wissmann and the legal trainee Sturmfels. Otto A. Sturmfels is later one of Mainzer's legal representatives in his reparation proceedings.
• The authorities had urged clients "to sever their relations with the Jewish lawyer, otherwise they would be damaged". A higher official was threatened by his superior service authority "with dismissal if he does not change his lawyer". This was noted in the personal file.
• A senior naval officer had been photographed by SA men when he entered his office, "and he was told that his picture was in the striker ".

Mainzer himself was not yet directly affected by the law on admission to the bar passed on April 7, 1933, which revoked the admission of Jewish lawyers. This was due to the fact that he either enjoyed the frontline fighter privilege or he benefited from the fact that his license was granted before August 1, 1914, both exceptions that the law initially granted. As already quoted above, he was able to continue what he called “consultative practice”, but this did not rule out harassment. On February 11, 1937, Mainzer informed his client Ferdinand Marxsohn: “To my regret, I was able to see you on the 10th of the month. not received, because according to a decision of the board of the bar association I am not allowed to see anyone on Wednesday afternoon. "

With the “Fifth Ordinance to the Reich Citizenship Law ” of September 27, 1938, Mainzer's license was also revoked on November 30, 1938. As an immediate reaction to this, Mainzer must have applied to the judicial administration for his admission as a Jewish consultant , which was basically possible according to § 8 of the “Fifth Ordinance to the Reich Citizenship Law”. The president of the Darmstadt Bar Association spoke out vehemently against Mainzer's request on November 21, 1938. "In many years of professional practice, Mainz has proven that it is unsustainable for the administration of justice in the National Socialist state." In a letter dated December 12, 1938, the Darmstadt Higher Regional Court also referred to the proposals that had already been made to reject Mainzer's request, but continued to insist that the regional court must present him with proof of personnel and qualifications. The files do not reveal whether the proceedings were continued.

In the meantime, Friedrich Mainzer had to accept many more existential threats in addition to these professional humiliations. His practice in Bismarckstr. 48 was destroyed during the November pogroms in 1938 and he was arrested:

"I was brought to Buchenwald on November 8 or 9, 1938 and stayed there until November 28, if I remember correctly."

After his release he emigrated.

The emigration in the early summer of 1939 was associated with considerable financial losses for Mainzer and his wife. He puts the amount of the Jewish property tax he has to pay at RM 159,639.40. This was based on an estimated fortune of 570,000 RM. The amount derived from this for the Reich Flight Tax was 92,604 RM. On the instructions of the tax office, he was also forced to pay 27,500 RM to the Reich Association of Jews in Germany , Mainz district office - as a compulsory levy to promote the emigration of poor Jews. The Frankfurt foreign exchange office forced him to deliver securities worth RM 201,997.10, for which he received only RM 12,400.97. Perhaps this was the reason why, until almost the time of his emigration, he argued violently with a very old acquaintance and decades-long client, Ferdinand Marxsohn, about outstanding fees in a relatively low amount (830.13 RM). Marxsohn, together with two brothers, owned the Union Brewery Groß-Gerau , which, with Mainzer's cooperation , had to sell it to the entrepreneur Willy Kaus in 1936 at a lower price . The matter, which in the meantime had developed into a mud fight between Jewish lawyers, does not seem to have come to a satisfactory end before Mainzer's emigration. In his last surviving letter to Ferdinand Marxsohn, he wrote on March 15, 1939: “When I liquidated my office, I had no quarrels and, in particular, I took every possible consideration of the circumstances of Jews. I would be extremely resistant to getting into an argument with you, with whom I had pleasant personal and professional relationships for decades, which, in my opinion, does not correspond to your wishes any more than it does mine. On the other hand, however, I cannot possibly submit to the dictates of the gentlemen advising you and I owe it to me to bring the matter to a close. ”The files do not contain a reply from Marxsohn.

In a letter dated March 15, 1950, Mainzer informed the Chamber of Reparations that in 1939 he had commissioned a Mainz forwarding company to bring his removal goods - 3 lift vans and a box - to Rotterdam, from where it was to be shipped to London. Contrary to the specifications, the shipping company brought the items to Bremen. Because the war broke out, it was no longer possible to have the things brought to London, and after his departure the Nazis had asked for another Jewish property tax, which Mainzer knew nothing about. Since he could no longer pay this tax, the removal goods were confiscated in Bremen. Mainzer put the damage at RM 289,612.

In emigration

Friedrich Mainzer and his wife arrived in London in July 1939, where they stayed for the rest of their lives. Less than a year after his arrival, he received a work permit and was allowed to work as a lawyer on continental law or legal advisor for continental law . During the entire war, however, he had hardly any employment and accordingly had only a very low income. In 1948/49 he achieved a taxable income for the first time.

Little is known about Mainzer's further life. What is certain is that in 1947 he applied for admission as a lawyer in Darmstadt while maintaining his residence in London and then running his own redress procedure, as well as the procedure for Elisabeth Paul , the daughter of his former client David Selver (see above). He received support in this procedure from the lawyer and notary Otto Kattler, with whom he had already worked in the early 1920s, and from Otto A. Sturmfels, who had been a trainee lawyer in Mainzer's Darmstadt office around 1933 (see above). Sturmfels, with full name Otto Albrecht Rudolf Sturmfels, born on September 9, 1908 in Groß-Umstadt , was the second of six children of the lawyer and politician Otto Sturmfels, who died shortly before the end of the Second World War in Dachau concentration camp . In another proceeding, he worked for the sisters Hanna Tabori and Hildegard Shelton, who were fighting for reparations for the house at Bismarckstrasse 37, which their brother Friedrich Julius Freund, who was murdered by the Nazis in Auschwitz, had to sell for less in 1937. The proceedings ended with a settlement of DM 5,500 in favor of the two sisters.

Reparation

On February 15, 1950, Friedrich Mainzer made a formal request for reparation. In addition to the financial losses already mentioned above, he also demands compensation for rental losses from July 1, 1939 for his former house in Osannstrasse. 11 ( location ), which was destroyed on the night of fire in Darmstadt from September 11 to 12, 1943. The aforementioned villa and a smaller building for Mainzer's driver were located on the large site in Darmstadt's Paulusviertel . Both buildings were used by the Darmstadt Jewish community after the Second World War (see below).

After both Mainzer and his wife Elfriede had died in the meantime, the entire procedure was not concluded until the spring of 1965. The beneficiary was the remaining sole heir, a niece of Mainzer's seventy-six at the time.

Compensation for financial loss suffered

As the files show, there were considerable procedural delays on the part of the authorities, first and foremost the Darmstadt Regional Council (RP). There is a noticeable tendency to reject claims or to curtail their scope. To this end, extensive legal statements were often drawn up in which ambiguous legal provisions were interpreted in such a way that they could be interpreted to the detriment of the applicant. Towards the end of the proceedings it was so obvious that the Hessian Interior Minister stepped in and instructed the regional council to pay out a partial amount. The fact that compensation of almost DM 240,000.00 was ultimately approved is only thanks to the persistence of the legal competence of Mainzer and Oppenheim, who continued the proceedings on behalf of the heirs (first the wife and then the remaining sole heir) after Mainzer's death.

On March 7, 1952, the Darmstadt RP awarded Mainzer for the first time compensation of DM 2,560.00. In several submissions he defended himself against the low amount and complained that even this amount was not paid out. Since there was only a long delay in responding to his submissions, Mainzer filed a complaint with the Chamber of Appeal of the Darmstadt Regional Court on October 13, 1952. On March 26, 1953, this recognized all of Mainzer's claims in full in a basic resolution . The Hessian Interior Minister lodged a legal complaint against this on May 22, 1953. This was rejected on March 26, 1954 by the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt am Main . The judgment was provisionally enforceable, but an appeal was allowed before the Federal Court of Justice . The country went under revision and was finally rejected on November 22, 1954. For Mainzer it was only a stage victory that was followed by 11 more years of proceedings, in which, however, further claims were asserted.

The dispute over goodwill

A complication finally arose from the fact that Mainzer had not only claimed compensation for the material loss of his legal practice, but also demanded compensation for goodwill , an immaterial financial loss resulting from the destruction of the practice. However, Ebo Rothschild and Hermann Wolf or their heirs also raised claims on this, arguing that both were partners in a partnership operated together with Mainzer .

Since these claims were only asserted after Mainzer's death and the corresponding contracts could not be presented, the claims were asserted or rejected by Elfriede Mainzer on an argumentative basis, but ultimately without clear evidence. There was a court case and finally a court settlement proposal of August 26, 1960, which put the total goodwill for the practice at 45,720.00 DM. Of this, an amount of DM 30,000.00 was to go to the Mainzer party, the remaining amount to the two other parties together. After further legal maneuvers, in which the RP as the competent authority once again stood up, this proposal became legally binding in mid-1961.

There is no evidence from the documents that in the dispute over the goodwill, reference was made to Friedrich Mainzer's letter of March 17, 1952, already quoted above. In which he expressly refers to Ebo Rothschild in connection with his removal from the list of lawyers as "my partner and colleague". In Darmstadt's address book for 1933, however, the three lawyers were listed individually under the heading Lawyers and Notaries at Bismarckstraße 48, without being identified as a joint partnership. The entry under the address shows Mainzer as the house owner, the three lawyers then as a common party of a total of five tenants. A reference to a law firm is also missing here.

From Hermann Wolf's archived documents in the Leo Baeck Institute , however, a clearer picture emerges, at least with regard to the Mainz-Wolf relationship. On October 22nd, 1938, Hermann Wolf disclosed his financial circumstances to a "foreign exchange auditor at the Darmstadt foreign exchange office" in the practice rooms in Bismarckstrasse. In point I, Wolf expressly describes himself as the “partner of the lawyer Dr. Mainzer ”and explains under point IL.4:“ I have a capital claim against lawyer Dr. Mainz Darmstadt from my participation in the amount of RM 10,000. The due date and type of repayment are subject to the agreement to be made. ”Under point IV it then says:“ Lawyer Dr. Mainzer, Darmstadt and explains that he would like to hear from lawyer Dr. Wolf in the above-mentioned way by handing over a crossed check to the Deutsche Bank und Diskonto-Gesellschaft Darmstadt branch. Since no concerns were expressed by the above official, this was approved in the sense of the following orders. ”On October 22nd, 1938 Hermann Wolf von Mainzer acknowledged having received the amount of RM 10,000.

It remains to be seen whether a similar shareholding relationship existed in the case of Ebo Rothschild; After being banned from working in 1933, he emigrated via Holland to Spain and later to Israel. On the occasion of his departure from the firm, Hermann Wolf had issued him a handwritten certificate on December 28, 1933, in which he emphasized Rothschild’s great legal competence and described him as a friend. The word pillion or partner does not appear in this context.

The fate of the house on Osannstrasse

From December 1, 1928, the Mainz couple had the right to build the property at Osannstrasse 11 for sixty years and built their villa and an outbuilding on it for RM 148,000.00. On June 28, 1939 they had to transfer the heritable building right for RM 70,000.00 to the German Reich ("Reichsfiskus Heer"). The amount was paid into a blocked account, but was never paid out. The heritable building right was deleted from the land register.

On September 11th, the building was almost completely destroyed, and after the war the property became part of the federal property as a result of legal succession.

On January 16, 1948, Max Wolf, the head of the Jewish community in Darmstadt at the time, the State Commissioner for Reparation in Hesse and State Commissioner for the Care of Jews in Greater Hesse, wrote Curt Epstein : “Through a creditable foundation from a former Darmstadt Jews now have the property Osannstrasse, which has been destroyed to 60%, to build a community hall. 11 available. ”In a further letter dated February 11, 1948, it then states:“ It [the house Osannstr. 11] was presented to the Jewish Community of Darmstadt by the lawyer Dr. Mainzer donated especially for this purpose. ”At the same time, Max Wolf outlined the plans for the“ built in a peculiar style ”house:“ A synagogue (prayer room), a community room and a community kitchen are to be built on the ground floor. The home of the community leader and the community office will be located on the first floor. The expanded roof structure should provide rooms for overnight accommodation. It is planned to accommodate 2 beds in two rooms, to install a washroom and a small kitchen, so that people passing through do not have to spend the night in the waiting room or in a train station car due to the lack of accommodation. The adjoining servants' house is to be rebuilt on a single storey, two rooms and a kitchen, and is to replace the caretaker of the two Jewish cemeteries with his wife for his destroyed official apartment at the former isr. Give religious community for which he has been active since 1926. The political past is impeccable. Even in the period from 1943-1945, Mr. Werling did not leave the two cemeteries, despite the ban. "

These plans could be realized. The Jewish Community of Darmstadt built its new center in 1948/49 for construction costs of DM 229,774.48. The funds came from the state of Hesse. They were granted as an advance and were later to be offset against the reparation claims for the synagogues in Darmstadt-Arheilgen, Darmstadt-Eberstadt, and in Darmstadt's Bleichstrasse and Friedrichstrasse. Only: There is no evidence in the documents that the property was actually donated to the Jewish community by Mainzer. And so the Hessian Ministry of the Interior had to admit in a letter dated May 30, 1951 to Friedrich Mainzer: “At that time there was no reason to review the ownership structure, because the information provided by the Jewish community - a corporation under public law - presumed correctness for also because the decision on the aid in favor of the Jewish community had to be made regardless of the ownership structure in the main square. Rather, it was and is still a matter for the Jewish community to regulate the ownership of a building site and the building on it, which was built with their own means. ”The ministry saw no reason for Mainzer's compensation, and Max Wolf, who meanwhile lived in England , did not provide any information about the alleged donation to the government president in Darmstadt when asked by the compensation authority.

Mainzer had asked about 32,000.00 DM as a redemption for the heritable building right, which had been forcibly taken from him. It was quite unclear who would be responsible for this demand. In 1955/56, the State of Hesse expressed its willingness to take over the amount if the property passed into its possession, for which it was prepared to pay an approximately equal amount to the federal government as the property owner. As with the construction costs in 1948/49, both amounts were to be offset against total Jewish claims. A corresponding settlement proposal was approved by the Hessian cabinet.

The Jewish Restitution Successor Organization (IRSO) objected to the settlement and the accounting model it contained . In a letter dated November 11, 1958 to the regional association of Jewish communities in Hesse, the IRSO rejected the settlement in anticipation of a pending agreement between it and the Jewish regional associations of the American zone on the compensation complex. An agreement was then reached even without the IRSO. After further negotiations between the State of Hesse and the federal government, a new settlement proposal came on the table, which the State Association of Jewish Communities in Hesse approved in a letter dated January 18, 1962. The regional association accepted a purchase price of 58,284.00 DM (with a determined market value of 129,180.00 DM) plus 37,700.00 DM for the Mainz community of heirs. The Jewish Community of Darmstadt was entered in the land register as the owner and had to grant the regional association an interest-free first mortgage for the total amount.

The group X

As mentioned above, Friedrich Mainzer prepared his emigration that same year in the spring of 1939. At the same time, however, he also started an entrepreneurial activity apparently aimed at the time after emigration. He got together with people whom he probably knew from his “consultative work” and who, as his widow assured him (see above), had also led him to the supervisory boards of paper and shoe factories. Together they performed as Group X :

• Lothar Adler
  The company "J. & CA Schneider ”, also known by the acronym“ ICAS ”, was a Frankfurt special factory for baby shoes. “In 1911 the brothers Lothar and Ludwig Adler took over the business. [..] The Adlers were of Jewish faith. With the 'Aryanization' of the company, the Adlers are faced with the decision to emigrate. Fritz Adler was deported by the Nazis to the Buchenwald concentration camp on the night of the pogrom in 1938 to be driven to sell. After 14 days in the concentration camp, he and Lothar Adler agree to the 'sale' of the company. It is known that Lothar Adler stayed in Holland with his wife Ellen before leaving for New York. Son Herbert had already moved to England and met his parents again in Holland. The three of the Lothar Adler family went to New York, where they were only allowed to stay for a few months. The Adlers remained in Mexico until the residence permit was issued. Fritz Adler's path to the USA is not known. After the war, Lothar and Fritz Adler got the company back as part of the refund procedure. In 1954 they sold it. Here her track is lost. "
• Max Hirsch (manufacturer) (born February 28, 1871 in Weinheim - † November 1, 1950 in Milwaukee )
• Julius Hirsch (born April 18, 1874 in Weinheim)
  The brothers Max and Julius Hirsch were co-owners of the “Lederwerke Sigmund Hirsch GmbH”, which they sold to the neighboring company Freudenberg before they emigrated .

As Group X , the four of them had signed a contract on June 9, 1939 with the engineer Ernst Arnold and the Illig'schen Papierfabrikvertriebsgesellschaft mbH from Darmstadt-Eberstadt , which was directly linked to another contract with IG Farben . Arnold had developed a special paper together with the Illig company, the so-called Schwöde paper : “This is a paper developed by Arnold together with Dr. Wolff developed and patent pending process for depilation of pelts, especially sheep and goat skins, using a paper containing 80% calcium sulfur and 20% paper fiber. ”A preservative (K34) manufactured by IG Farben was required to manufacture this special paper . In the first of the two contracts, Group X acquired the patent for the process outside of Germany from Arnold / Illig for RM 223,000.00. In the second contract, Group X undertook to “purchase all chemical products required for the manufacture of Schwöde paper exclusively from IG”. This contract with IG Farben , however, also contained a provision according to which the IG undertook, “in order to enable delivery under all circumstances, the recipes for K.34 or another product replacing K.34 with the trustee Dr. Herbert Lickfett in Stockholm, Sveavegen 21, in a sealed envelope, and to authorize the depository to open the envelope and deliver it to my group according to the recipes, if the requirements of §4 are met ”.

One can assume that the members of Group X , all of whom had already had to cede substantial assets to the Nazi authorities, wanted to use these contracts to build an economic future for themselves after their emigration. The fact that this was a very lucrative business model is proven by the note from IG Uerdingen of July 27, 1942. It can also be read that there were considerations at the time to dissolve the contract with Group X in order to work with the Company Illig to operate the business directly, although there were already ideas on how to arrange a severance payment for Group X : "Illig has already tried to raise the necessary foreign currency and found a German abroad in France, Mr. HC Schlarb, Arcachon, ready to raise these foreign currencies from a Swiss balance against transfer of the general agency of Illig for France and the colonies. "

The contract was neither fulfilled nor terminated, which is why Mainzer filed extensive claims with the Tripartite IG Farben Control Group on October 17, 1950 . His reason: "The IG has violated its contractual obligation, it did not receive the prescriptions from Dr. Lickfett and, when the undersigned met Dr. Lickfett got in touch about the recipes, he said on behalf of the IG that they would not deposit them. The IGFarben has therefore continued the breach of contract. [..] The undersigned and his group are severely damaged by this breach of contract by IG Farben. "Mainzer derives a major demand from this:" We are therefore applying for our demand for 2,531,250 gold marks (in words: two million five hundred thirty-one thousand two hundred and fifty gold marks) converted into foreign currency at our option at the respective average rate with ancillary claims (interest, etc.). Claims that arose after July 5, 1945 up to the expiry of the contract are reserved. "

The proceedings, in which the Frankfurt lawyer Erich Cohn-Bendit was also involved for Group X , who had represented the interests of the State Association of Jewish Communities in Hesse in connection with Mainzer's Darmstadt villa , does not seem to have made good progress. In a letter dated June 6, 1952, IG Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft i. L. rejected all claims, as there was no prohibition of exports to many European countries even after the start of the war and consequently there was no obligation to disclose the recipe of K34. Furthermore, Group X was not yet able to produce the special paper, even if it had K34. At the same time, the note pointed out that Mainzer was currently in negotiations with Arnold because of the patent rights he had acquired. One wants to wait.

In a further note dated October 18, 1955, Maurer states: “Dr. Biel and I agreed that from the previous point of view that Dr. Mainzer had been informed in the letter of the IG of June 6, 1952, should not deviate and it should initially depend on a procedural approach by the Mainzer group. "This note was the last document in the file. Friedrich Mainzer had died two months earlier. It remains to be seen whether and in what form the claims of group X have been satisfied.

swell

• Hessian Main State Archive Wiesbaden:
  • Reparation procedure Friedrich Moritz Mainzer, signature: HHStAW, Abt. 518, Nr. 23755.
  • Legal dispute over the synagogue property of the Jewish community Darmstadt, signature: HHStAW, Dept. 503 No. 7393
  • FESA: Demand from Dr. Friedrich Mainzer, London
    • Volume 1: Main file, signature: HHStAW, inventory 2092, no.4788
    • Volume 2: Copies of the correspondence relating to Mainz from 1937 to 1947, signature: HHStAW, inventory 2092, no.14675
  • Advice, representation of Marxsohn by Dr. Mainzer and Dr. Wolf, signature: HHStAW, Abt. 474/3, No. 2409
• Hessisches Staatsarchiv Darmstadt : Admission and withdrawal of the admission of Friedrich Moritz Mainzer as a lawyer, signature: HStAD, G 21 B, 3949. (Digitized holdings can be viewed online.)
• Marlies Wolf Plotnik: We came to America. Memoirs of a refugee child , Hartsdale, NY, 2005. (Available online in the LBI Memoir Collection, ME 1513.) Marlies Plotnik was the daughter of Mainzer's colleague and partner Herman Wolf.

Web links

• The fate of Jewish lawyers in the Darmstadt district court. DFG-VK Darmstadt 

Individual evidence

1. ↑ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Mathilde_Simon%2C_Mauergasse_19_(Wiesbaden).jpg
2. ↑ ^{a b c} Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: reparation proceedings Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
3. ↑ ^{a b c d e} Hessisches Staatsarchiv Darmstadt: Admission and withdrawal of the admission of Friedrich Moritz Mainzer as a lawyer
4. ↑ There is a file on him in the Hessian State Archives in Marburg under the signature HStAM inventory 270 Kassel No. 3526 . This, too, is about redress and compensation claims.
5. ↑ ^{a b} Letter from AL Oppenheim to the Darmstadt Regional Council, November 13, 1957, in: Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: Reparation proceedings Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
6. ↑ Marlies Wolf Plotnik: We came to America , p.18
7. ↑ ^{a b} affidavit, in: Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: reparation proceedings Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
8. ↑ Information from Elfriede Mainzer on a questionnaire, undated, probably at the end of 1957 / beginning of 1958, in: Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: reparation proceedings Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
9. ↑ Marlies Wolf Plotnik: We came to America , p. 18. "Mainzer was not a popular figure in Darmstadt, although he and Elfriede were truly" assimilated Jews. " They of course did not belong to any Jewish congregation or organization. I no longer know whether or not they were actually converts. But they were already not liked because they had a lot of money and showed it off. Father and Mainzer often disagreed on the fees they should charge for their legal services. But l do know that father had tremendous respect for his partner. Mainzer had a photographic memory, was a splendid litigater with incredible presence, and he had excellent taste; he even played the piano extremely well. A well-rounded man with a very high IQ - and the pompous personality to match.
   The Mainzers had built themselves a most magnificent modern house on a large track of land, with a separate building for the chauffeur. My father never approved of their opulent living, with their two huge Mercedes-Benz limousines. "
10. ↑ ^{a b} Letter from F. Mainzer of March 17, 1952, in: Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: Reparation proceedings Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
11. ↑ Sturmfels had his office in 1954 at Frankfurter Str. 16 1/2 in Darmstadt.
12. ↑ HHStAW: Advice, representation of Marxsohn by Dr. Mainzer and Dr. wolf
13. ↑ The application itself is not in the files, but the judicial administration's reactions to it.
14. ^ Letter of July 9, 1955, in: Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: Wiedergutmachungsverfahren Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
15. ↑ The following list is not complete; The file contains further references to taxes paid, such as his wife's jewelry.
16. ↑ How long these relationships were, Mainzer mentioned on November 2, 1937 in a letter to the opposing lawyer Robert Rosenburg from Frankfurt: “The legal predecessors of Messrs Ferdinand and Ludwig Marxsohn were clients of the office of my father, who had died in 1911; Messrs. Ferdinand and Ludwig Marxsohn have not only been advised and represented by lawyers for decades, but there have also been very pleasant personal relationships. "(HHStAW: advice, Marxsohn's representation by Dr. Mainzer and Dr. Wolf)
17. ↑ HHStAW: Advice, representation of Marxsohn by Dr. Mainzer and Dr. wolf
18. ↑ Letter to Ferdinand Mainzer Marx son of 15 March 1939 HHStAW: advice, representation Marx son by Dr. Mainzer and Dr. wolf
19. ↑ Liftvan - transport box for your move
20. ^ Affidavit dated July 9, 1951 and letter dated August 24, 1952, in: Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden: reparation proceedings Friedrich Moritz Mainzer
21. ^ Hessisches Staatsarchiv Darmstadt: Digital copies from HStAD inventory H 3 Darmstadt No. 10757
22. ^ Elisabeth Krimmel: Friend without friends - The life of Dr. Fritz Julius Freund (1898-1944) , Justus-von-Liebig-Verlag, Darmstadt, 2013, ISBN 978-3-87390-330-2 , p. 131
23. ↑ Address book of the capital and residence city Darmstadt , Darmstadt, 1933, p. 431
24. ↑ Address book of the capital and residence city Darmstadt , Darmstadt, 1933, p. 213
25. ^ Leo Baeck Institute: Guide to the Papers of the Wolf-Oppenheimer Family 1843-2015 ; Series I: Hermann Wolf and Family, 1886–2014; Box 1, Folder 10: Financial Matters and Emigration, documents pages 70, 73-76
26. ↑ HHStAW: Dept. 518 No. 29002 - Reparation proceedings Ebo Rotschild
27. ↑ ^{a b c d} The following explanations follow the file "Legal dispute over the synagogue property of the Jewish community Darmstadt" (see sources) in the Hessian main state archive in Wiesbaden.
28. ↑ Silke Rummel: Incredible life story from Pfungstadt. A Jew in the Wehrmacht , Frankfurter Rundschau, November 4, 2008
29. ↑ Sportkreis Frankfurt eV in cooperation with the Falkschule and the Eintracht Frankfurt Museum: Reader project week 'Schlappeschneider - Schlappekicker' , Frankfurt, 2008, p. 23. Further information on the Aryanization of the ICAS company from: Karl Heinz Roth: OMGUS investigations against the Dresdner Bank , GRENO Verlagsgesellschaft, Nördlingen, 1986
30. ↑ The history of the Lederwerke and the Hirsch brothers is well documented. See above all: Jewish traces in Weinheim: Max Hirsch ; Jewish traces in Weinheim: Julius Hirsch ; Jewish traces in Weinheim: preparation for emigration ; Former Hirsch leather works in Weinheim
31. ↑ ^{a b c} Note from IG Uerdingen from July 27, 1942, in: FESA: Demand Dr. Friedrich Mainzer, London, Volume 1: Main files
32. ↑ Materialarchiv Schweiz : “Schwöde is a mixture of hair-loosening chemicals that are applied in concentrated solution or porridge form (with lime) to the flesh side of the softened hides in order to get them hair-free. This way, the hair is completely preserved and can be further processed. If, on the other hand, the sweat is applied to the grain side, the hair will dissolve. "
33. ^ ^{A b c d} Registration of claims by Mainzer from October 17, 1950, in: FESA: Claim Dr. Friedrich Mainzer, London, Volume 1: Main files
34. ↑ The German-Swede Herbert Lickfett was one of the discoverers of vanadium (IV) fluoride and a representative of IG Farben in Sweden. "The archive of the Swedish Currency Bureau shows that Herbert Lickfett AB was authorized eight times between September 1942 and September 1945 to re-import gold from Germany weighing a total of 31.5 kg." ( Searching for Raoul Wallenberg )
35. ↑ Memorandum Dr. Maurer from June 1, 1954, in: FESA: Demand Dr. Friedrich Mainzer, London, Volume 1: Main files
36. ↑ Memorandum Dr. Maurer from October 18, 1955, in: FESA: Demand Dr. Friedrich Mainzer, London, Volume 1: Main files
37. ↑ The abbreviation used in the Hessian archive database Arcinsys in the context of IG Farben files stands for "Department of Claims and Debt Settlement".