gazze wat vanétendaies tombako pre tentokábandingan hamnenasdle - and pool,.....
1
800
P638
B 943,923
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
IN WEST GERMANY
SAME..
HISTORICAL DIVISION
GN
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE U.S. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY
1953
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
IN WEST GERMANY
1945-1953
by
Henry P. Pilgert
with the assistance of Helga Dobbert
500
P638
HISTORICAL DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE U. S. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY
1953
800
P638
་
Ma
7.1.83
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The Historical Division monographs are primarily concerned
with the organization, activities, and interests of the Office of the
U.S. High Commissioner for Germany (HICOG). In each volume,
the selection of facts and their interpretation represent the judg-
ment and opinion of the author or authors. In no sense should any
part of any study be considered a statement of U.S. Government
policy, and the points of view expressed are not necessarily those
of HICOG or of the Department of State.
The monographs thus far published are:
1. J. F. J. Gillen, with the assistance of Friedrich Forstmeier,
The Employment of German Nationals by the Office of the
U.S. High Commissioner for Germany (1952). Security Clas-
sification: Restricted.
2. J. F. J. Gillen, The Special Projects Program of the Office of
the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany (1952).
3. J. F. J. Gillen, Labor Problems in West Germany (1952).
4. J. F. J. Gillen, State and Local Government in West Germany,
1945-1953. With Special Reference to the U.S. Zone and Bre-
men (1953).
5. Guy A. Lee, with the assistance of Rodney C. Loehr, The
Establishment of the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner
for Germany (1951). Security Classification: Restricted.
6. Guy A. Lee, Field Organization of the Office of the U.S. High
Commissioner for Germany (1952). Security Classification:
Restricted.
7. Guy A. Lee, ed., Documents on Field Organization of the
Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany (1952).
8. Rodney C. Loehr, The West German Banking System (1952).
Security Classification: Restricted.
9. Beryl R. McClaskey, with the assistance of Elisabeth Erd-
mann, The Free German Youth and the Deutschlandtreffen:
A Case Study of Soviet Tactics in Germany (1951). Security
Classification: Restricted.
i
LDB
T
10. Beryl R. McClaskey, with the assistance of Friedrich Forst-
meier, The History of U.S. Policy and Program in the Field
of Religious Affairs under the Office of the U.S. High Com-
missioner for Germany (1951).
11. Henry P. Pilgert, with the assistance of Friedrich Forstmeier,
The Exchange of Persons Program in Western Germany (1951).
12. Henry P. Pilgert, The History of the Development of Infor-
mation Services through Information Centers and Documen-
tary Films (1951).
13. Henry P. Pilgert, Community and Group Life in West Ger-
many. With Special Reference to the Policies and Programs
of the Office of the U. S. High Commissioner for Germany
(1952).
14. Henry P. Pilgert, with the assistance of Hildegard Waschke,
Women in West Germany. With Special Reference to the
Policies and Programs of the Women's Affairs Branch, Office
of Public Affairs, Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for
Germany (1952).
15. Henry P. Pilgert, The West German Educational System (1953.)
16. Elmer Plischke, Revision of the Occupation Statute for Ger-
many (1952). Security Classification: Restricted.
17. Elmer Plischke, Allied High Commission Relations with the
West German Government (1952). Security Classification:
Restricted.
18. Elmer Plischke, with the assistance of H. J. Hille, The West
German Federal Government (1952).
19. Elmer Plischke, with the assistance of Elisabeth Erdmann,
Berlin: Development of Its Government and Administration
(1952).
20. Elmer Plischke, The Allied High Commission for Germany
(1953).
21. Hubert G. Schmidt, with the assistance of Elisabeth Erdmann,
The Liberalization of West German Foreign Trade (1952).
Security Classification: Restricted.
22. Hubert G. Schmidt, with the assistance of Elisabeth Erdmann,
Economic Assistance to West Berlin (1952). Security Classifi-
cation: Restricted.
ii
23. Hubert G. Schmidt, with the assistance of H. J. Hille, Food
and Agricultural Programs in West Germany, 1949-1951
(1952).
24. John G. Kormann. U.S. Denazification Policy in Germany,
1944-1950 (mimeographed. 1952.)
Other studies, including some which will remain security
classified, are in preparation.
iii
PREFACE
As is indicated in the General Introduction, this monograph is
the sixth which the author has prepared on the public affairs field
in Germany. The main emphases are on German developments in
press, radio and film; and on U.S. policies and programs with
respect to these mass communications media. The study deals.
primarily with the years 1949-1953 when the Office of the U.S.
High Commissioner for Germany (HICOG) was operative; but
there is considerable material on the Military Government period,
1945-1949. The volume is mainly concerned with the U.S. Zone
and Bremen since these were U.S. areas of control; there are also
a few paragraphs on the British and French Zones. Because of its
special complexities and difficulties, Berlin will be dealt with in
a separate monograph now in preparation entitled, "U.S. Infor-
mation Programs in Berlin."
The manuscript has been read by and helpful suggestions
have been received from various officials in the Department of
State and in HICOG. In the preparation of the work, the author
has had the assistance of Helga Dobbert, Research Assistant in
the Historical Division. In addition, much research for the study
was done by Friedrich Forstmeier, formerly Research Assistant
in the Division.
Bad Godesberg-Mehlem,
April 29, 1953.
ROGER H. WELLS
Chief Historian
iv
General Introduction
Preface.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
MASS COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENT
Role of the Department of State
The Press
•
CHAPTER II
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM IN GERMANY BEFORE 1945
Mass Communications Media before 1933
The National Socialist Regime
CHAPTER III
1. Overt Publications
2. The Licensed Press
3. German News Services
4. Military Government Control
5. Books and Periodicals
•
•
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
V
i
iv
2
10
12
14
15
16
17
17
19
6. Background of Licensees
7. Currency Reform and the Cessation of Licensing
8. Changes in U.S. Policy
9. Decision to End Licensing
10. Cessation of Licensing
The Radio under Military Government
1. RIAS
2. Return of Radio to German Control
Motion Pictures under Military Government
CHAPTER IV
ORGANIZATION AND POLICIES OF THE OFFICE
OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
OMGUS Organization in 1949
U.S. Information Policies
HICOG Organization
Public Opinion Analysis.
Department of State Guidance and Assistance to HICOG
CHAPTER V
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
The West German Press after the Cessation of Licensing
1. The Appearance of New Publications .
2. Nazi Personalities
3. Newspaper Chains
4. The Circulation War
•
5. The Party Press and the Editorial Board
6. Newspaper Publishers' and Journalists' Organizations .
HICOG Aid; Review Board and Press Fund.
19
22
22
23
26
28
29
30
31
333
34
35
38
40
43
43
44
45
46
48
48
50
vi
1. Printing Plant Leases and the Review Board
2. The Press Fund
Publications Program of the HICOG Information Division
1. Overt Periodicals
2. Die Neue Zeitung
3.
Amerika Dienst
4. Publications and Translations
Training in Journalism and the Exchange Program
Press Legislation in the High Commission Period
1. Allied Legislation
2. German Legislation.
CHAPTER VI
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
British and French Zones
Property Rights of the German Post Office
Finance
Allocation of Frequencies
HICOG Relations with German Broadcasting Companies
CHAPTER VII
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
Liquidation of the UFA Interests
Location of German Film Industry
Financial Assistance to Producers.
Voluntary Censorship
Film Evaluation and Tax Rebates
Import Quotas
Direct HICOG Activities.
•
·
vii
50
52
55
56
58
59
60
62
64
64
70
74
75
77
78
82
86
91
91
94
95
96
98
CHAPTER VIII
The Press
The Radio
Motion Pictures
CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
German Opinion Survey Reports on Press, Radio and Film
Appendix 2
Allied High Commission Law No. 5
Press, Radio, Information and Entertainment
101
103
105
106
111
Appendix 3
Allied High Commission Law No. 32
Disposition of Former Reich-owned Motion Picture Property 116
viii
CHAPTER I
MASS COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENT
During the past one hundred years, the world has been ex-
periencing the age of mass communications. To be sure, printing
is an ancient art and the first newspapers date from the early
part of the seventeenth century. But so long as most people could
not read and write, the printed page was scarcely a means of mass
communication. Today mankind is still far from universal literacy;
however since 1850, the percentage of the newspaper reading public
to the total population has enormously increased in most coun-
tries. Moreover, there has been great technical advance in facilities
for rapid printing and distribution. Even though a modern man
cannot read, he may still have access to other media of commu-
nication such as the motion picture, the radio and television, all
of which have been perfected within the twentieth century. Great
opportunities are thus afforded, both for good and for evil.'
Q
These developments raise important problems of political
theory. For example, should mass communications be utilized or
regulated by government? In view of the historic struggles over
freedom of speech and of the press, Western democrats are rightly
suspicious of state controls. Their fears are amply confirmed by
what has happened under the Communist, Nazi, Fascist and other
contemporary dictatorships. On the other hand, the present
generation has experienced two world wars, a "cold war" and a
variety of small "hot wars" — all involving the extensive employ-
ment of government propaganda. Should governments engage in
propaganda? What is propaganda?' Does it differ from information
¹ See World Communications: Press, Radio, Film, Television, published by UNESCO,
January 1952. This publication of 223 pages provides the latest information on mass
communication facilities around the globe. It is a revised and expanded edition of
a world survey which appeared in May 1950.
'There are many definitions of propaganda. The author prefers the following:
"Propaganda exists whenever an individual or group deliberately attempts to in-
fluence public opinion to accept (or reject) certain ideas and courses of action." Under
this definition, nothing is said about the content or method of propaganda. The
content may be either true or false or a mixture of both. The method may be
honest or dishonest, open or veiled.
2
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
or education? What is its effect upon public opinion and can such
effect be measured by public opinion polls? Finally, what is public
opinion?
Questions like these are raised at the outset of this study, not
for the purpose of answering them but in order to indicate that
they are intimately connected with the following discussion of
press, radio and film in West Germany. There is an extensive
literature on all such matters and the reader is referred to that for
definitions and details.³
Role of the Department of State
The average American tends to look askance at the use of
communications media by his government. He wants no
government radio, not even if it
if it has an
has an autonomous status
like the British Broadcasting Corporation. He prefers to have
his motion pictures made by Hollywood although the can be
persuaded to accept a few government documentary films.
He is jealous of the freedom of the press and thinks that
government departments and bureaus print too much literature
for public distribution. This attitude is widely reflected in
criticisms voiced by Congress of "government publicity."
mass
However, when his country is engaged in world war, the
American citizen will accept the necessity of large-scale infor-
mation agencies. Thus in the First World War, the United States
Government established the Committee on Public Information
which operated from April 1917 to March 1919. In World War II,
the Office of War Information was established in June 1942 and
continued to the end of 1945.5
4
See Bruce L. Smith, Harold D. Lasswell and Ralph D. Casey, Propaganda, Com-
munications and Public Opinion: A Comprehensive Reference Guide (Princeton, 1946).
This is a bibliography covering the period 1934-1943. The most valuable single
periodical in English is the Public Opionion Quarterly, published by the Princeton
University Press. Among the numerous books, the following may be mentioned:
Frederick C. Irion, Public Opinion and Propaganda (N.Y., 1950); Herbert Brucker, Free-
dom of Information (N. Y., 1949)-primarily about the press; Charles A. Siepmann, Radio,
Television and Society (New York, 1950); Paul M. A. Linebarger, Psychological
Warfare (Washington, D. C., 1945); Daniel Lerner, Sykewar (N. Y., 1949); Saul K.
Padover, Psychological Warfare, Foreign Policy Association, Headline Series No. 86
(N. Y., March-April 1951); Ladislas Farago, ed., German Psychological Warfare (N. Y.,
1942); Ernst Kris and Hans Speier, German Radio Propaganda (Ithaca, 1944); Walter
Hagemann, Publizistik im Dritten Reich (Hamburg, 1948); Siegfried Kracauer, From
Caligari to Hitler (Princeton, 1947)-a psychological study of the German film from
1918 to 1933; Lester J. Markel and others, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (N. Y.,
1949); and Gabriel L. Almond, The American People and Foreign Policy (N. Y., 1950).
• See James R. Mock and Cedric Larson, Words That Won the War (Princeton, 1939).
Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points were powerful propaganda for the Allies and
an important factor in the surrender of Germany.
5 Charles A. H. Thomson, Overseas Information Service of the United States Gov-
ernment (Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C., 1948).
MASS COMMUNICATIONS
3
6
The Department of State came relatively late into the field of
mass communications media with all their cultural implications.
Although the foreign relations of the United States were reported
in the newspapers from the beginning of the Republic, more than
a century passed before departmental organization and procedure
reflected this fact. Secretary of State John Hay (1898-1905) in-
troduced the Department press conference. A Division of Informa-
tion was established in 1909 but its publications were not intended
for public consumption.' In 1917, shortly after the United States
entered the First World War, the Division of Information was
renamed the Division of Foreign Intelligence and its duties were
expanded. It now prepared news items for the press, controlled
departmental publicity, and made information available to
members of Congress, the universities and the public generally."
In 1921, the Division of Foreign Intelligence was abolished and
the Division of Current Information created which, with some
changes during the Second World War, existed until the Depart-
ment's reorganization in 1944.9
The Department's entrance into the international informa-
tion and cultural field grew out of the Good Neighbor
policy and of the desire to strengthen hemisphere solidarity which
was being weakened by Nazi and Fascist propaganda in Latin
America. Thus in 1938, the Inter-American program called into
being the Division of Cultural Relations and the Interdepartmental
Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation." Up to that time,
the United States had neither cultural nor press attachés in its
embassies and legations abroad, nor any agency in the Department
of State to stimulate American intellectual cooperation with
foreign states. Two years later (1940), the Office of the Coordinator
of Inter-American Affairs" was established which developed
numerous cultural and informational activities. While not a part
of the Department of State, the Department had authority to
control the Office's policy and execution.
• Graham H. Stuart, The Department of State. A History of Its Organization,
Procedure and Personnel (N. Y., 1949), pp. 200-201.
7 Ibid., p. 217. According to Stuart, in the early days, a clerk forwarded news-
papers and public documents to the U.S. diplomatic representatives abroad. From
1833 to 1909, the Diplomatic Bureau carried on this function and included the perusal
and translation of foreign newspapers. Ibid., p. 261.
Ibid., p. 243.
• Ibid., p. 261.
10 Thomson, op. cit., Chap. 8; Stuart, op. cit., p. 333.
"Thomson, op. cit., Chap. 7. The Office was originally called by other names.
4
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
In 1944, under Edward R. Stettinius who was first Under Se-
cretary and then Secretary of State, the Department of State ex-
perienced major reorganization which more clearly than ever be-
fore recognized the importance of public relations, both domestic
and foreign. The Office of Public Affairs (first called the Office of
Public Information) included the Division of Current Information,
the Division of Cultural Cooperation and the Motion-Picture and
Radio Division. The Office of Public Affairs was headed by the
Assistant Secretary of State for Public and Cultural Affairs, a
new position to which Archibald MacLeish was appointed." This
agency brought together all the cultural and informational activ-
ities in the Department outside of the Office of the Special Adviser
on Press Relations.
13
The Office of Public Affairs was continued under various
names-first as the Office of International Information and Cul-
tural Affairs and then, after Congress passed the Smith-Mundt
Act in 1948,¹³ as the Office of Information and Educational Ex-
change. Toward the end of the fiscal year 1948, the Office of
Information and Educational Exchange was split into the Office of
International Information and the Office of Educational Exchange.
In January 1952, these two agencies were again consolidated into
the International Information Administration. Meanwhile, there
had been a succession of Assistant Secretaries of State for Public
Affairs. MacLeish was succeeded by William Benton who was
followed by George V. Allen, Edward W. Barrett, and Howland
H. Sargeant. When the International Information Administration
was established in 1952, it was placed under Wilson Compton as
Administrator reporting directly to the Secretary and Under
Secretary of State." With President Eisenhower in office, it is
probable that further extensive reorganization will be undertaken.
The numerous organizational changes just mentioned reflect
the uncertainties and complexities of the postwar years. After the
end of the Second World War, most of the wartime agencies, includ-
ing the Office of War Information, were liquidated. The Depart-
ment of State became a kind of residuary legatee for many of the
functions performed by these independent agencies but on a much
reduced basis. Among them was the "Voice of America."
11 See Thomson, op. cit., Chaps. 9 and 10.
"Public Law 402, 80th Congress, U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act
of 1948, approved January 27, 1948.
"Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXVI, No. 657. p. 151. January 28, 1952.
MASS COMMUNICATIONS
5
Meanwhile, in occupied areas such as Germany, Austria and
Japan, U.S. Military Government through its Information Control
Divisions was carrying on extensive work with respect to press,
radio and film. In the later Military Government period, the ex-
change of persons program was begun. Thus a broad basis was
laid for the subsequent informational and cultural activities which
the Department of State undertook in those countries.
Likewise the Marshall Plan for European recovery, proposed in
1947, brought with it renewed need for U.S. information services
abroad. With the coming of the "cold war," the Berlin blockade
and the Communist military aggression in Korea, the need was
further accentuated. In April 1951, after
In April 1951, after the Korean war
began, the United States created the Psychological Strategy Board
to operate under the National Security Council. The Departments
of State and of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency are
represented on the Board. The Board is being continued by the
Eisenhower Administration.15
At first Congress was reluctant to appropriate much money for
the various postwar informational and cultural programs. How-
ever, when members of Congress visited Europe and the Near East
in 1947, they were "amazed at the extent of misunderstanding and
wilful misrepresentation of the United States which they found
abroad." This led to the passage of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948,
the declared purpose of which is "to promote the better un-
derstanding of the United States among the peoples of the world
and to strengthen cooperative international relations."
The Smith-Mundt Act created the United States Advisory
Commission on Information and charged it with recommending to
the Secretary of State the policies and programs needed to im-
plement the law. The Commission was required to transmit to the
Congress a semiannual report covering all activities carried on
under the authority of the act, together with appraisals as to their
effectiveness.¹7
15 See Anthony Leviero, "U.S. to Take Offensive in Psychological War," New
York Times, International Edition Supplement, February 1, 1953.
18 George V. Allen, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, "U.S. Informa-
tion Program," Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 472, p. 88, July 18, 1948.
17 The Commission's first Semiannual Report to the Congress was issued in March
1949. For the purpose of opening wider channels of contact with appropriate profes-
sional and private sources, the Commission in 1951 recommended and the Department
appointed a number of advisory committees. These include Radio, Ideological, Film,
Press and Publications, Public Relations and others. In its latest report (February
1953), the Commission proposed that the Voice of America and all other overseas
information programs be placed in a new federal agency at cabinet level. New York
Times, February 22, 1953.
6
CO
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
The subject is also treated in various articles in the Department
of State Bulletin as well as in other publications of the Depart-
ment.18 For example, under the caption "U.S. Information Pro-
grams at Home and Abroad," the December 22, 1952 number of
the Bulletin contains two addresses. The first, by Joseph B.
Phillips, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs,
describes the domestic information programs of the Department
of State. The second, by Reed Harris, Acting Deputy Administrator
of the International Information Administration, discusses the
overseas information activities which carry on the "Campaign of
Truth.¹ These include the publication of magazines, cartoon books,
photo pamphlets, leaflets and educational materials in many lan-
guages; the radio-the Voice of America; documentary motion
pictures; overseas information centers; and the exchange of
persons.20
The magnitude of U. S. international information and educa-
tional exchange programs is shown by the following table, arranged
by fiscal years. The low point was the fiscal year 1948 when
the personnel numbered approximately 2,500.
USIE Personnel and Appropriations, 1947 to 1952
Authorized Personnel
Appropriation Amount
Year
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
4,118
6,030
10,807
11,566
$ 24,659,778
20,730,000
31,180,900
47,300,000
121,301,789
85,000,000
The following may be cited: World Audience for the Voice of America, 16 pp.,
May 1, 1950, published by the Office of International Information; "Report on Audi-
ence Mail," 30 pp. mimeo., February 1951, prepared by Program Evaluation Branch,
International Broadcasting Division; Waging the Truth Campaign, International In-
formation and Cultural Series 22, Pub. 4575, 70 pp., 1952, Eighth Semiannual Report
of the Secretary of State to Congress on the International Information and Educa-
tional Exchange Program, July 1-December 31, 1951; Crusade of Ideas, address of
Wilson Compton, Administrator, International Information Administration, before
annual convention of AMVETS, Grand Rapids, August 29, 1952, 13 pp., Publication
4696, Division of Publications, Office of Public Affairs. See also "The Voice of
America Goes to Sea," The Voice of America, July-August 1952, pp. 2-3; and Foy
D. Kohler, Chief, International Broadcasting Division, “The Voice of America:
Spokesman for the Free World," Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science,
Vol. XXIV, January 1951, pp. 92-99.
"The phrase was President Truman's, coined on April 20, 1950.
20 "U.S. Information Programs at Home and Abroad," Department of State Bulletin,
Vol. XXVII, No. 704, pp. 971-979, December 22, 1952.
"Howland H. Sargeant, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, "The Overt Inter-
national Information and Educational Exchange Programs of the United States,"
Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXVI, No. 666, pp. 483-489, March 31, 1952.
MASS COMMUNICATIONS
7
It must not be thought that the above table reflects the full
scale of operations in Germany. Until September 1949, when
Military Government was replaced by the Allied High Commis-
sion, the Department of the Army had responsibility for OMGUS
(as the Office of Military Government for Germany (US) was
called) and for its Information Control Division. While Military
Government salaries came from dollar appropriations, various
other outlays were paid with German marks. These marks were
either occupation cost marks or counterpart marks. Thus up to
December 31, 1948, some of the expenses of conducting the in-
formation program in Germany were charged to occupation costs
and hence to the German taxpayers, but this practice was
discontinued at that time except for minor items which could not
be separated.
Counterpart marks were of two kinds-GARIOA and ECA.
GARIOA (Government and Relief in Occupied Areas) funds were
appropriated by Congress and were used to purchase goods for
relief and reconstruction in occupied areas. In Germany the goods.
were sold for marks which represented the counterpart of their
dollar value. These marks were not transferred back to the United
States but were placed in a special account in Germany and were
used to finance various U.S. activities there.
ECA (Economic Cooperation Administration) counterpart
marks were another major source of local currency funds. By
agreement with the West German Government, mark funds.
resulting from the sale by ECA of Marshall Plan materials were
placed in three accounts in the Bank deutscher Laender. Five
percent of the funds was reserved for the expenses of the ECA
Mission in Germany; 25 percent for various U.S. Government
activities, including HICOG programs; and 70 percent for invest-
ment by the West German Government, subject to the approval
of the U.S. Government.
GARIOA and ECA counterpart marks financed a large part
of the OMGUS and HICOG information programs. However, in
the fiscal year 1953, these local currency accounts were rapidly
approaching exhaustion. Many of the projects formerly financed
from them had to be discontinued or transferred to German
organizations which had money and were willing to support them,
or financed by direct dollar appropriations from Congress. After
June 30, 1953, there will be no more counterpart funds for HICOG
or its successor agency.
8
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Whether expressed in dollars, marks or other units, it is
apparent that the U.S. international informational and cultural
activities cost large sums.22 Is the money well spent? Is it possible
to evaluate the results achieved? These questions have often been
raised by those responsible for the programs, by Congress and by
the American public at large. During 1951, program evaluation was
especially stressed. However, field personnel often did not have
the necessary training or access to proper facilities for such
evaluation. The Department of State issued two publications
designed to assist field personnel in this work. The first was
Guides in Influencing Mass Opinion; it was written by one of the
members of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Information and
was given wide circulation among personnel abroad. The second
entitled, Are We Hitting the Target?, was prepared for the
Department of State by the Bureau of Applied Research of Co-
lumbia University, under the direction of Stanley Bigman.23 It
outlined the methods which had been developed for measuring the
effects of mass media of communication. In its sixth report, the
U.S. Advisory Commission on Information pointed out the
progress made in evaluating programs through several special
studies and through the establishment of an evaluation staff.
However, it emphasized the need for more studies to ascertain
changes of public opinion abroad over a period of several years.
The same subject was among those treated at the Public Affairs
Officers Conferences in Europe held in Bad Godesberg, December
1-5, 1952 and in Brussels, December 8-12.
24
In Germany, the Department of State inherited in 1949 an
information program which had been operated by Military
Government since the end of the war and which in many respects.
was larger than the U.S. information programs of the Department
in other parts of the world. The transfer came at the time of the
abolition of Military Government and the establishment of the
Allied High Commission and the West German Federal Govern-
ment.
"In a letter published in The New York Times on March 9, 1952, Albert G. Sims,
Acting Director of the German Public Affairs Program in the Department of State,
stated: "The German media of information-the press, radio and films have been
re-created as effective public service institutions. This has been done with generous
American assistance. Since 1945 well over $100,000,000 in United States and German
counterpart currency has been spent in this endeavor."
21 Are We Hitting the Target?, Department of State publication, August 1, 1951,
p. 149 (For Official Use Only).
24 U.S. Advisory Commission on Information, Sixth Semiannual Report to the
Congress, July 1, 1952.
MASS COMMUNICATIONS
9
Under the encouragement of the Allies, the authority of the
West German Government increased rapidly. A particurlarly
important date was the signing of the Contractual Agreements on
May 26, 1952. Although these have not yet been ratified by
all the signatory powers, the whole atmosphere is now very
different from what it was in 1949, to say nothing of 1945.
Such changes naturally involve continuous study and adjust-
ment of information programs. From 1949 onward, some projects
were eliminated, others were intensified, and still others were
turned over to full German support and control. The strategic
position of Germany in Western Europe, and especially Berlin as
an outpost of the West well behind the "Iron Curtain," made the
German program a very important part of the world program. The
Department of State was influenced by this large experiment in
Germany in reshaping its own global activities in the information
field, while at the same time the organization in Germany was
being brought into line with the Department's world-wide policies
and programs.
÷
CHAPTER II
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM IN GERMANY BEFORE 1945
The history of press, radio and film in Germany before 1945
may conveniently be divided into two parts, the first dealing with
the period prior to 1933, and the second covering the Nazi regime
(1933-1945). It was under the National Socialist dictatorship that
the main developments in radio and film as mass communications
media took place.
Mass Communications Media before 1933
From the time of Gutenberg in the fifteenth century to the In-
dustrial Revolution, there was a steady growth in the amount of
printed materials but it was expensive and the reading au-
dience was small. With the Industrial Revolution came technical
improvements in printing and an increase in the number of literate
persons. Educational opportunities continued to expand so that by
the late nineteenth century, the German press could be regarded
as a mass communications medium. To this, the motion picture
and the radio were added in the course of the twentieth century.
Meta
The first half of the nineteenth century was characterized by
revolutionary movements in Germany and other European coun-
tries. Governments, which remembered only too well the French
Revolution, did not hesitate to restrict or control the press. This
prevented or greatly hampered newspapers from becoming ef-
fective political instruments. Not until 1848 was even partial free-
dom of the press achieved in Germany.
P
A more important milestone was the German Press Law of
May 7, 1874 which declared, "The freedom of the press is subject
only to the limitations set forth or admitted in the present law."
Although this legislation brought less freedom than existed in the
United States, it represented progress for Germany since it abol-
ished censorship and the so-called preventive system. On the other
hand, it contained clauses which enabled undesired persons to be
BEFORE 1945
11
kept out of press activities and it exposed publishers to police
measures. Penalties were provided for printing libelous, obscene
or treasonable matter, for committing crimes such as inciting riot,
and for revealing troop movements in time of war or danger of
war. The law could be suspended in periods of emergency or inter-
nal disturbance. The police could seize a newspaper without a
court order if they thought the regulations were being violated but,
if the courts did not confirm the seizure within a few days, the
newspaper could again start circulation. Since there was no pro-
vision for recovery of damages against police officials who over-
stepped their duty, it is easy to see how the police by repeated
stoppages might in fact suppress a newspaper altogether.
The practical application of the Press Law of 1874 left much
to be desired. The attempted murder of Emperor William I in 1878
gave Bismarck the opportunity to suppress the Social Democratic
press. A few months later (October 1878), the Law against Social-
ists was enacted and was not repealed until 1890. Only two out
of 47 Social Democratic newspapers were able to continue publica-
tion during this period.
C
The Weimar Republic (1918-1933) retained the Press Law of
1874 but it was administered in conformity with the elaborate
Bill of Rights laid down in the Constitution of 1919. This was
particularly true of the period from 1924 to 1930 when the German
press enjoyed unprecedented freedom. The government left prop-
aganda to the various political parties with the result that those
parties which opposed democracy used their constitutional guar-
antees of freedom of speech and the press to undermine the Repub-
lic.
This was not hard to do since, in accordance with German
tradition, the political parties controlled newspaper and motion
picture combines. The Social Democrats controlled about one hun-
dred newspapers through the Konzentration Aktiengesellschaft;
the Communists had the Kosmos Verlag; while the Nationalists
through the Scherl Verlag had large parts of the metropolitan and
provincial press. Through Alfred Hugenberg, various news and
advertising agencies serving the provincial press, and an inter-
national news service, the Telegraphen Union, were controlled.
Hugenberg, the leader of the Nationalist groups of industrialists.
and Junkers, also played a leading role in the German motion
picture industry.
12
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
On the other hand, the radio was organized as the Reichsrund-
funkgesellschaft. It was a government controlled corporation sup-
ported by the Reich and by a small rental fee paid by the owner
of every radio set. The government, however, did not make use
of the radio as a political instrument; it left this opportunity to the
political parties, notably the Social Democrats, the Communists,
the Nationalists and the Nazis.
Since the government exercised no political control over any
of these fields, censorship of press and radio was unknown, and
film censorship by the ministry of the interior was limited to moral
grounds. The only attempt of the government to explain its own
stand to the public was the establishment of the office of press
chief in the Reich Chancellery. This agency was in charge of of-
'ficial releases to the home press and of issuing information leaflets
through the Reichszentrale fuer Heimatdienst. Under these cir-
cumstances, effective propaganda could be spread only by those
parties which had a clear conception of the opportunities afforded
by mass communications media. The National Socialists and the
Communists seemed to have this. Within their respective parties,
they each had a propaganda department handling mass propaganda
by radio, press and motion pictures."
25
The National Socialist Regime
The coming of the Nazis to power was very soon followed by
the abolition of freedom of the press. A law of September 22, 1933
stripped the publishers of their authority and made them merely
nominal heads of their newspapers. Journalists and editors were
still paid by the publisher but they were primarily responsible to
the state and he could not hire or dismiss them. The government
operated through the Ministry of Propaganda, the under secretary
of which was both party press chief and government press chief.
He exercised complete control over the domestic and foreign press,
including periodicals.
26
In the Weimar Republic, broadcasting had played only a limited
role as a propaganda weapon. Under the Nazis, the Reichsrund-
funkgesellschaft was fully centralized and the semi-independent
regional companies became branch offices. The Post Office
continued to look after the technical side, but the Broadcasting
25 Germany: Civil Affairs Handbook, Section 12, "Communications and Control of
Public Opinion," Army Service Forces Manual, M-356-12, April 4, 1944.
26 Ibid.
BEFORE 1945
13
f
Division of the Ministry of Propaganda directed all foreign and
domestic programs. The staffs of the Broadcasting Division and of
the Reichsrundfunkgesellschaft were practically identical. The
whole was administered by the Director General and his assistant,
the Reichsintendant. Sendeleiter (broadcast supervisors) and the
Intendanten of the regional stations were selected by the Ministry
of Propaganda from politically reliable elements. The broadcasting
personnel was closely supervised by the party-controlled organiza-
tions to which the individual performers were forced to belong
according to their profession or art. For example, only musicians
belonging to the Reich Musikkammer were permitted to appear
before the microphone. Party control was exercised through the
NSDAP Amtleitung Rundfunk.
The Nationalist, Alfred Hugenberg, had recognized the immense
importance of the film as a propaganda instrument. In 1916, he
founded the Deutsche Lichtbildgesellschaft. In 1927, when the
largest German film company, the Universum Film Aktiengesell-
schaft (UFA), was in financial distress, the Hugenberg combine
secured control of 75 percent of the capital stock, thus dominating
the greater part of the German film industry.
By an order of November 1, 1933, the Nazis "coordinated" the
industry, economically, technically and psychologically. The Reich
Film Law emphasized the part which the state was to play in
"making a cultural heritage" of that which before had been
largely commercial. Hugenberg resigned from the UFA board of
directors in 1937. Up to the time of its reorganization in 1942, UFA
had extended its control over a large number of rivals, including
83 companies covering every field of the industry. Complete
nationalization was achieved in the spring of 1943 with the
setting up of the UFA-Film G.m.b.H., the Deutsche Filmtheater
G.m.b.H., and the Deutscher Filmverleih. The political control
of films and film personnel differed little from the parallel
systems in other fields of culture. The Propaganda Ministry
through the Reichsfilmintendant (1942) had responsibility for
"general planning and production, guidance of aesthetic and spir-
itual aspects of production, and supervision of artistic personnel
as well as the furtherance of recruiting for the profession."""
27 Germany Basic Handbook (British), Chapter XII, "Press and Propaganda, Min-
istry of Economic Warfare," July 1944.
CHAPTER III
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
With the unconditional surrender of the National Socialist
Reich (May 7-8, 1945), the German nation experienced a complete
political, economic and social collapse. A great silence fell upon
the land, broken neither by artillery fire nor by the propaganda
barrage of Dr. Goebbels. In part, the silence was imposed by the
victors. Military Government Law No. 191, as originally issued
by Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF)
on November 24, 1944, suspended all German information media. 28
Preparation had been made to fill this gap. Of primary importance
in the beginning was the need for informing the population of the
activities and requirements of the occupation forces.
The Press⁹9
Law No. 191 was amended on May 12, 1945 by slightly
changing the text of paragraph 1. The revised legislation continued
to prohibit all activities of the press, radio, motion picture produc-
tion and showing, the theater and all other communications media
but added "except as directed or authorized by Military Govern-
ment." Information Control Regulation No. 130 was issued to im-
plement Law No. 191. This regulation set forth the conditions
under which certain activities prohibited by Law No. 191 as
amended might take place under licenses granted by Military
Government.
-
of
2 For various Military Government laws and regulations in the U.S. areas
control, see Germany, 1947-1949: The Story in Documents, Department of State Pub-
lication 3556, European and British Commonwealth Series 9 (1950), pp. 594-607. See
also the following Reports of the Military Governor dealing with "Information Con-
trol"-Nos. 13, 24, 36, 48 (1946-1949). Of particular value is "The German Press in the
U.S. Occupied Area, 1945-1948," Special Report of the Military Governor, November
1948. This likewise contains the texts of relevant directives and regulations. For a
summary review of press, radio and film from 1945 to 1952, see the HICOG (final)
Report on Germany, September 21, 1949-July 31, 1952 (1952), pp. 61-82.
29 In 1944, there were about 1,500 German newspapers being published. See "The
German Press in the Occupied Area," op. cit., p. 1.
30 "Press Laws and Regulations," Information Control Regulation No. 1, undated,
Alles of HICOG Historical Division.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
15
1. Overt Publications
31
The prohibition of German information services from the moment
the Western Allies set foot on German soil and until the necessary
licensing procedure could be placed in effect created a gap which
was filled by "Overt Publications." From the beginning of the
occupation through August 1945, there were ten overt newspapers
published by U.S. Military Government. These German language
newspapers had reached a circulation of over 3,785,000 in the U.S.
Zone in August 1945. Gradually, however, the Army was able to
close out its newspapers following the early adoption of a policy
of a "German press run by Germans." The need for these military
sponsored papers vanished as the licensing program, provided in
the regulation, got under way. Six of these papers were abandoned
in October 1945 and three in November 1945, leaving only Die
Neue Zeitung, a twice-weekly publication in Munich (first pub-
lished on October 18, 1945) to be continued as an example of
American journalism.
Three overt magazines made their appearance in September
and October 1945: Heute, originally a monthly and then a bi-
weekly pictorial magazine; Amerikanische Rundschau, a magazine
issued every two months to appeal to readers in literary,
scientific and other fields; and Neue Auslese, a joint British-
American digest magazine. The objectives of these U.S. sponsored
and operated publications were two: (1) to take a positive approach
in supporting U.S. occupation and foreign policies; and (2) to
disseminate accurate political and other information about the
United States and other democracies as a means of combatting
totalitarianism. Subsequently Die Neue Zeitung expanded to three
daily editions, published in Munich, Frankfurt, and Berlin. Der
"Military Government Report No. 1, "Information Control," August 20, 1945. The
Military Government Reports cited in the footnotes of this chapter were issued by
the U.S. Group, Control Council, and its successor organization, the Office of Military
Government for Germany (US)—the latter usually referred to as "OMGUS." The title
and frequency of publication of the Report varied, Monthly Report of the Governor,
OMGUS, being the most common title.
The following ten overt newspapers were published by the U.S. Military Govern-
ment through August 1945, and were all discontinued by the end of November 1945:
Augsburger Anzeiger
Bayerischer Tag
Allgemeine Zeitung
Weser Bote
Frankfurter Presse
Sueddeutsche Mitteilungen
Hessische Post
Muenchener Zeitung
Regensburger Post
Stuttgarter Stimme
in Augsburg
in Bamberg
in Berlin
in Bremen
in Frankfurt
in Heidelberg
in Kassel
in Munich
in Straubing
in Stuttgart.
16
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Monat, a new overt political and cultural publication with an
international outlook, was started in October 1948.3
32
To the Western Allies, and the United States in particular,
a free press was an essential element in German reconstruction
along democratic lines. The first step in obtaining such a free
press was the substitution of a licensed German press for most
of the overt publications.
33
2. The Licensed Press
The first German newspaper in the U.S. Zone, the semiweekly
Frankfurter Rundschau, was licensed on July 31, 1945, with a
circulation of 415,000.34 During September, October and Novem-
ber, 19 more newspapers were licensed. Thus, every large city in
the U.S. Zone was furnished with its own newspaper. Three addi-
tional papers were licensed in Bavaria in December, bringing the
total licensed press to 23 with a combined circulation twice weekly
of 3,170,000 in addition to Die Neue Zeitung which at that time
had a U.S. Zone circulation of 1,300,000.35 From this time onward,
there was a steady growth of the licensed press in the U.S. Zone,
until 59 newspapers were being published at the end of licensing
in the summer of
of 1949. In most cases the U.S. licensed
several persons with different party affiliations to work on a
single newspaper. In addition to the controls exercised at head-
quarters and through field offices at Land level, Military gov-
ernment maintained press officers in every two or three Kreise
who provided direct supervision and assistance to newspapers
published in their respective areas.
mile
British Military Government proceeded more slowly, issuing
the first two licenses to publish newspapers in January 1946. At
that time 13 licensed non-party newspapers were being published
in the French Zone with a total circulation of 1,400,000. The
French appointed carefully chosen licensed editors for these non-
party newspapers and assigned a French expert to each of them
for direct supervision of the product.36
"These publications are further discussed in Chapter V.
"As explained later in this chapter, similar action was taken in the radio field
where the Voice of America (Die Stimme Amerikas) was the overt program. In
motion pictures, the World in Film (Die Welt im Film) became the principal overt
effort.
"Military Government Report No. 1, "Information Control," p. 4, August 20, 1945.
" Military Government Report No. 7, "Information Control," p. 6, January 1946.
" Interview with M. Vauthier, French Information Services Division, Bad Godes-
berg, September 26, 1950.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
17
Later, the British authorities appointed a licensing council
composed of German personnel. Since they favored party news-
papers on the ground that the political parties were entitled to
make their views known, the parties proposed candidates for
licenses to the British Information Services Division, which in
turn screened them and submitted the names of the eligibles to
the licensing council for final choice.""
British policy on party newspapers thus differed sharply from
that in the U.S. and French Zones. The OMGUS Information Control
Division (later, Information Services Division) strongly opposed
party newspapers, arguing that the British policy was a mistake.
The OMGUS Civil Administration Division dissented from this
view and maintained its position on the issue throughout most
of the Military Government period. However, OMGUS decided
that the German readers should be furnished a non-party approach
to the news. The Civil Administration Division pointed out that
the Germans had had both a non-party and a party press before
1933; if they desired the two again, they should have them so far
as the grave shortage of paper permitted. However, no strictly
party newspapers appeared until after the cessation of licensing.
3. German News Services
al
38
In June 1945, with the organization of the Deutsche All-
gemeine Nachrichten Agentur (DANA), the foundation was laid
by U.S. Military Government for a German news service. On
October 26, 1946, DANA, its name changed to DENA, was licensed
and turned over to the publishers of the 41 licensed newspapers
in the U.S. Zone. In June 1948, Military Government removed
its control officers and on August 18, 1949, DENA merged with
DPD (Deutscher Presse Dienst), its British Zone counterpart, and
SUEDENA (Sueddeutsche Nachrichten Agentur), its French Zone
counterpart. The new organization DPA (Deutsche Presse Agen-
tur) began operation on September 1, 1949.9
4. Military Government Control
Policy Instruction No. 3, which outlined in detail the re-
sponsibility of German licensees, was issued on September 30,
P
37 Interview with Lawrence Pope, British Information Services Division, Bonn,
September 26, 1950.
Government Report No. 17,
October-November 1948, "Information
Control."
"Military Government Report No. 49, September 1949, "Information Services."
3* Military
18
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
1946 by U.S. Military Government. On September 29, 1947, more
liberal instructions under the Military Government licensing
program were sent out.
Policy Instruction No. 3 of September 30, 1946, had stated that
"it is the purpose of the Military Government to allow increasing
freedoms and responsibilities in the information services at such
time and in such measure as those responsible for the operation
of information services give evidence of their readiness and their
fitness to assume them." Throughout this period, then, OMGUS
gradually shifted more and more responsibility to the German
licensees.
The entire period from May 1945 to July 1948 was char-
Jacterized by strict Allied control of all personnel and projects in
the publishing field." Printing paper at that time was extremely
scarce and control of available stocks of paper was carefully
regulated by Military Government. Paper was issued quarterly
to publishers for specific projects. In this way the edition size was
controlled and the space for commentary and advertising in each
publication whether newspaper or magazine was regulated. The
period was also characterized by strict control of content through
the medium of post-publication scrutiny. Violations of Law No. 191
and regulations thereunder brought reprimands to publishers and
in certain instances resulted in a reduction of the allocation of
paper or the withdrawal of licenses. The number of publishers to
whom licenses were issued was restricted because of the scarcity
of paper. This also served to keep a large number of persons,
whose publishing programs were insignificant, of slight general
interest, or of little reorientation value, from the publishing field.
On the other hand, the scarcity of paper prevented the devel-
opment of large general publishing houses.
From May 1945 to the currency reform of 1948, anything
printed, even on poor paper with bad print, low quality inks and
sub-standard illustrations, was sold out shortly after publication.
The general paper scarcity at the beginning of licensing was so
severe and money was so plentiful, that, with few consumer
goods available, publications were bought for wrapping and other
uses. Individuals often had extreme difficulty in getting a news-
paper at all because whole issues were bought up in a very brief
40 Allied Control Council Directive No. 40, October 12, 1946, established a broad
policy to be followed by German politicians and the press with respect to freedom
of expression.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
19
period of time for non-reader uses. It was therefore impossible
to estimate the percentage of circulation based on real reader
interest.
There was at this time a virtual monopoly in the publishing
industry among those persons who received licenses to publish.
The individual licensees were obviously given a tremendous busi-
ness advantage in the publishing field. On the other hand, Military
Government control over the publishing industry and the disloca-
tion of the economy prevented them from developing their new
firms according to their own wishes and also made it impossible
for them to estimate accurately their success as publishers.
5. Books and Periodicals
During the early period, a large number of individuals re-
quested licenses to publish books, periodicals and miscellaneous
items. However, the scrutiny necessary to grant such licenses
often delayed action. The first publishing license was granted on
July 13, 1945. By the end of November, 69 licensed publishers
were producing a small number of books and magazines of ex-
cellent content. Book dealers were also registered, the number
growing rapidly from a total of 240 on August 3, 1945 to more
than 4,000 in October 1945."¹
-
6. Background of Licensees
Editors and publishers for the licensed press were selected first
on the basis of their records of opposition to Nazism."2 Secondary
consideration was given to their professional qualifications. The
result was that men were licensed who had received their pub-
lishing experience largely in the Weimar Republic prior to 1933,
or who had been in active or sporadic underground work during
the period of National Socialism. Some had frequently suffered
arrests and long periods of confinement in concentration camps.
Many were of advanced age and had lost much of the vigor that
would have characterized a younger age group. Their experiences
arising out of the long period of inactivity during the Nazi regime
further detracted from their ability to resume the vigorous activity
required to hold their own in the difficult financial and political
world faced in the post-licensing period. The younger members
"Military Government Report No. 4, October 1945, "Information Control," p. 4.
42 Military Governor's Special Report, November 1948, "The German Press in the
U.S. Occupied Area 1945-1948."
20
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
of the group, on the whole, were inexperienced in writing and
editing as well as in the financial and management aspects of
publishing, although some of them demonstrated ability to make
rapid progress.
During the licensing period these publishers were subject to
rigid control in order to insure the eradication of Nazism and
because of scarce supplies and equipment. At the same time an
Deffort was made to train them in the tradition of a free press, to
encourage their independence and objectivity, and to assist them
in overcoming the physical obstacles of war-damaged printing
facilities and shortage of supplies."3 Because of the relationship
between the age, general background, and personal history of the
licensees and their ability to cope with the many adverse forces in
the post-licensing period, their personal history files have been
analyzed."
The records of 113 licenses were examined. Forty-three of
these were licensed in the year 1945, the balance during the pe-
ricd 1946-1949. Earliest licensing activity developed in Hesse. In
Bavaria and Wuerttemberg-Baden the greatest number of licenses
were issued after 1945.45
Hesse
Bavaria
་
Number of Licenses Issued
1945
Wuerttemberg-Baden
1946-49
18
12
19
31
6
27
Total
43
70
The average age of the 113 licensees studied was 49 years.
Bavarian licensees, with an average age of 51.9 years, at the time
of licensing, were the oldest group; Wuerttemberg-Baden ranked
next with an average age of 48.2; and Hesse followed with an
average age of 45.3. Because of the great uprooting of population.
Total
30
50
33
113
43 "HICOG ISD Press and Publications Report," April 1950.
"The HICOG ISD Press Branch Files contain the names of newspapers and
licensees as of December 1946, May 1949, and July 1950. The lists are not complete.
These files also include material relating to the establishment of the licensed press
since 1945, one file for each newspaper. Some files are incomplete. Additional informa-
tion in the files contain the personnel history of editors. applications for licenses, etc.
Some essential papers were missing.
45 Detailed information on the four licensees in Bremen was not available. The
number of licensees in Bremen, however, was so small that the conclusions drawn
here would be only slightly affected by their inclusion.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
21
which occurred during and after the war, about 50 percent of the
newspaper publishers were not "natives" of the Land in which
they operated. Bavaria had the greatest number of Catholic ed-
itors, reflecting the Catholic character of the majority of its pop-
ulation. Most of the Hessian licensees were persons who had
broken their church affiliations. In Wuerttemberg-Baden the data
are incomplete, but the figures available indicate an almost equal
distribution between Catholics and Protestants which corresponds
to the mixed religious character of this state.
Thirty-eight percent of the licensees had studied at universities
and 14 of them held doctorates. In addition, 11 of the licensees had
completed the Abitur (prerequisite for university entrance) but
did not attend a university. Twenty-two of the licensed editors
had only elementary educational training, coming mostly from
the working classes. They normally turned to journalism in the
course of their labor activities. About 75 percent of the li-
censees had previous publishing experience, although some of this
experience was meager.
The most active fighters against National Socialism came from
the Social Democratic and Communist parties. It is not surprising
therefore that, under the selection policy followed by Military
Government, a few Communists were found among the licensees
in Wuerttemberg-Baden and Hesse. In Bavaria, on the other hand,
where from the beginning Catholicism played an important role
in the internal resistance against Nazism, Catholic licensees were
strongly represented.
About four out of ten of the licensees served terms in con-
centration camps or labor camps or were arrested by the police
several times between 1933 and 1945. Many persons, who had to
leave government employment, turned to business life. Others,
not so fortunate, suffered from unemployment and had a difficult
time. The number who left Germany during the Nazi period and
returned after 1945 to engage in publishing work was very small.
It is clear that the group of licensees who offered active resistance
to the Nazis were, regardless of their motives, a courageous lot
who had to pay for their independent attitude. There were a very
few among them whose licenses were cancelled because Military
Government felt that they were developing Communist or other
anti-democratic tendencies.
22
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
7. Currency Reform and the Cessation of Licensing
During the months from June 1948 to the summer of 1949, the
period from currency reform" to the cessation of licensing, the
lifting of the controls on the production of paper eliminated the
necessity for Military Government to ration paper. Publishers
were left free to determine the edition size of any publication, its
frequency of appearance, the proportion of news and commentary
to advertising, the number of pages and the format. They could
likewise undertake new projects. Liberalization of licensing proce-
dures also characterized this period, Papers which formerly were
denied licenses now received favorable consideration and a whole
new crop of licensees entered the publishing field.
One of the most significant developments of this period was
a change from a "seller's market" to a "buyer's market." Due to
the scarcity of the new currency, people had to husband their
resources and publishers discovered that books, magazines and
newspapers apparently were not necessities of life. The currency
reform introduced the problem of risk. Book publishers found
great resistance to poorly finished books; periodical publishers
suffered severe shifting in subscriptions and had to cancel several
periodicals which up to that time had supported their firms. They
were now forced to gauge the public taste, and severe retrenche-
ment and caution were required.
8. Changes in U.S. Policy
The London meeting (November-December 1947) of the quad-
ripartite Council of Foreign Ministers, like its predecessors, ended
in failure because of Soviet obstruction. Britain, France, and the
United States thereupon decided to pursue their objectives in
Germany on a tripartite basis, a course which eventually led in
1949 to the establishment of the West German Federal Govern-
ment and the replacement of Military Government by the Allied
High Commission. The Soviet Union retaliated first by walking
out of the Allied Control Authority and then by imposing a
blockade on Berlin (1948-1949) which failed because of the Allied
airlift. The year 1948 thus marked the beginning of a new ap-
proach by the Western Allies to the German problem, an approach
which stressed the integration of Germany into the economy of
Western Europe. Currency reform was one indication of the
change.
40 See the Department of State Publication, Germany, 1947-1949: The Story in
Documents (1950), pp. 492-518, for the various documents relating to the currency
reform which began with Military Government Law No. 61, dated June 18, 1948.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
23
The United States had always aimed at the democratization of
Germany but in the early occupation years, much emphasis was
laid upon denazification, punishment of war criminals, restitution
and demilitarization. In the mass communications field, these
policies were reflected in a careful and cautious licensing pro-
gram, close supervision of licensees, and strictly enforced direc-
tives.
9. Decision to End Licensing
An important step in the new approach was the decision to
end licensing. A memorandum, issued September 30, 1948 by
the U.S. Military Governor, informed the Directors of the Land
Military Government Offices that OMGUS was preparing to
relinquish its licensing powers over newspapers, books, periodicals
and other publications as soon as adequate legislation to protect
the freedom of the press had been enacted It instructed the
Directors to consult with the Land Ministers President in order
to obtain the enactment of such legislation which should apply to
all products of the printing press and should conform with Military
Government policy as follows:"
a. Such legislation shall implement the general guarantees
of the free press as expressed in Land constitutions and shall
exclude the institution of any system of special licensing not
required of all other business enterprises.
b. Such legislation shall protect the press from governmental
domination or domination by special interests.
c. Such legislation shall guarantee the prerogatives of a free
press in obtaining and publishing information of public in-
terest.
d. Such legislation shall guarantee that there be no arbitrary
interference by the police or other administrative bodies in
the free flow and dissemination of news and printed matter.
e. Such legislation shall specifically exclude the revival of
honor courts, press chambers, or other forms of organized press
control exercised by the Nazi regime.
f. Such legislation shall prohibit censorship or control of the
content of news and published material except through legal
process in the event of a violation of existing laws regarding
libel, defamation, fraud, indecency, or breach of the peace.
47 Military Governor's Special Report, November 1948, "The German Press in the
U.S. Occupied Area." In the British and French Zones, the cessation of licensing
was accomplished by Military Government decree.
:
24
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
The program of setting the press free from controls, both
Allied and German, provoked various reactions. Thus a resolution
of the Bavarian Landtag, passed in October 1948, urged that Mili-
tary Government's licensing powers be transferred to German
authorities. On the other hand, the German press, accustomed to
over three years of protection by Military Government, was almost
unanimous in opposing the new policy. Fear was expressed that
the promised freedom might be reduced to naught by the resur-
gence of Nazism, the encroachment of government, the competition
of the resurrected pre-occupation press, and perhaps litigation by
the owners of the printing facilities which the licensees were using.
But the interest of the licensed publishers soon shifted from these
complaints to the struggle over legislation.
The securing of adequate press laws providing the necessary
guarantees required for Military Government approval led to
stormy scenes in Bremen, Bavaria, Hesse, and Wuerttemberg-
Baden. Protracted disputes in the state legislatures and occasional
public wrangling among government officials, party leaders and
press drew a sharp rebuke from Military Government in March
1949. It was noted that the bills under consideration tended to
restrict rather than to protect freedom of the press. The Wuerttem-
berg-Baden press was particularly outspoken in its criticism of
various early drafts prepared in that state, pointing out that most
of them were based on the press legislation of 1874.
It was hoped that within a few months appropriate press laws
would be enacted in the several Laender and licensing could be
lifted. But, by the end of 1948, only Bremen had submitted a law
(passed on December 20) for approval by the Military Government
and that was judged unsuitable. Military Government objected to
Bremen's proposal because it retained Nazi-enacted amendments
to the German press law of 1874. It was considered that these
provisions would give the government too wide prerogatives for
action against newspapers and would thus permit a disguised kind
of censorship. One of these sections forbade the printing of any-
thing likely "to weaken the power of the German Reich in its
foreign or domestic relations."As indicated later, this law was
revised and subsequently received OMGUS approval.48
The first Land to enact a satisfactory press law was Wuerttem-
berg-Baden. Military Government observed that the law did not
clearly guarantee the prerogative of a free press in obtaining and
18 Military Government Information Services Cumulative Review No. 48, p. 6,
July 1 1948-June 30, 1949.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
25
publishing information of public interest and did not prohibit the
imposition of special taxes. However, it was not felt that the
provisions were unduly objectionable and consequently it was
approved and passed on March 24, 1949.
One feature questioned by some members of the press was
Article 8. This contained the often criticized "rebuttal clause"
which, in accordance with German tradition, was incorporated into
press legislation. This clause ran as follows:
Publication of Counter-Statements
1. Each responsible editor of a periodical, if asked to do so
by the public authority or private person concerned, shall be
bound to publish a statement presenting facts contrary to
those published by the periodical, without making insertions
or omissions, provided this counter-statement is signed by the
remitter, contains no legal offense and is limited to the pres-
entation of facts.
2. Publication must be effected in the issue which follows
next the receipt of the counter-statement and is not yet ready
to go to the press; it shall be made in the same section of the
periodical and in the same print as used for the article which
has prompted the counter-statement.
3. Publication shall be gratuitous, provided the reply does
not exceed the space used by the article which has prompted
the counter-statement; for the lines exceeding that space the
usual fees shall be charged.
Inclusion of this "rebuttal clause" caused some hesitation on
the part of Military Government but the law finally received its
approval, thus giving a "go ahead" signal to the other Land gov-
ernments."
The passage of press laws in Hesse, Bavaria, and Bremen
followed shortly. In Hesse there was a strong feeling among Ger-
man politicians that press licensing, rather than be abolished,
should be transferred to the Germans. Drafting of the Hesse Law
was undertaken during a period of hostility between the press and
state officials. This began when newspapers demanded the resigna-
tion of department heads accused of diverting food supplies. In
reprisal, the Land Minister President demanded a press law with
strict penal clauses to prevent future attacks on government offi-
cials.
"Military Government Report No. 47, May 1949, p. 46.
26
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
The first draft of the press law made public by the Ministry
of Interior did not require government agencies to provide in-
formation, and omitted stipulations protecting the press against
pressure by government officials and influential economic groups.
However, later drafts contained clauses at least nominally cov-
ering the requirements of Military Government. A draft passed
by the Landtag on May 4, 1949 was not acceptable to OMGUS. It
carried strict penalties for press attacks against government offi-
cials and contained the rebuttal clause. On recommendations of
the cabinet, the Landtag removed the penal stipulations but mere-
ly reworded the rebuttal clause. This law was approved by
OMGUS and went into effect on July 22, 1949.50
The first draft of the Bavarian press law, which appeared in
early 1949, provided primarily punitive stipulations against the
press rather than guarantees of its freedom. A revision was made
on the basis of the recommendation of the Bavarian Journalists
Association and in this form it was enacted by the Landtag as a
law on July 5, 1949, becoming effective August 22, 1949. The
Bavarian law, unlike those which preceded it, replaced the Press
Law of 1874. For this reason, its provisions were spelled out in
greater detail than in the press laws of the other Laender. The
rebuttal clause was included, but contained certain protective
stipulations. Editors were guaranteed the right to refuse to divulge
the person "of the author, sender, or informant of a publication
made in the editorial section." A number of sections specified the
grounds for punishment and the extent to which newspaper ed-
itors, publishers, and printers could be made liable. Military Gov-
ernment insisted that two sections of the law as adopted by the
Landtag be cancelled. These required responsible editors to be
more than 25 years of age and to be domiciled in Bavaria.
The Bavarian law was followed by the Bremen press law on
September 5, 1949. This date, therefore, marked the end of li-
censing controls.
10. Cessation of Licensing
Military Government relinquishment of licensing powers was
accomplished through General Licenses Nos. 1, 2 and 3. General
License No. 1, dated May 1, 1949 and effective on the same date,
permitted any person not otherwise prohibited by German or
Military Government law to publish information bulletins of
50 Gesetz ueber Freiheit und Recht der Presse in Hessen vom 23. Juni 1949, Hes-
sisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt, p. 75.
·
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
27
registered business or trade associations, directories, time tables,
letter heads, business cards, games and other similar materials.
General License No. 2, issued and effective on May 1, 1949, per-
mitted theater and musical activities prohibited by Military Gov-
ernment Law No. 191 as amended and Information Control
Regulation No. 1 as amended. It too was applicable to the four
Laender in the U.S. areas of control.
General License No. 3 was issued on May 2, 1949 and covered
the publishing of newspapers, magazines, periodicals, books, pam-
phlets, posters, printed music and other printed or otherwise
mechanically reproduced publications. General License Nos. 2 and
3, however, contained the proviso that persons engaged in these
activities must conform with Section 6 of Information Control
Regulation No. 3 as amended forbidding information activity
which:
a. Incites to riot or resistance to Military Government,
jeopardizes the occupying troops, or otherwise endangers mil-
itary security;
b. Propagates former National Socialist or related ideas,
such as racism and race hatred, or propagates any fascist or
anti-democratic ideas, or any militarist ideas, or Pan-Ger-
manism or German imperialism;
c. Constitutes a malicious attack upon policies or personnel
of Military Government, aims to disrupt unity among the
Allies, or seeks to evoke the distrust and hostility of the
German people against any Occupying Power;
d. Appeals to Germans to take action against democratic
measures undertaken by Military Government.
A sizable number of OMGUS officials thought that the deci-
sion to cease licensing in the summer of 1949 was premature. They
feared a return of the Nazi publishers, and a replacement of the
ex-licensed press by the old type of nationalistic papers. The ces-
sation of licensing also greatly alarmed the licensed press; the
forced lease contracts might not last and keen competition would
come from the many new persons entering the publishing field.
General Clay, however, felt that licensing should be discontinued
because a free press was absolutely essential. However, it was
desirable that licensees should be able to continue in competition
with certain Nazi owners, who would try to get their plants back.
Hence provision was made for mandatory leases of limited duration
28
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
in those cases in which the licensee and owners of the plants could
not come to terms.
As will be noted later, the cessation of licensing was well-timed
and the fears and suspicions voiced by those who opposed the step
have not been borne out by the experience since the step was
taken. The British and French experience in this field has been
similar to that of the United States.
The Radio under Military Government
When American troops entered Munich, Frankfurt, and Stutt-
gart where the principal radio stations had been located under the
Nazis, they found the radio installations partly destroyed, and
movable equipment scattered in various hiding places. The first
step was to bring these stations into operation as quickly as pos-
sible, because this means of communication was essential in broad-
casting Military Government proclamations, announcements, and
warnings to the population of defeated Germany. Within a period
of about one month, temporary broadcasting facilities had been
established. At first the stations were operated by U.S. personnel,
but as rapidly as Germans could be found and trained, they were
used as replacements,52 a step particularly necessary with the
rapid demobilization of the U.S. Army.53
From the outset, the four occupying powers were unable to
agree on the coordination of radio broadcasting. It was finally
decided that each power would have charge of radio within its
own area. U.S. policy sought the development of a decentralized
radio as a public service entirely free of government control and
administered independently in each Land.
After the initial stage, the German staff was made responsible
for program production, and the American control officers limited
their functions to the supervision of operations and the pre-broad-
cast scrutiny of programs, especially news and commentaries. By
selecting politically and professionally qualified Germans and
carefully guiding their efforts, the information control officers
were able to evolve programs which later became important in-
struments in carrying out the U.S. mission in Germany. Among
other things, cultural exchange was undertaken by which Amer-
51 Lucius D. Clay, Decision in Germany (Doubleday 1950), p. 288.
"Radio Luxembourg was discontinued as a U.S. station shortly after the end of
the war.
"The present section is based on the following Reports of the Military Governor
dealing with "Information Control"-Nos. 13, 24, 36, 48 (1946-1949).
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
29
ican and foreign radio experts were brought to Germany as visit-
ing consultants, and German broadcasters were sent abroad to
study practices in democratic countries.
Throughout the four years of Military Government, the occupa-
tion controls were progressively relaxed and the stations were
eventually turned back to the Germans. However, Military Gov-
ernment withheld final transfer until adequate Land laws guar-
anteeing the freedom of radio broadcasting had been enacted.
After transfer, the following functions were retained:
1. The production of and arrangement for programs and
announcements designated by Military Government to be
broadcast by the German radio institution;
2. Monitoring and post-scrutiny of German broadcasts
deemed essential by Land Military Governments to determine
conformance with Information Control Regulation No. 3 under
Military Government Law No. 191, as revised, and with the
German radio legislation under which the broadcasting institu-
tion was established, as well as other Military Government
legislation, and investigation, reporting and recommendation
connected therewith;
3. Consultation with and assistance to German radio broad-
casting institutions on programming and technical matters
pertaining to programs designated by Military Government
and on such other matters when advice is requested by the
German radio institution; and
4. Carrying out technical operation control, inluding secu-
rity measures, at transmitter installations when the German
radio transmitters were used for U.S. Government require-
ments.
•
1. RIAS
The development of RIAS in Berlin (Rundfunk im amerikani-
schen Sektor) has differed from the other stations in the U.S. areas
of responsibility. In the fall of 1945, when it became apparent
that the Soviet Union would not relinquish unilateral control of
Radio Berlin, U.S. Military Government decided to establish its
own radio service. This went into operation on February 7, 1946,
utilizing the wired radio (Drahtfunk) method of transmitting a
The English title of RIAS is "Radio in the American Sector." It will be recalled
that, since the summer of 1945, Berlin has been divided into four sectors-American,
British, French, and Soviet.
30
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
daily schedule of programs over the Berlin city telephone network.
After several months of experience, it was found that the pro-
grams were not readily available to a large audience, chiefly
because of the scarcity of telephones. Hence on September 5, 1946,
the station changed its name to RIAS with transmission on a
1,000 watt broadcast transmitter. RIAS has continued to the
present as an overt U.S. operation. It will be more fully discussed
in another Historical Division monograph now in preparation
which deals with U.S. information programs in Berlin.
2. Return of Radio to German Control
The preparation for the transfer of the radio stations to Ger-
man control was one of the most delicate tasks encountered by
Military Government. German officials and legislators felt that
they should determine what the people were to hear. They found
it difficult to accept the concept of radio as a public service in-
stitution governed by a body which represented, as nearly as pos-
sible, a cross section of the varied elements in the community
served. It required over two years of proposals and counter-
proposals between the Laender and Military Government officials
before satisfactory legislation was produced. During this period,
much work was done with Landtag committees in an endeavor to
convince them of the desirability of a decentralized radio without
government control.
At only one time did U.S. information control personnel
waver in their championship of the cause and that was during
the Berlin blockade. Many Americans then began to fear that,
since radio stations were most important assets in the "cold war,"
perhaps they had been wrong in urging decentralization and in
offering to turn the stations over to the Germans at such an early
date. Subsequent developments did not justify the fear. Satisfac-
tory radio legislation was finally passed in all the Laender; be-
tween January and July 1949, the radio stations were officially
turned over to the Germans. In compliance with specific Military
Government recommendations, the radio laws expressly forbid
the editorializing of news reports. On controversial matters affect-
ing the public interest, there had to be an equitable allocation of
air time to all points of view.55
55 "Military Government Monthly Report on Information Services," June 1949. See
also Ruby A. Parson, "Radio in the U.S. Zone of Germany," Department of State
Bulletin, Vol. XXI, No. 525, pp. 83-85, July 25, 1949.
UNDER MILITARY GOVERNMENT
31
Although the laws of the several Laender differ in minor
respects, in general each permits the operation of the radio station
under the direction of a representative council functioning as a
board of directors. To insure equitable representation of the
public interest, these radio councils are composed of delegates
proposed for appointment by various cultural, educational and
economic groups or agencies and include one representative of the
Land government. However, delegates are pledged to serve the
general public interest regardless of their personal or political
connections. To carry out its policies, the radio council appoints
a station manager (Intendant) and an administrative council.
Name under
U.S. Control
The following table indicates the dates when the radio passed
to German control in the various Laender:
Radio Munich
Radio Frankfurt
Radio Bremen
Radio Stuttgart
Date Passage
of Legislation
Aug. 10, 1948
Oct. 2, 1948
Date German
Station Began
Operation
Jan. 25, 1949
Jan. 28, 1949
Nov. 18, 1948 April 5, 1949
April 6, 1949 July 22, 1949
German
Name
Bayerischer
Rundfunk
Hessischer
Rundfunk
Radio Bremen
Sueddeutscher
Rundfunk
Motion Pictures under Military Government
After the defeat of Germany in 1945, the Allied authorities
blocked all film property belonging to the Reich or controlled by
it." A German trustee committee was put in charge of its admin-
istration. New film companies had to be licensed. With the dis-
appearance of the Berlin studios behind the Iron Curtain, the
Munich Geiselgasteig studios became the most important in West
Germany. Other West German film centers were in the order of
Kadan
56 The present section is based on the following Reports of the Military Governor
dealing with "Information Control"—Nos. 13, 24, 36, 48 (1946-1949).
57 Being Reich owned, the extensive properties of the UFA-Film G.m.b.H. (pro-
ducers), Deutsche Film Theater G.m.b.H. (theaters), and Deutscher Film Verleih (dis-
tributors) were taken under control of Military Government under Military Govern-
ment Law No. 52 of July 14, 1945. See Military Government Gazette Issue A, p. 24,
June 1, 1946.
32
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
importance: Hamburg, Goettingen, Berlin-Tempelhof, Duessel-
dorf, and Wiesbaden, but these latter studios, in contrast to
Munich, were built and equipped after 1945.
The screening of film people was a long and difficult task,
since the industry had been completely dominated by the Third
Reich, and nearly all actors, producers and writers had been forced
to take some part in the National Socialist movement. Military
Government policy was more concerned with laying a sound basis
for a democratic film industry than with rushing production. More-
over, higher priority was given to other fields, such as the press
and education.58 The severest blow to the new film industry after
1945 was the partial dismantling of the main Berlin film center
and the subsequent utilization of the remaining property by the
Communist-dominated DEFA firm." Another serious problem
grew out of the fact that stocks of raw color film and the I.G.
Farben plant which made it were in the Soviet Zone.
General License No. 2 of May 1, 1949 permitted the resumption
of all theater and music activities prohibited by Military Govern-
ment Law No. 191, as amended, and Information Control Regula-
tion No. 3, as amended (2). The General License was applicable
in the four Laender of the United States areas of responsibility.
Add
Currency reform in June 1948 and the cessation of licensing in
May 1949 were major events in the film industry. Prior to June
1948 only eight films had been released by the German film in-
dustry; and British and U.S. companies were not anxious to send
their best films to Germany.
58 HICOG, "ISD Motion Picture Reports." September-December 1949.
5 “DEFA” stands for Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft. It was licensed by Soviet
Military Government on May 17, 1946 to operate in the Soviet Zone and Berlin. See
Walter Busse, "Die DEFA. Gelenkte Kunst auf der Leinwand." Der Monat, Vol. V.
No. 49, October 1952, pp. 75-88. This article gives an interesting account of a film
monopoly.
CHAPTER IV
ORGANIZATION AND POLICIES OF THE OFFICE
OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
The establishment of the HICOG Office of Public Affairs
marked a new phase of U.S. activities in Germany more closely
aligned with world-wide Department of State information opera-
tions. In preparation for the transfer from Military Government,
the Department sent the U.S. Information and Exchanges Survey
Mission to Germany in the summer of 1949 to secure data and
make a tentative evaluation." The final report of the Survey Mis-
sion contains valuable material on OMGUS organization and pro-
grams in the public affairs field." It was extensively used in plan-
ning the Office of Public Affairs which brought together under
one director functions previously divided among several OMGUS
divisions."
G
OMGUS Organization in 1949
In 1949, the public affairs area was represented in the OMGUS
organization primarily by three agencies-the Office of Public
Information, the Education and Cultural Relations Division, and
the Information Services Division." The Office of Public Informa-
tion was responsible for official liaison with the press and for the
60 The members of the Mission were: Lloyd A. Lehrbas, Director of the Office of
International Information, Chief of the Mission; Clarence Hendershot, Public Affairs
Policy Unit, Executive Secretary of the Mission; Mrs. Mildred E. Allen, Executive
Secretary of the Office of International Information Advisory Committee; Henry
J. Kellermann, Chief of the Division of German and Austrian Information and
Reorientation Affairs; Herbert T. Edwards, Chief of the Division of International
Motion Pictures; Lawrence S. Morris, Chief of the Division of International Libraries
and Institutes; Edward J. Kerrigan and Alfred Puhan, Division of International
Broadcasting; Henry Prager and David E. Warner, Division of International Press
and. Publications; and Joseph M. Roland, Division of International Exchange of
Persons.
81 “USIE Survey Mission, Report of July 21, 1949," in files of Office of Public Affairs.
"Ralph Nicholson was the first Director of the Office of Public Affairs. He was
followed by Shepard Stone, who served during the greater part of the HICOG period.
The present Director is Alfred V. Boerner.
"See OMGUS, Information Bulletin, April 5, 1949, pp. 13-22.
34
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
issuance of OMGUS news releases. The Education and Cultural
Relations Division" included education, youth and community
activities, religious affairs, women's affairs, and cultural affairs,
especially the exchange of persons.
The Information Services Division (ISD) was the successor
(August 1948) of the Information Control Division (ICD). The
latter had been created in June 1945 out of the Psychological
Warfare Division of SHAEF and was charged with supervising
and controlling German information media and with operating
such overt programs as might be desired by Military Government.
ISD was a staff division of OMGUS and in each Land there was
a corresponding Information Services Division as a part of the
staff of the Director of the Office of Land Military Government.
However, all overt information programs were the responsibility
of ISD-OMGUS. ISD had the following branches: Policy and Pro-
gramming; Opinion Surveys; Editorial Projects; Information Cen-
ters and Exhibitions; U.S. Feature Service (Amerika-Dienst); Mo-
tion Pictures; Radio; Press; Publications; Publishing Operations;
and Fiscal and Budget Control. The American personnel in ISD
numbered over 200 while the German staff was more than 2,000.
U.S. Information Policies
During the early years of the occupation, OMGUS information
policies were based on such documents as the April 1945 Directive
to the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Forces of Occupation; the
Potsdam Agreement of August 1945; and the 1946 Long-Range
Policy Statement for German Re-education." The April 1945
Directive was subsequently replaced by the July 1947 Directive
which, inter alia, laid the basis for the exchanges program." Men-
tion should also be made of the Military Government Regulations,
especially Titles 1 (General Provisions), 8 (Education and Reli-
gious Affairs), and 21 (Information Control).
"The Education and Cultural Relations Division was created in Febfuary 1948 out
of the Education and Religious Affairs Branch, Internal Affairs and Communications
Division.
65 “SHAEF” stands for Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces.
• For the texts of these documents, see Germany, 1947-1949, op. cit., pp. 21-33, 47-57,
541-542. The 1945 Directive of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is usually cited as JCS 1067.
The Long-Range Policy Statement was prepared by the State-War-Navy Coordinating
Committee, Policy Statement No. 269 (SWNCC 369/5); it was released to the press
August 21, 1946, although its substance was known earlier.
67 This too was issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS 1779) after approval by
SWNCC. It was dated July 11, 1947. See Germany, 1947-1949, op. cit., pp. 33-41.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
35
The progressive deterioration of East-West relations was ac-
companied by an increasingly voluble and antagonistic attitude
on the part of Soviet controlled media of information. As early
as October 1947, OMGUS felt constrained to initiate a plan for
providing the German people with materials on the menace of
Communism. The Berlin blockade which began in the following
year caused the West to strike back, not merely with the airlift
but also with a campaign of information.
Information policies under HICOG were essentially a contin-
uation of those begun under OMGUS but with appropriate changes
in emphasis as to objectives, methods and instruments of im-
plementation. Policy guidance came directly from the Department
of State rather than indirectly as in the Military Government
days when the Department worked through the State-War-Navy
Coordinating Committee and the Civil Affairs Division of the
Department of the Army in Washington. The nature of this
guidance will be discussed more fully later in the present chapter.
At the time of the establishment of the Allied High Commis-
sion and of the West German Federal Government in September
1949, concern was expressed by the Office of Public Affairs
because the Occupation Statute said nothing about information
and education programs. While it was generally admitted that a
period of "observe, advise and assist" would replace the period in
which directives were given to the German authorities, the ques-
tion was the degree to which such observation could be conducted.
The French interpretation implied a considerable degree of
authority while the British maintained that practically no author-
ity was left in the public affairs field. In the fall of 1949, the U.S.
High Commissioner decided that the public affairs functions came
within the scope of paragraph 3 of the Occupation Statute."
Actually, the restrictive language of the Statute has proved no
obstacle to the Office of Public Affairs, since many activities orig-
inally initiated by OMGUS and assumed by HICOG were grad-
ually transferred to German groups.
HICOG Organization
The plan for the transfer from OMGUS to HICOG called for
a reduction of about 50 percent in American personnel. There was
6 Paragraph 3 reads: "The Occupation Authorities, however, reserve the right,
acting under the instructions of their Governments, to resume, in whole or in part,
the exercise of full authority if they consider that to do so is essential to security
or to preserve democratic governnment in Germany or in pursuance of the interna-
tional obligations of their Governments. Before doing so, they will formally advise
the appropriate German authorities of their decision and the reasons therefor." For
the text of the Occupation Statute, see Germany, 1947-1949, op. cit., pp. 89-91.
36
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
likewise a reduction in German personnel which, however, was
subsequently more than offset by staff expansion. In connection
with the Contractual Agreements signed on May 26, 1952 and the
planning for embassy status, further decreases in personnel, both
American and German, were envisaged.
Under HICOG, the Information Services Division was assigned
the following functions:
1. Advises the Director of the Office of Public Affairs con-
cerning information services; observes and reports on
activities of those services; assists in their democratic re-
habilitation.
2. Implements the U.S. overt (i. e., the U.S. financed and
operated) information program including the publication of
newspapers, magazines and pamphlets; preparation and
production of documentary films, newsreels and radio broad-
cast material; operation of the U.S. overt radio station in
Berlin (RIAS).
3. Interprets and projects U.S. and HICOG policies and pro-
grams to the German people through overt information
media and by services to the German information media.
4. Is responsible for multipartite negotiations in these fields.
The Division was subdivided into the following branches: Press
and Publications; Editorial Projection; Motion Picture; Radio; and
Publishing Operations. The organization contained in more com-
pact form all the operating units of ISD-OMGUS except the In-
formation Centers and Exhibitions Branch which was transferred
to the Education and Cultural Relations Division." It also brought
the organization of the Office of Public Affairs into conformity
with the pattern established by the Department of State. As
under OMGUS, the Information Services Division did not include
official liaison with the press or the issuance of formal press
releases. These functions were performed by the Public Relations
Division in the Office of Public Affairs."
❝ HICOG, Manual of Organization, para. 8, 5, March 1, 1950.
70 The Public Relations Division was responsible for releasing informational mate-
rial affecting the activities of the Allied High Commission and of HICOG. It published
and distributed official communiqués, news releases, and statements of pollicy made
by the High Commissioner or ranking members of his staff, and it organized press
conferences, briefings, radio broadcasts, and similar activities. It assisted the Ger-
man press by processing queries and arranging interviews granted to German writers
by the occupation authorities. It also served as a distributing channel for overt mate-
rials for other units of HICOG. The two divisions, Information Services and Public
Relations, were amalgamated in March 1952. The Public Liaison Branch of the new
Information Division assumed the public and press liaison duties formerly performed
by the Public Relations Division.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
37
In the first years of the HICOG period, ISD field organization
was much like that of OMGUS. There were Information Services
Divisions in each Land Commissioner's Office and in West Berlin.
In addition, there were approximately 150 Kreis Resident Officers
who devoted a large part of their time to public affairs programs."
72
During 1951-1952, extensive reorganization was undertaken.
In March 1952, the Division was renamed the Information Divi-
sion. In June 1952, when the field organization, including the
Land Commissioner's Offices, was disbanded, field responsibilities,
still under headquarters direction, were transferred to the Public
Affairs Regional Centers. In early 1953, after further reduction
in personnel, there were ten such centers located in West-Berlin,
Hamburg, Hanover, Duesseldorf, Bremen, Frankfurt, Stuttgart,
Munich, Nuremberg and Freiburg." Except in Duesseldorf, there
were Amerika Haeuser in each center. In addition, there were
some 30 Amerika Haeuser located elsewhere in West Germany.
By their very nature, these are also engaged in informational and
cultural activities.
It may be noted here that the Economic Cooperation Admin-
istration (ECA) Special Mission to Germany, which was a part of
HICOG, conducted an information program which in many
respects paralleled that of the Information Services Division. This
was begun by ECA in 1948 with the publication of materials ex-
plaining the purpose and importance of the European Recovery
Program. Up to the summer of 1950, ECA posters, pamphlets and
newspaper articles were distributed through HICOG information
channels or through private contractors. With the outbreak of
war in Korea, the promotion of European integration, productivity
and mutual defense were stressed. The replacement of ECA by
the Mutual Security Administration (MSA) at the beginning of
1952 did not change the character of the former ECA Information
Office except to concentrate its efforts on the distribution of lit-
erature, films and exhibits through German governmental and
private agencies. Beginning in the summer of 1952, the MSA in-
71 The Kreis Resident Officers were the successors of the Liaison and Security
Officers of the Military Government period. For further details, see the Historical
Division monograph, The Field Organization of the Office of the U.S. High Com-
missioner for Germany (1952), by Guy A. Lee.
72 HICOG, Staff Announcement No. 282, March 11, 1952.
73 Each Public Affairs Regional Center is in a particular consular district and is
supervised by the U.S. Consulate of that district. Thus the Hanover Center is under
the Hamburg Consulate.
38
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
formation program was more closely coordinated with that of the
HICOG Office of Public Affairs."4
Under HICOG, the "reorientation" label of public affairs
activities was gradually dropped. The emphasis was shifted from
direct operations to the giving of advice and financial aid to Ger-
man groups and organizations dedicated to the democratic rehabil-
itation of their country. Various official informational and cultural
publications were continued throughout part or all of the HICOG
period. These include the German language newspaper, Die Neue
Zeitung; the cultural periodical, Der Monat; and the special mag-
azine, Ost-Probleme, containing reprints from Communist pub-
lications. All three are still being issued. The publications, Neue
Auslese, Heute, and Amerikanische Rundschau were continued
during part of the HICOG period. There was also a special pub-
lications program of pamphlets and posters designed to inform
the German people about the United States, political problems
of an international character, and the background and dangers of
Communism. By the summer of 1952, 70 different titles had been
produced under this program with a total printing of 20 million
copies. By August 1952, the Book Translations Unit had arranged
for the translation of 316 American books into German. The daily
special news file of the U.S. Information Service was reworked in
Germany and, as Amerika Dienst, was transmitted to hundreds
of German newspapers. RIAS, the American radio station in Berlin,
broadcast in German twenty-one and a half hours daily, and the
Voice of America was heard frequently on German radio stations.
A documentary film production unit and a film distribution service
were maintained. Until June 30, 1952, there was also a weekly
newsreel, Welt im Film. On the cultural side, the Amerika Haeuser
were in operation in many German cities and American educa-
tional advisors made their services available to German educators.
In addition, there was a large exchange of persons program which
furthered democratic development in Germany.
Public Opinion Analysis
75
The Reactions Analysis Staff is not a part of the Information
Services Division but its work should be mentioned here. This
group occupies a position parallel to the Plans and Policy Staff,
both of which are immediately under the Director of the Office of
74 Since the ECA/MSA program was conducted independently and was not a part
of the HICOG Office of Public Affairs, further details about it are not included in
the present monograph.
75 See HICOG, Manual of Organization, 8.1, Reactions Analysis Staff.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
39
Public Affairs. The Reactions Analysis Staff was created late in
1945 and was originally known as the Opinion Surveys Staff of
the OMGUS Information Control Divsion. Its research, based on
those of George Gallup, Hadley Cantril and other Americans, has
stimulated the establishment of various German agencies engaged
in opinion analysis.
76
The Reactions Analysis Staff has used public opinion surveys
and other scientific methods to assess German reactions to occupa-
tion policies and to measure the nature and extent of the audiences
for HICOG programs and publications, especially in public affairs.
Its first survey report, dated March 1, 1946, was "Radio Listening
in Germany-Winter 1946." To March 1953, 370 reports" have been
issued, one of the most recent dated January 12, 1953, being
entitled “A Year End Survey of Rightist and Nationalist Senti-
ments in West Germany." By comparing earlier and later reports
on the same subject, it has been possible to appraise change in
German thinking and attitudes.
78
The German personnel of the OMGUS Opinion Surveys Staff
was selected in 1945-1946 and trained by U.S. experts. Until 1951,
the German employees were a part of the OMGUS/HICOG head-
quarters. On July 1 of that year, a private German organization
was established in Frankfurt entitled the Gesellschaft fuer Markt-
und Meinungsforschung (DIVO)." DIVO took over the Germans
on the Reactions Analysis Staff and augmented their number
so as to secure wider coverage throughout West Germany. Since
then, all HICOG surveys have been made by DIVO on a contract
basis.
76 There are now approximately 20 German opinion research institutes in West
Germany and West Berlin. Some of these are independent and others are affiliated
with universities. Under the sponsorship of the Institut zur Foerderung oeffentlicher
Angelegenheiten of Frankfurt, a conference was held at Weinheim, Baden, Decem-
ber 14-16, 1951, to discuss common problems. More than 100 German public opinion
research specialists, sociologists, civic and industrial leaders and experts from other
European countries and the United States attended the conference. See HICOG, In-
formation Bulletin, February 1952, p. 7. In 1952, the proceedings of the conference
were published by the Institut zur Foerderung oeffentlicher Angelegenheiten under
the title, Empirische Sozialforschung. Meinungs- und Marktforschung. Methoden und
Probleme. The first German institute was the Institut fuer Demoskopie, founded in
Allensbach, Baden, in 1947. See Ingeborg Wirth, "Oeffentliche Meinung-heute sehr
gefragt," Die Neue Zeitung, October 5, 1951. All references to the Neue Zeitung are
to the Frankfurt edition.
77 See Appendix 1 for the surveys dealing with press, radio and film.
18 This report aroused German criticism. See "Adenauer Denies Rebirth of Nazism,"
New York Times, January 20, 1953; Die Neue Zeitung, January 19 and 20, 1953; Frank-
furter Allgemeine, January 20 and 21, 1953.
79 "DIVO" supposedly stands for the earlier name of the organization, the Deutsche
Institut fuer Volksumfragen.
40
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Department of State Guidance and Assistance to HICOG
With the passage of the Smith-Mundt Act in 1948, the Depart-
ment of State expanded its world-wide information programs,
utilizing the International Press and Publications Division, the
International Broadcasting Division, the International Motion
Picture Division, and the Division of Libraries and Institutes.
These four particularly assisted HICOG operations. The Interna-
tional Press and Publications Division had strong editorial, mag-
azine and pictorial staffs in Washington and New York which sup-
plied HICOG with pictures and coverage of news events of special
interest to Germany.
Materials from the International Broadcasting Division were
available to HICOG radio officers in Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich
and Bremen and, after June 1952, to radio officers stationed in
Duesseldorf and Hamburg. These were used as background in-
formation in dealing with German radio officials in those cities.
Direct, medium and long-range policy guidance was furnished for
RIAS, Berlin. Beginning 1950, by means of regular teleconference,
close policy coordination was secured between the HICOG Office
of Public Affairs and the Department's Bureau of German Affairs
in Washington. Radio policy matters, affecting the Voice of
America (VOA) and radio output in Germany, comprised part of
the teleconferences. Through 15 to 20 minutes of short wave voice
transmissions, a daily service was maintained for the benefit of
the VOA German language programs for West and East Germany;
VOA was thus given the necessary background on the latest hap-
penings in Germany. The service included programming sugges-
tions, short press reviews and quotations from the day's editorials.
""
After the Occupation Statute came into force, American film
producers were free to export any of their products to Germany.
However, if they desired to convert mark earnings into dollars
through the ECA, the films involved had to be "in the national
interest" and "reflect the best elements of American life. The
ECA had formerly accepted recommendations of the Civil Affairs
Division, Department of the Army, concerning American enter-
tainment films. This function, still with the ECA guarantee of
convertibility, was now assigned to a committee established by
the American producers and the International Motion Picture
Division of the Department of State. Another problem in which
the Department was actively interested was the prevention of
dumping of inferior American films detrimental to U.S. interests
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
41
in Germany. Where payment in dollars through ECA was asked
by the exporter, an effective means of control was available. The
real difficulty was when assistance was not requested from ECA.
The International Motion Picture Division also assumed the
support functions which the Civil Affairs Division had exercised
in connection with the U.S. Government's overt film program in
Germany. These included: raw stock for production and for ex-
hibition prints; footage from American newsreels for inclusion in
Welt im Film; and the acquisition through purchase or production
of documentary films on American life which were forwarded to
Germany where German language versions were prepared for
theatrical and non-theatrical distribution.
-
At the beginning of HICOG, the Department of State provided
the Director of the Office of Public Affairs with special instruc-
tions concerning the responsibility of his agency." Subsequently,
the Department, through its Washington divisions, constantly
studied and coordinated the overt and covert public affairs pro-
grams in Germany. Bringing HICOG closer to the Department
was accomplished through planning activities carried on jointly
with HICOG in the preparation of the yearly budget requests
and through the following policy guidance documents:
1. An overnight guidance cable from the Department's
Bureau of German Affairs suggested major lines of treatment
and gave advance information on coming events.
2. A weekly guidance airgram from the Department's Pub-
lic Affairs Policy Committee gave similar instructions on a
world-wide basis and was sent to all U.S. Information and
Exchange Missions abroad.
3. A series of notes on Soviet affairs prepared by the
Research Analysis Division of the Bureau of European Affairs.
4. Daily two-way broadcasts between the Voice of America
headquarters in New York and the HICOG Policy Reports
Staff provided an opportunity to give the VOA a summary of
the news from Germany and receive some guidance.
5. A continued exchange of information through cables
on special and urgent problems in which views of HICOG and
the Department were exchanged and policy established.
O On the U.S. documentary film program in Germany, see the Historical Division
monograph, The History of the Development of Information Services through In-
formation Centers and Documentary Films (1951), by Henry P. Pilgert. The present
study is more concerned with the commercial motion picture program in Germany.
See "Basic Recommendation for the Public Affairs Program in Germany" (Clas-
sified). Files of Mrs. Mildred C. Allen.
42
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
82
This guidance material received by the Plans and Policy Staff
of Public Affairs had previously been furnished to Military Gov-
ernment and was continued throughout the HICOG period. It was
coordinated in HICOG through an interdivisional "Daily Guidance
Meeting" which was held each workday at 11:30 p.m. under the
chairmanship generally of Alfred V. Boerner. Its membership
generally numbered 12 to 14, comprised of representatives of the
various ISD units, as well as members of the Offices of Political,
Economic, and Labor Affairs, and of Intelligence. These meetings
aimed to furnish the Office of Public Affairs with a concerted
approach to informational matters which would include the at-
titudes of other functional offices. They were not designed to
establish fundamental policy, but rather to implement such policy
and work out strategic details with respect to action, emphasis and
timing.
The Plans and Policy Staff was responsible for the preparation
of guidance materials for the field offices. These materials, based
on the Department's guidance instructions and the special situa-
tion confronted by the various operational units of HICOG, were
basically of two types. One, a "Daily Guidance Cable" (actually
not dispatched daily) was classified confidential. Because of the
classification, these cables had to be transmitted through the Land
offices and a week or more was required to get them to the Kreis
Resident Officers. The second was a "Background Information"
sheet which was a mimeographed unclassified report transmitted
to the U.S. Consulates, public affairs liaison officers, and formerly
also to Land offices, Kreis Resident Officers, and other units of
HICOG. The objective was to make these widely available to the
officials and agencies which were in need of such information in
dealing with various problems and issues as they arose. Another
important element in the transmission of guidance to all elements
of HICOG was through the "Boerner Broadcasts," originally
delivered twice weekly, on Tuesday and Thursday, but limited to
only Tuesdays in 1952. They were delivered for more than three
years over German radio stations. To those who followed U.S.
policy closely, these broadcasts conveyed quickly the position
which the United States was taking.
2 Alfred V. Boerner was chief of the Plans and Policy Staff, Office of Public
Affairs, throughout most of the HICOG period. Later he became Acting Deputy
Director, then Acting Director, and finally Director of the Office of Public Affairs.
Mr. Boerner had been Deputy Director for Policy in ICD-OMGUS and previous to
that Chief, Plans and Director's Branch. His service in the information field extended
back to OWI days.
These were given in German by Alfred V. Boerner.
CHAPTER V
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
By the time the Allied High Commission was established in
September 1949, Allied licensing of the German press had been
terminated all over West Germany." Since then, almost four years
have been passed; it is appropriate to examine what has happened
in that period. The present chapter will deal first with the Ger-
man press, then with the role of HICOG, and finally with press
legislation.
The West German Press after the Cessation of Licensing
The most immediate result of the end of licensing was the
appearance of hundreds of new periodicals, newspapers, books and
other publications, most of them produced by persons who, for
one reason or another, had not previously been able to qualify
for a license. This, plus the effort to secure reader support,
brought on a long and bitter "circulation war."
1. The Appearance of New Publications
Before licensing was discontinued, U.S. Military Government
had authorized a total of 59 newspapers in Bremen, Bavaria,
Hesse and Wuerttemberg-Baden." OMGUS General License No. 3,
Amended (1), which was promulgated in connection with the im-
plementation of the Land press laws, permitted "any person not
otherwise prohibited by German or Military Government law to
publish newspapers, magazines, books, pamphlets, posters
provided, however, that such person conforms with Section 6 of
Information Control Regulation No. 3, Amended (1)."
8 But not in West Berlin, where Allied licensing regulations still remain in effect.
There are nine West Berlin daily newspapers, three of them U.S. licensed, with a
total circulation of about 718,000 (May 1953). The present monograph does not attempt
to deal with Berlin.
85 In the British Zone, 53 newspapers had been licensed and in the French Zone,
17 newspapers.
44
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Between June and October 1949, 650 new newspapers appeared
in Bavaria, Bremen, Hesse and Wuerttemberg-Baden but many of
these did not survive long.86 In the same Laender between July 1
and November 30, 1949, there were 200 new publishers and more
than 200 new periodicals, a development which intensified the
rivalry for reader support.87 Despite the absence of an active
market, new books issued during this period averaged about 600
titles per month.
2. Nazi Personalities
G
Another immediate development was the reappearance of
editors and publishers who, because of their association with the
press under the Nazi regime, could not qualify for OMGUS li-
censes. These included some prominent personalities such as Max
Willmy, who had printed the notorious Der Stuermer, and
Ottmar Best, formerly editor of the Berlin Deutsche Allgemeine
Zeitung. There were others who had been merely nominal party
members but who had been barred on that account. Since most
of them retained ownership of printing plants, the cessation of li-
censing afforded them an opportunity to resume operations, and
to compete vigorously with the press which had developed under
the aegis of Military Government. In Hesse, it was estimated
that from 50 to 60 percent of the new editors and publishers had
been engaged in similar work during the Nazi period.
88
Many of the new newspapers resumed the names which they
had had before 1945 or appropriated the names of pre-1945 papers.
In November 1949, it was estimated that one-fourth of the new
newspapers were using old names. In Hesse the proportion was
considerably higher.
In Bavaria, the Nazi-controlled Eher Verlag and its subsidiaries
had acquired about 500 newspapers, sometimes by force but in
many cases by the payment of a fair price. Under the Military
Government law providing for the disposition of Nazi-owned prop-
erty, the names and good will of these newspapers were vested
in Land Bavaria.89 In January 1950, the Bavarian Government
86 During the same period in the British Zone, there was an increase of only
150 newspapers.
87 By the fall of 1951, there were about 3,500 periodicals of all kinds in West Ger-
many, most of them technical and professional publications with small circulations.
Thirty illustrated periodicals, weeklies for the most part, each had a circulation of
over 100,000 copies. See HICOG, ISD, Press and Publications Branch, "Facts about the
German Press," November 1, 1951 (mimeographed).
88 At an early date, some of the OMGUS licensees, threatened by this competition,
merged their interests with publishers who had been active in the pre-Hitler years.
" HICOG, ISD, "Report," November 29, 1949.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
45
decreed that newspaper titles sold to the Eher Verlag, the Gau-
verlage and other NSDAP holding concerns were confiscated in
accordance with Article 2 of Allied Control Authority Directive
No. 50. The use of these titles by their former owners or by third
parties was declared illegal except by special authorization of the
Bavarian Landesamt fuer Vermoegensverwaltung and after due
restitution under Military Government Law No. 59.90 The Bavarian
Government in that same month took action to force a number of
publishers to discontinue using newspaper titles which they had
sold to the Nazis for substantial sums." Nevertheless, many old
titles were re-used and proved a valuable asset in the competition
with the press licensed by OMGUS.
3. Newspaper Chains
The cessation of licensing was followed by the appearance of
syndicates producing first and feature pages for local newspapers.
These papers were financially too weak to start their own news
services, or even in many instances to subscribe to a recognized
news agency. Hence they made use of a system formerly popular
in Germany whereby they received their general news, editorials
and leading articles in matrix form from a central source. The re-
maining columns were then filled with local news items and articles
on traditional themes. Under the Hugenberg "empire" from 1916
onwards, the "Heimatblaetter" had enjoyed considerable success;
there were thousands of them in Germany before 1945.
A survey in May 1950 indicated that there were 16 chains or
syndicates in the U.S. Zone with more than 175 member news-
papers. Six of the chains were in Hesse. The largest was in Stutt-
gart, Wuerttemberg-Baden, and was called the Arbeitsgemein-
schaft Sueddeutscher Heimatzeitungen. It consisted of 54 news-
papers with a total circulation of about 88,000. The Nordbayerische
Heimatzeitungsverleger G.m.b.H., at Fuerth near Nuremberg,
operated a chain of 24 papers with a total circulation of 41,000.
" Bayerisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt, No. 3, January 21, 1950.
" HICOG, ISD, “Press and Publications Report," January 1950.
"This section is based on: British Information Services Division, "Report to
the Foreign Office," November 17, 1949, in files of Historical Division; and Willi Staum,
ed., Leitfaden fuer Presse und Werbung (Essen, 1950).
46
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Member newspapers usually invested a nominal sum in the syn-
dicate and subsequently paid monthly fees for the matrix service."
The Heimatblaetter are not necessarily harmful as such; there
is a real need for the publication of local news. It is also apparent
that the chain is an elfective way to reduce production costs for
financially weak newspapers. The danger lies in the possibility
of misuse through the supply of biased news and slanted editorials
from a central agency. If the combine itself falls under the control
of a special interest group such as Hugenberg formerly represented,
the danger is even greater. Thus far in postwar Germany, these
dangers have not materialized to any degree. The strongest resist-
ance to matrix monopolies and syndicates has come from the well-
entrenched regional newspapers licensed by OMGUS, with their
widely extended nets of local editions or local pages.
4. The Circulation War
The appearance of a large number of new newspapers after the
cessation of licensing brought on severe competition, particularly
from the larger newcomers in the urban centers. In Hesse, where
licensing was terminated on July 22, 1949, the Wiesbadener Tage-
blatt, the first new newspaper which was not a Heimatzeitung,
began publication on August 25. In mid-September, the Tageblatt
distributed 90,000 free copies daily for three days and thereafter,
until the end of the month, 25,000 free copies daily. Subscribers
were promised free delivery until mid-October. It is estimated
that this campaign cost the publisher DM 100,000 but the circula-
tion target of 20,000 subscriptions had not been reached by the
end of November. The successful Mainzer Allgemeine Zeitung,
published under French license by the former editors of the
famous old Frankfurter Zeitung, who had been refused an Amer-
ican license in 1945, returned to Frankfurt to begin the Frank-
furter Allgemeine on November 1, 1949.
Unemployed persons living in the Kassel area were reported
to be receiving free copies of the Sozialistische Volkszeitung, a
Communist paper published in Frankfurt. The publishers of the
93 An important merger took place in April 1950 when the OMGUS licensed
Muenchener Merkur took over the OMGUS licensed Hochland Bote (published in
Garmisch) and the local paper, Weilheimer Tageblatt. Under this arrangement, the
Muenchener Merkur controlled 14 Bavarian papers with a combined circulation of
200,000. A leading factor in bringing about the merger was the uncertainty of the
leases of the printing plants and the difficulty of negotiating with former owners
for a continuation of the leases. The Merkur combine is not like the usual chain.
The local publishers are part of the enterprise and can thereby influence editorial
policy. On the other hand, the merger did reduce the number of independent news-
papers.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
47
former licensed press met this competition with similar practices.
The Mannheimer Morgen announced that it would give 5,000 half-
price subscriptions to needy persons during the winter months.
Other papers, formerly licensed by OMGUS, found it necessary
to reduce subscription and advertising rates to compete with
price-cutting rivals. Some of the new publishers tried to discredit.
the ex-licensees on racial grounds or as "occupation sponsored,
and hence lacking in ability and willingness to defend "national
rights."
""
On the whole, the former licensed press successfully withstood.
the competition. The number of such papers declined from 59 to
53 by the fall of 1951 but in several instances the discontinuance
was the direct result of harassing tactics by the plant owners who
had leased facilities to licensees. The casualties among the new
press, whether from discontinuance or from merger, were far
more numerous. In the fall of 1951, there were 274 post-licensing
newspapers in Bavaria, Bremen, Hesse and Wuerttemberg-Baden,
of which 22 were political party organs. In addition, there were
135 which were local editions of larger papers, both licensed and
post-licensing. The grand total was 462 which may be compared
with 410 in the British Zone and 130 in the French Zone. The total
circulation of all West German newspapers was approximately
13,000,000 copies."
The former licensed press experienced some decrease in cir-
culation. From 1946 onward and even after the currency reform
of 1948, its total circulation had been over 4,000,000 copies; it was
4,095,000 in June 1949 just before the cessation of licensing. In the
fall of 1951, the circulation was 3,313,000. At that time, post-
license papers had a circulation of 1,289,000.95
It is thus apparent that the new publishers, despite the advan-
tages of their own printing facilities and in some cases of generous
financial backing, have failed to effect a large-scale shift of readers
from old to new papers. The main reasons for the relatively low
circulation of the post-license newspapers are:
1. The local newspaper has had little or no appeal for the
millions of refugees in West Germany.
""Facts about the West German Press," November 1, 1951, op. cit.
os Ibid. One of the difficulties about circulation statistics has been the absence
until recently of an agency corresponding to the American Audit Bureau of Circula-
tion (ABC). German publishers did not usually reveal such information. In February
1950, the Informationsstelle zur Feststellung der Verbreitung von Werbetraegern (IVW)
was established in Wiesbaden. Before long, it had negotiated contracts with most of
the ex-licensed newspaper, periodical and book publishers in West Germany.
However, few of the new publishers supported the IVW.
48
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
2. Most Germans under thirty-five years of age did not
remember the Heimatblatt type of newspaper well enough to
be attached to it for traditional reasons.
3. The former licensed press was able to meet some of the
competition from the Heimatblaetter by introducing "Kopf-
blaetter"—local editions of the main issue in which two pages
were usually devoted to purely local news.
4. On the whole, the former licensed press has maintained a
reasonably high level of news selection and presentation. The
reading public has been unwilling to pay for newspapers of
poor quality and coverage. Most of the new ones with their
small circulations and staffs were not able to offer nearly the
amount of news supplied by the ex-licensed press.
5. The Party Press and the Editorial Board
As already indicated, OMGUS did not permit a party press. It
did authorize the publication of party information sheets but these
were not allowed to reach the proportions of a newspaper. After
licensing, attempts were made to revive the party press." Thus on
June 1, 1950, the Christian Social Union began issuing a weekly
newspaper, the Bayernkurier. In the fall of 1951, there were 22
straight party newspapers, of which 12 belonged to the Com-
munist party. However, most newspapers now being published
in Bavaria, Bremen, Hesse and Wuerttemberg-Baden claim, with
more or less justification, to be independent.
97
OMGUS also experimented with licensing several editors for
one newspaper, each having a different party affiliation. It was
hoped that these would operate as an editorial board and thus
provide better coverage of various political leanings. However,
the editorial board idea did not work out well in practice.98
6. Newspaper Publishers' and Journalists' Organizations
Prior to the cessation of licensing, the newspaper publishers'
associations developed on a Land and zonal basis in the three
Western zones." Thus the associations in Bavaria, Hesse and
Wuerttemberg-Baden were united into the Arbeitsgemeinschaft
der Verleger der U.S. Zone.
"HICOG, ISD, "Press and Publications Report," June 1950.
* "Facts about the West German Press," November 1, 1951, op. cit.
* In July 1949, there were 42 OMGUS licensed Social Democratic editors and
31 OMGUS licensed Christian Democratic Union-Christian Social Union editors.
"This section is primarily based on Willi Staum, op. cit.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
49
After the end of licensing, these Land and zonal associations
formed a national organization, the Gesamtverband der deutschen
Zeitungsverleger, with headquarters at Bielefeld in the British
Zone. It had about 150 members at the beginning of 1950. Accord-
ing to Dr. Hugo Stenzel, the first chairman, the objectives of the
Gesamtverband are to work for the independence of the news-
papers, to cooperate in fields of common interest, and to champion
a free press as a basic element of democracy.
The post-license newspaper publishers have organized the
Verein deutscher Zeitungsverleger with headquarters in Wies-
baden. Dr. Walther Jaenecke is chairman. The Verein had about
420 members in the fall of 1950 and was the "roof" organization
for 12 press and publishers' associations in West Germany. By
local agreement, some post-license publishers became members
of the Gesamtverband but this was not the rule. Although the
Verein has almost three times as many members as the Gesamt-
verband, the latter has by far the greater aggregate of circulation
of the two.100 For the past two years, negotiations have been in
progress looking toward the fusion of the Gesamtverband and the
Verein into a proposed Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger.
There are two organizations of German journalists, the Deut-
scher Journalisten-Verband and the Berufsgruppe Journalisten
und Schriftsteller. The Verband has a membership of 6,000 of
whom about 60 percent are fully employed on the staffs of Ger-
man information media. The other 40 percent are free-lance
writers (Freie Mitarbeiter). The Berufsgruppe is a subsection of
the industrial union, Druck und Papier, which in turn is a mem-
ber of the Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (German Federation of
Labor Unions). The Berufsgruppe is not of major significance.
On the international level, German journalism has been ac-
cepted. Delegations from the two German journalists' associations
attended the founders' meeting of Federation Internationale des
Journalistes, held in Brussels in May 1952, and became charter
members thereof. The Federation admits only such national or-
ganizations as pledge themselves to support freedom of the press.
A joint delegation representing the two German publishers' as-
sociations attended the Fifth Congress of the Federation Interna-
tionale des Editeurs de Journaux, held in Brussels in June 1952.
100 The periodical publishers are similarly organized in the individual Laender and
have their central headquarters in Duesseldorf. Their association is the Verband
Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger. See "Facts about the West German Press," op. cit.
50
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
The Germans were unanimously accepted into membership and
one of their number was selected to the executive board. In the
future, it is unlikely that there will be any more exclusion of West
Germans from Western journalists' organizations.101
HICOG Aid; Review Board and Press Fund
Thus far in the present chapter, there have been only incidental
references to HICOG. Attention must next be directed to two
aspects of HICOG's role in aiding the German press.
1. Printing Plant Leases and the Review Board.
After the cessation of licensing, one of the most serious
problems of the OMGUS licensed publishers was the uncertainty
as to the continued validity of the mandatory printing plant leases
executed under a Military Government directive of 1947.102 When
the contracts were made, they were normally for three or five
year terms. It was expected that this would afford the licensed
publishers sufficient time to construct their own plants and buy
equipment. Several such plants were begun but financial dif-
ficulties, which began with currency reform and were aggravated
by post-licensing competition, forced postponement. Lacking
collateral, the publishers were unsuccessful in obtaining bank
credit.
On the other hand, the printing plant owners were impatient.
They regarded Military Government licensing as an attempt to
destroy the old German press. They themselves did not receive
licenses and were not consulted in the creation of a new German
press manned by "non-professionals whose qualification was that
they had either been concentration camp inmates or emigrants."
They felt that, in the transition from Military Government fiat
to normal German law enforced by German courts, restitution
101 See Visiting Expert's Report, "Report on German Journalists' Organizations and
Their Relations with Other National and International Journalists' Professional Or-
ganizations," by Louis P. Lochner, December 1, 1952. Lochner points out that in Berlin
and Frankfurt the U.S. Army has made special facilities available to American and
Allied newsmen through the American Press Clubs which exclude all Germans from
membership. On the other hand, when the West German Federal Government encour-
aged and facilitated the organization of the new Deutscher Presseclub in Bonn from
which foreigners and Germans employed by American information media were ex-
cluded, there was a great outcry. See "Bonn Sponsors 'German Only' Press Club,"
Stars and Stripes, October 15, 1952; "Press Scores New Bonn Club," ibid., January 14,
1953; and "Auslandsjournalisten zum 'Deutschen Presseclub'," Die Neue Zeitung,
January 14, 1953. Is it possible that discriminatory acts provoke discriminatory acts
in retaliation?
102 Military Government Regulations Title 21, Information Control, April 16, 1947,
21-263.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
51
suits were in order to restore the legal rights of publishers who,
under the Hitler regime, were forced to accept Nazi directors and
then later were deprived of the use of their property by Military
Government requisitioning.
A few examples from the year 1950 may be cited. In Bavaria,
the publisher of the Hof Frankenpost was notified that the print-
ing plant lease would not be renewed in 1952. Publishers of the
Bad Reichenhall Suedost Kurier and the Coburg Neue Presse com-
plained of continuous rent increases. The Fraenkische Presse of
Bayreuth was under pressure to return essential machinery then
on lease. In Wuerttemberg-Baden, the publishers of the Heiden-
heimer Zeitung were threatened with German court action in-
volving the validity of the lease. The plant owner, who had
recently been repatriated as a prisoner of war, charged that the
lease executed in his absence was illegal.
When the leases were made under the Military Government
directive of 1947, little attention was given to the legal aspects
involved. Some two years later, it was felt that there should be a
means of making fair and equitable decisions to amend leases.
either at the request of the publisher or the owner.103 On May 23,
1949, OMGUS established the Newspaper Leases Review Board
for the purpose of reviewing contracts made under previous
Military Government directives.10 The Board was "authorized in
its discretion to amend, modify, alter or cancel any or all of the
terms and conditions of any such newspaper leases." 105
In order to protect the OMGUS licensed press,106 HICOG
continued the Newspaper Leases Review Board, and vested in it
the sole and final authority to review any newspaper leases made
103 Interview with Walter E. Menke, HICOG. Office of General Counsel, July 31,
1952.
10 The directives in question were: Letter, OMGUS, September 20, 1947, subject:
"Procedure for the Retention or Taking of Property Control Custody of Certain
Properties Operated or Required for Operation by Newspaper Licenses of the In-
formation Control Division." file AG 601 (IC): and letter, OMGUS, December 27,
1948, subject: "Lease in behalf of Information Services Licensed Newspaper Pub-
lishers," file AG 601 (IS).
105 The Board was established by Information Services General Order No. 15,
May 23, 1949, and was amended by General Order No. 23, July 8, 1949.
106 Out of the 113 OMGUS licensees whose records were examined, 91 were still
publishing newspapers on July 9, 1950. Of the 22 who were no longer in the publishing
field, one had become President of the West German Federal Republic; one had died;
one had dropped out because of ill health; one had resigned for reasons unknown
and another because his paper had been sold; five had been dismissed or resigned
on demand because of political reasons or inabilitiy to manage the business; three
had sold their plants and gone out of business; and one had resumed his activities in
the film industry. Information was not obtainable for the remaining eight. Of the
five licensees forced to resign, two were known to have become active in Communist
enterprises.
52
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
under Military Government authorization. Moreover, Allied High
Commission Law No. 13 provided that no German court should
render a decision impeaching the validity or legality of any
regulation, directive, decision or order published by Military Gov-
ernment, and that the validity of such orders would be determined
by the Occupation Authorities. Furthermore, a restitution claim
to property subject to a newspaper lease would not terminate the
lease or affect its validitiy.107
During the course of its activities, the Newspaper Leases
Review Board successfully dealt with ten cases, most of them
involving the application of plant owners for relief from "hard-
ship" leases. All these were settled by amicable agreements
between the publishers and owners. However, two other cases
concerning plants located in Berlin were still unresolved by the
summer of 1952.
2. The Press Fund
In the late summer of 1945, OMGUS imposed a 20 percent
license fee on newspaper gross receipts. This was collected from
all U.S. licensed newspapers until January 1, 1948 when the levy
was abolished. By that time, a fund of 48,000,000 Reichsmarks had
been accumulated. Early in 1948, OMGUS turned over 36,210,000
Reichsmarks from this amount to a press cooperative bank, the
Wirtschaftliche Genossenschaft der Presse, which was established
by the OMGUS Information Control Division to make loans and
grants to U.S. licensed newspapers for the purpose of enabling
them to buy or improve printing plants and to purchase urgently
needed supplies.
However, the scarcity of printing presses and the reluctance of
plant owners to sell their properties for inflated Reichsmarks
prevented the publishers from acquiring much in the way of per-
manent equipment. The currency reform of June 1948 wiped out
beween 90 and 95 percent of the OMGUS fund as well as the
capital of the individual publishers. Before the latter were able
to build up substantial Deutsche Mark assets, licensing was ter-
107 Letter, Ralph C. Nicholson, Director of the HICOG Office of Public Affairs, to
the President of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Zeitungsverleger-Verbaende in der
U.S. Zone, Stuttgart, dated April 10, 1950.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
53
minated,108 resulting in cutthroat competition, increased produc-
tion costs and diminished profits.
The OMGUS licensed publishers were thus in a critical posi-
tion in 1949-1950. HICOG came to their relief with two important
steps. The first was the continuation of the Newspaper Leases
Review Board, already discussed. The second was the establish-
ment of the Press Fund.
As a result of currency reform, the funds of the Wirtschaft-
liche Genossenschaft der Presse had shrunk to DM 2,350,000. This
sum continued to be used as a revolving fund for capital invest-
ment loans to the former U.S. licensed publishers only but it was
far from sufficient to meet the demand. Additional money was
urgently needed and the Wirtschaftliche Genossenschaft was
selected as the distributing agency.
After consultation with and approval by HICOG, the Gesamt-
verband der deutschen Zeitungsverleger approached the West
German Federal Government and requested it to set up a
DM 15,000,000 press aid program but the negotiations were not
successful. Thereupon HICOG made this amount available from
Deutsche Mark counterpart funds.
The Wirtschaftliche Genossenschaft established a committee
for the control of the fund on which both the post-license and the
ex-licensed press were represented. The inclusion of the revived
pre-1945 press raised delicate problems but the move was con-
sidered expedient at the time. The control committee was fairly
large and was drawn from the three Western zones. It was charged
with reviewing applications in terms of need and urgency and
with approving or disapproving specific amounts in particular
cases. The cases favorably acted on by the committee were for-
warded to the Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (Reconstruction
Loan Corporation) for an examination to determine the credit
worthiness of the newspapers. The German Marshall Plan Min-
istry then requested HICOG (i. e., the ECA Special Mission) to
release funds for loans approved by the committee and Kredit-
anstalt fuer Wiederaufbau.
ION Even before the end of licensing, OMGUS had taken certain preliminary steps
which affected the publishing industry. In the first place, shortly after currency
reform, it discontinued its supervision of the production and allocation of paper. The
procurement of paper was made the responsibility of the individual publisher. When
a world-wide shortage of newsprint developed after the outbreak of war in Korea,
the publishers' organizations and the paper manufacturers established a committee
to allocate newsprint. Secondly, OMGUS discontiued the restrictions on the size
of book editions and, in the case of periodicals, on the number of copies printed.
Thirdly, it liberalized the procedure for licensing book and magazine publishers with
a view to preventing a sudden, large flood of new publishers in the post-licensing
period.
54
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Between November 1950 and February 1951, the committee had
examined about 200 applications and had approved loans totaling
DM 13,500,000. It had begun to pass its recommendations to the
Kreditanstalt which in turn transmitted its recommendations to
the Marshall Plan Ministry. On April 5, the Ministry asked
HICOG to release the first loans from the Press Fund. Further
requests were submitted between April and August.
Meanwhile, HICOG had come to the conclusion that the orig-
inal scheme had too many weaknesses. It therefore did not release
the funds but prepared new press policies and criteria based upon
a list of primary and secondary priority newspapers. In this way,
it became possible to make larger loans to the newspapers show-
ing the greatest need and the greatest possibilities for carrying
out desired policies.109 A new advisory committee was established
which held its first meeting on September 5, 1951. Its members
were: Emil Gross, publisher of the Social Democratic party news-
paper, Freie Presse, in Bielefeld, and national chairman of the Ge-
samtverband der deutschen Zeitungsverleger; Dr. Walter Jaenecke,
chairman of the Verein deutscher Zeitungsverleger; Dr. Hugo
Stenzel, publisher of the Frankfurter Neue Presse and chairman.
of the board of directors of the Wirtschaftliche Genossenschaft
der Presse; and Franz Karl Maier, publisher of Der Tagesspiegel,
Berlin, and formerly co-publisher of the Stuttgarter Zeitung.
HICOG was represented by members of the Office of Public
Affairs. The new revolving loan plan immediately began to
function. By February 25, 1952, DM 12,125,000 had been made
available to selected newspapers and an additional DM 2,875,000
had been earmarked. Most of the loans were to be repaid between
1955 and 1960.¹ 110
The Press Fund was attacked by the Communist press in East
and West Germany but with negligible effect upon West German
opinion. The most serious attack came from a different quarter,
namely, from the Rev. Martin Niemoeller, President of the
Evangelical Church in Hesse. In a speech at a meeting of the
Frauenfriedensaktion on January 13, 1952, Niemoeller called for
the boycott of all newspapers in West Germany "which are clearly
109 The following correspondence relating to the Press Fund is in the files of the
Office of Public Affairs: Letter, June 25, 1951, Jean Cattier, Chief of ECA Mission, to
Franz Bluecher, Minister for the Marshall Plan; letter, August 6, 1951, Bluecher to
Michael Harris, Chief, ECA Mission; letter, August 19, 1951, Shepard Stone, Director
of the Office of Public Affairs, to the Wirtschaftliche Genossenschaft der Presse;
letter, August 20, 1951, Shepard Stone to Hugo Stenzel, chairman of the board of
directors of the Wirtschaftliche Genossenschaft.
110 Interview with A. S. Hoffman, HICOG, ID, July 29, 1952.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
55
bought by a foreign power," obviously referring to Press Fund
loans. He was promptly answered by both the newspaper pub-
lishers' organization and by Hugo Stenzel of the Wirtschaftliche
Genossenschaft der Presse. Niemoeller apologized but added that
it would make a better impression on the public if the loans came
from West German Government money rather than from funds at
HICOG's disposal." After this major attack, and as more loans
were made to the post-license press, West German criticisms,
except for Communist, became less frequent.
By the summer of 1952, loans from the Press Fund had made
it possible for most of the ex-licensed newspaper publishers to
acquire their own printing plants or make satisfactory leasing ar-
rangements, and assisted many of the post-licensing newspapers.
The Fund, through its careful administration, served to bring
closer together and may pave the way for the eventual merger
of the Gesamtverband der deutschen Zeitungsverleger and the
Verein deutscher Zeitungsverleger.
Publications Program of the HICOG Information Division
A description of HICOG publications in general would carry
much beyond the scope of the present study which emphasizes the
Information Division. Various other HICOG offices and divisions
published large amounts of material either for internal or Depart-
ment of State use, or for the American public, or for German
audiences. Thus the McCloy Reports-the ten Quarterly Reports
on Germany and the final Report on Germany-were handled
by the Policy Reports Secretary,112 Office of the Executive Sec-
retary, and were also prepared in German translation for wide
distribution in West Germany and West Berlin.
The HICOG Information Bulletin was a monthly magazine for
the dissemination of authoritative information concerning HICOG
policies, regulations, instructions, operations and activities. It
began with the OMGUS Weekly Information Bulletin on July 28,
1945 and was terminated with the March 1953 number. At the
beginning of HICOG, it was published by the Office of Admini-
stration, then by the Public Relations Division, and finally by the
111 "Niemoeller ruft Frauenfriedenstag zum Boycott westdeutscher Zeitungen auf,"
Die Neue Zeitung, January 14, 1952; "Martin Niemoeller bedauert seine Angriffe gegen
die westdeutschen Zeitungen," ibid., January 19, 1952. See also Sueddeutsche Zeitung,
January 24, 1952.
112 Alexander R. Forest was the Policy Reports Secretary.
56
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Information Division. While not written primarily for Germans,
it was well known to them, particularly through the Amerika
Haeuser,¹¹4
113
1. Overt Periodicals
Both OMGUS and HICOG have published overt periodicals in
German, including the newspaper, Die Neue Zeitung, about which
more will be said in the next section. These were usually printed
in Munich in a plant which had been requisitioned by the U.S.
Army in May 1945. The plant was operated by HICOG until
March 1, 1952 when it was returned to German control.115 Since
then, the overt publications are generally published by German
printing firms on a contract basis.116
After currency reform when readers became very conscious
of the value of money, and after the cessation of licensing when
the number of German periodicals enormously increased, there
was a general decline in the circulation of U.S. overt publications.
A public opinion reader survey indicated that this was because
Germans preferred German periodicals to American periodicals of
the same type published in German." Consequently, HICOG
discontinued several of its periodicals.
One of these was the Neue Auslese which was an attempt to
furnish the Germans with a monthly magazine like the Reader's
Digest. This was begun in October 1945 as a joint British-U.S.
operation. Since Neue Auslese was a financial loss to both the
partners, the British withdrew in 1948; HICOG quit in August
1950. By that time, the circulation of the periodical had fallen
from a high of 260,000 copies in March 1948 (i. e., before currency
reform) to about 20,000.118
The Amerikanische Rundschau was published from February
1948 to February 1950. It was a bimonthly selection of short
stories, essays and poetry of American origin, prepared by the
Magazine Branch of the Department of State in New York and sent
113 H. Warner Waid served as editor from July 1, 1946 until the termination of the
Bulletin in 1953.
114 About 8,000 of the 20,000 copies went to Germans.
115 HICOG, Public Relations Division, Press Release No. 859, March 1, 1952.
116 For example, the Frankfurt edition of the Neue Zeitung is printed in the plant
of the Frankfurter Neue Presse.
117 "Readers' Evaluation of U.S. Overt Publications," Report, Series 2, No. 2, Jan-
uary 6, 1950, prepared by the Reactions Analysis Staff of the HICOG Office of Public
Affairs.
118 The above discussion of the various periodicals is based on HICOG, ISD,
"Semiannual Report, June 1 to December 1, 1951" and on the final HICOG Report on
Germany, op. cit., pp. 68-70.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
57
to Munich for editing and publication. Just after currency reform
(September 1948), it had a circulation of 75,000 which at the time
of its demise had declined to 9,500.
Heute, the U.S. overt biweekly picture magazine corresponding
to Life or Look, was published from September 1945 to December
1951. In October 1948 (after currency reform), it had a circulation
of 750,000 copies, which had fallen off to 175,000 by August 1950,
rising again to 240,000 in 1951. Heute had been conceived as an
illustrated magazine and as an excellent way of presenting the
U.S. mission at a time when there were no German publications
of this type. As German picture magazines were reestablished,
particularly after the cessation of licensing, Heute served as a
model in a political and professional sense. By the end of 1951,
it was felt that the contribution which could be made by such a
HICOG picture magazine was decreasing. This consideration,
together with the desire to cut operating expenses, led to the
decision to cease publication with the final December issue of 1951.
Der Monat is a cultural monthly magazine which reaches some
30,000 intellectuals. Its primary mission is twofold: to assist in the
fight against Communist and neo-Fascist ideologies; and to reflect
the thinking of the free world on a variety of cultural and philo-
sophical subjects. It is published in Berlin where it was begun in
October 1948, in the dark days of the Berlin blockade. Because of
its high standard, Der Monat continues to enjoy an excellent
reputation among thinking Germans and names of internationally
known writers have adorned its pages.
119
The weekly periodical, Ost-Probleme, was begun on August 22,
1949 on the principle that Communist propaganda claims can be
thoroughly discredited if juxtaposed with the facts and distributed
to discerning and responsible Germans. Revealing material from
Communist publications (which relatively few Germans have the
time or language fluency to analyze) is coupled with analytical
articles from Western publications and is presented to a limited
group for study, reprint and reference. Ost-Probleme is currently
being mailed directly to approximately 8,000 libraries, editors,
political leaders, labor union officials, teachers and the like. West
German newspapers frequently base special studies and editorials
on the material furnished by this periodical. The Ost-Probleme
office of the Office of Public Affairs has become recognized as a
general information bureau on the Soviet Union and its satellites.
¹¹ See Walter Hofer, "Fuenfzig Monate transatlantisches Gespraech. Zur Jubilaeums-
ausgabe der Zeitschrift 'Der Monat'," Die Neue Zeitung, November 15, 1952.
58
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
2. Die Neue Zeitung
Die Neue Zeitung, a German language newspaper, made its
first appearance on October 18, 1945 and has been continuously
published since that time, twice weekly until September 1947 and
thereafter daily with the Saturday-Sunday edition combined. The
early masthead read "Die amerikanische Zeitung fuer die deutsche
Bevoelkerung." This later was changed to "Die amerikanische
Zeitung in Deutschland." The newspaper clearly indicated that it
is published by the HICOG Information Division.120 From the be-
ginning, Die Neue Zeitung was directed frankly to the presenta-
tion of American policies and points of view to German readers.
Through the objectivity of its reporting and through maintaining
high journalistic standards, it has served as an example of the
best in American journalism for the German press.
On March 15, 1947, Die Neue Zeitung began publishing a
special four-page Berlin supplement to the main editions published
in Munich and Frankfurt.121 The purpose of this supplement, called
the Berliner Blatt, was to overcome some of the disadvantages
occasioned by the time gap between publication in the U.S. Zone
and distribution in Berlin. In 1948, with the Russian pressure on
Berlin which culminated in the blockade, further action was
necessary. On April 3, Die Neue Zeitung began a seperate Berlin
edition which appeared three times a week until January 15, 1949
when it was converted into a daily paper. The Berlin edition,
much more pronouncedly than the West German edition, is also
intended to reach the East German reader, to acquaint him with
Western ideals and policies, and to reveal the facts concerning the
Soviet Union, Communism and the puppet East German Republic.
For the information of readers in the Soviet Zone, where the
regular distribution of Western newspapers is prohibited, Die
Neue Zeitung published until 1953 a weekly pocket-size edition
which was distributed free of charge and "exported" to the Soviet
Zone. Circulation of the Berlin edition runs from 38 to 40,000 for
the daily edition and 55 to 65,000 for the Saturday-Sunday edition.
Prior to currency reform, Die Neue Zeitung had reached a peak
circulation of about 2,000,000 copies. After the cessation of li-
censing, it dropped to 450,000 in September 1949. The current cir-
120 The Soviet authorities are still publishing the Taegliche Rundschau in Berlin.
121 The publication of the Frankfurt edition was started in July 1949. This edition
was necessary when the newspaper became a daily because Frankfurt was the only
location from which overnight distribution to all of West Germany could be made.
Publication of the Munich edition was discontinued on September 30, 1951.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
59
culation is over 200 000, with the Saturday-Sunday edition
reaching 240,000.122 Since October 1, 1949, advertising has been
permitted. This comparatively late start in the advertising field
is believed to have been a disadvantage since by that time business
firms had already established relations with other newspapers.
123
Die Neue Zeitung is an excellent newspaper measured by
any standard. As an example of modern American journalism, it
has been a very important part of the U.S. program in Germany.
On the other hand, it has been criticized by the German press, in
part because it is sold for less than most German newspapers,
and in part because it will be out of place once the contractual
agreements are ratified.125
124
3. Amerika Dienst
The U.S. Feature Service is a part of the Department of State's
world-wide information service. In Germany, it is known as
Amerika Dienst.120 Established in August 1948, it has functioned
as a mail and wire service devoted exclusively to supplying the
German press with feature and background news about the United
States. It was created by General Clay as a part of the information
program to answer Russian propaganda. At first, however, Ame-
rika Dienst carefully avoided identifying itself with anti-Com-
munist programs in order to maintain a reputation for objectivity.
It grew rapidly and soon added a teletype wire circuit, and
features for women, farmers, educators, doctors and others. The
end of licensing led to a substantial increase in the use of Amerika
Dienst since the Heimatblaetter badly needed the free, well-
written feature material which it was in a position to furnish.
Newspapers and periodicals in West Germany print a large
percentage of the wordage supplied.
..
122 See Omer Anderson, "Die Neue Zeitung Draws Readers with Facts," Stars and
Stripes, December 14, 1952,
123 See testimony of High Commissioner John J. McCloy in Hearings on Foreign
Aid Appropriation for 1951 before the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
81st Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 36-37, 50-52.
124 The daily edition sells for 15 Pfennige and the Saturday-Sunday edition for
20 Pfennige.
125 The Frankfurter Allgemeine, November 1, 1952, asks why a state with a cultural
and political tradition one thousand years old should permit a foreign government to
conduct and subsidize a "school master" newspaper after the ratification of the con-
tractual agreements. If there is to be an American German newspaper published in
Germany, let it be a private undertaking standing on the same basis as the German
newspapers!
126 See James Quigley, "Amerika Dienst Brings USA to Germany," Stars and
Stripes, March 2, 1952.
60
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
The Amerika Dienst wire is based on current news stories and
on official statements and documents furnished by the Department
of State's European File and Day and Night Wireless Bulletins.
With the exception of the wire service, its features are distributed
directly by mail to newspapers, periodicals, free-lance journalists,
news and feature agencies, German, U.S. and Allied government
agencies, leaders of public opinion and universities and hospitals.
Amerika Dienst has continued to grow throughout the HICOG
period. By the end of 1951, a news report was being teletyped
daily to the editorial offices of Die Neue Zeitung, DPA (the West
German news agency) and to seven field bureaus for relay to
metropolitan newspapers. A two-way teletype service, instituted
in October 1951, enabled the newsroom to reach leading news-
papers and radio stations directly. Through a mail service, 1,200
newspapers were receiving regular selections of general feature
material, news letters directed to specific groups, and editorial
comment. Individual articles prepared in Germany or extracted
from American periodicals were offered to selected groups of
newspapers or to individual magazines. Requests from German
editors for full-length articles about the United States were filled
by the staff of Amerika Dienst.
A survey in late 1951 indicated that Amerika Dienst furnished
about ten percent of DPA's entire foreign news despatches and
90 percent of its coverage of American news. German publications
had used more than 600 individual articles and about 2,500 photo-
graphs. It was also noted that Amerika Dienst features sometimes
reached the public directly through the Amerika Haeuser, school
youth groups and women organizations, and that 500 requests per
month were being received from individual Germans for author-
itative information about the United States.127
•
4. Publications and Translations
Another OMGUS-HICOG service was the publication and trans-
lation program. The Book Translations Unit, which was started in
Bad Homburg in 1945, was transferred in April 1946 to the In-
formation Control Division in Berlin. In the early years, contracts
were made with German publishers for producing translations of
American books. To promote interest in works available for such
translation, a monthly bulletin, Buecher aus Amerika, 12 ex-
127 HICOG, Information Services Division, "Semiannual Report, June 1 to Decem-
ber 1, 1951.”
128 Published now by Information Centers Branch, HICOG.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
61
plaining the procedure for acquiring translation rights and con-
taining reviews of various books considered suitable for reproduction
in Germany, was distributed to book sellers in the U.S. and British
Zones and in Berlin.
Although by the summer of 1950 commercial channels were
open between publishers in the two countries, HICOG continued
the Book Translation Unit. HICOG promoted translations by
issuing book paper from its stock. The cost of the paper was
repaid by the German publisher in the form of books at a 50 per-
cent discount; an alternative plan was for HICOG to guarantee
the purchase of part of the edition. Books thus acquired were
distributed to Amerika Haeuser and other outlets, especially in
the Soviet Zone. To March 1, 1953, 341 American books were
translated into German under this program.129 Since 1950, addi-
tional translations through private arrangements between German
and American publishers have greatly increased the number of
American books available in the German language.
As noted in Chapter IV, the progressive deterioration of East-
West relations was accompanied by attacks from Soviet controlled
media of information. In the fall of 1947, OMGUS developed a
plan which called for German language pamphlets which would
provide the German people with facts about the United States,
international problems, and the menace of Communism. The first
pamphlets were published in December 1947; the program was
greatly intensified by the HICOG Information Services Division
after the outbreak of the Korean war in the summer of 1950.
These pamphlets contained material from the Department of State
pilot copies, material written by Germans under contract with the
Office of Public Affairs, and material written or translated by the
HICOG publications staff to meet specific needs. To August 1952,
70 different titles (200,000 copies was the average printing for
each title) were issued. Pamphlets of interest to Germans in the
Soviet Zone are produced in a size which can be easily circulated
behind the Iron Curtain. In addition to a distribution list of
selected German individuals, the pamphlets are also supplied to
about 200 German organizations representing labor, women,
educators, political leaders and public officials for use by their
organizations.
129 See Verzeichnis amerikanischer Buecher in deutscher Uebersetzung, 1945-May
1952, published by HICOG, Division of Cultural Affairs, May 1952.
62
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Other publications consisted of a series of pamphlets sponsored
by the Internal Political and Governmental Affairs Division 130
(Office of Political Affairs), which dealt with various aspects of
citizen participation in government and politics; the HICOG In-
formation Bulletin (already mentioned); and various translations
of books sponsored by the Education Branch of the Education and
Cultural Relations Division. Office of Public Affairs.
Training in Journalism and the Exchange Program 131
From the beginning of the occupation, the problem of training
journalists has been a continuing one. Denazification eliminated
almost all of those who had been active in the Hitler regime, and
the pre-1933 journalists who were available were few and far
from young. Military Government had to recruit, guide and train
a new crop of people for the press. There were various early at-
tempts to institute schools and modern apprenticeship programs
for young journalists. Perhaps the most successful was the work-
shop which trained a large part of the personnel employed by
DANA,132 the German news agency. Started in July 1945 by U.S.
personnel, DANA hired and trained almost 150 German employees
within the first year.133
Another attempt was the Munich School of Journalists, in-
augurated in June 1946. It was succeeded by the School of Jour-
nalism established in connection with the new Munich licensed
paper, the Abendzeitung. This on-the-job training experiment was
begun in May 1948 in conjunction with an international press
exhibit, which lasted from May 5 to June 15, 1948 and which
presented a history of the German press before and under the
Nazis and of the licensed press after 1945. The most important
aspect of the exhibit was a six-page daily Tageszeitung, edited and
published on the fair grounds by student journalists. This ex-
periment was so successful that the newspaper was continued
under license as the Abendzeitung, with the purpose of providing
a practical school of journalism.
Ma
130 Later the Civic and Legislative Activities Division.
131 See Visiting Expert's Report, “A Report on the German Press at the Beginning
of 1953," by Wayne Jordan, January 3, 1953, in files of Historical Division.
132 Now DENA.
133 Monthly Report of the Military Governor, U.S. Zone, No. 13, "Information
Control (Cumulative Review)," August 20, 1946, p. 5.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
63
The Abendzeitung School of Journalism was opened on Jan-
uary 1, 1950. Only twenty-one students were selected from 1,700
applicants. Their average age was twenty-six years; four were
women. Each student received a monthly stipend of DM 300. The
schedule of studies emphasized the practical side of journalism
and contemporary affairs-politics, geography, economics, art,
and the theater. The school was subsidized by HICOG funds and
under direction of independent German editors. Although HICOG
was not entirely satisfied with its early operation, the school was
continued and was afterwards renamed the Werner Friedmann In-
stitute. In 1952, 12 students were graduated from it and 12 new
students selected for training.
University training for journalism had, of course, been known
in Germany before the Nazi period but it had not developed as
far as in the United States and some other European countries.
Before the First World War, a journalism institute had been
established in the University of Strassbourg. In the Weimar
Republic, there were schools of journalism with practical training
connected with the Universities of Munich, Berlin and Muenster.
After the Second World War, the role of the university in
preparing journalists was again discussed. Heidelberg University
now offers journalism courses in its Institut fuer Publizistik. An
early attempt by the University of Munich to train young jour-
nalists did not survive currency reform. Subsequently, the Uni-
versity established the School of Newspaper Science (Zeitungs-
wissenschaft). At the end of 1952, there were plans to merge the
Abendzeitung School of Journalism with this School. If this mer-
ger is accomplished, it would create a German institution which
would approximate in scope and objectives the schools of jour-
nalism in the United States.
In general, the main difficulties at the university level are,
first, faculty opposition to practical courses in journalism, and,
secondly, the lack of any degree or diploma short of the full doc-
torate. There is a possibility that several universities may be will-
ing in the future to award diplomas in journalism prior to the
doctorate.134
A survey of journalism education in Germany in the fall of
1952 indicates that the exchanges program has been a most im-
portant factor in raising the level of German journalism and in
134 See Visiting Expert's Report, "Report on Journalism in Germany and Relations
between the Press and Government," by Ralph O. Nafziger, January 12, 1953.
64
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
135
com-
bringing it toward an appreciation of the proper place of the press
in a demcracy. During the early Military Government period,
the problem of sending German journalists abroad was
plicated both by the lack of funds and by the delays connected
with securing exit permits from the Combined Travel Board.
While U.S. visiting experts were brought to Germany in fairly
sizable numbers, it was not until September 1948 that plans for
travel of German journalists to the United States were completed.
At that time 19 German journalists, ten of whom were newspaper
editors or publishers, started on a two-months' trip under a pro-
gram directed by the Dean of the Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism. The expenses were borne by the Rockefeller
Foundation. This was the beginning of a steady though limited
flow of German journalists and writers to the United States.
A second trip was arranged in 1949, when 17 newspaper
editors, publishers and reporters and five book and magazine pub-
lishers and editors went to the United States for two months. This
trip was financed from Military Government reorientation funds.
Sponsors of this group were the American Press Institute at
Columbia University, the American Book Publishing Council and
leading American newspapers and news agencies.
From September 1948 to the present, 267 Germans on 18 sep-
arate projects have been sent to the United States for varying
periods of study, observation and training in the press and pub-
lications field. Thus in July 1951, the chairman of the Bundestag
Committee on Press, Radio and Film and eight editors of German
periodicals went to America on the exchange program."""
Press Legislation in the High Commission Period
Fress legislation in the OMGUS period has already been dis-
cussed in Chapter III. This section will deal with the same topic
in the High Commission period, considering first Allied legislation
and then German legislation.
1. Allied Legislation
With the cessation of licensing and the termination of Military
Government in 1949, new Allied legislation was needed. Accord-
ingly on September 21, 1949, Allied High Commission Law No. 5
135 Nafziger, op. cit.
130 Information supplied by Harold W. Graham and Ernst Metzler, Information
Division, April 14, 1953. The total does not include journalists, editors and publishers
who went to the United States on other HICOG exchange programs.
137 HICOG, Public Relations Division, Press Release No. 722, July 18, 1951.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
65
was enacted by the Council of the Allied High Commission.13 This
law, together with the regulations issued thereunder, defined the
Allied program on "press, radio, information and entertainment”
for West Germany, and repealed earlier legislation of the three
zones such as U.S. Military Government Laws Nos. 76 and 191.
Article 1 of Law No. 5 stipulated that:
The German press, radio and other information media shall
be free as is provided by the Basic Law. The Allied High Com-
mission reserves the right to cancel or annul any measure,
governmental, political, administrative or financial, which
threatens such freedom.
The High Commission, however, retained authority to utilize
German media of communication to further the purposes of the Oc-
cupation Statute and to prevent them from being used to impair
the prestige or security of the Allied Forces. Penalties of imprison-
ment, fine and forfeiture of property are prescribed for violations.
of the law.
+
J
The High Commission also provided penalties for "offenses.
against the occupation," some of which are of concern in the in-
formation field. Thus Allied High Commission Law No. 14,
November 25, 1949, forbade, inter alia, the following, all of which
must be considered in connection with the provisions of Law No. 5.
139
1. Unauthorized possession or communication of informa-
tion that is dangerous to the security or property of the Allied
Forces.
2. Incitement to or participation in rioting or public dis-
order.
3. Promoting a public gathering for the purpose of sab-
otage, insurrection, subversion or otherwise to the prejudice
of the Allied Forces.
4. Aid or support of any person, group or government
hostile to the interests of the Allied Forces or reconstitution
of any prohibited organization.
5. Issuing or disseminating any false or deliberately dis-
torted information concerning any act or policy of the Occupa-
tion Authorities with the intent of inciting or provoking dis-
trust or hostility against such authorities.
138 The text may be found in the Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission
for Germany, No. 1, pp. 7-10, September 23, 1949. The text is also given in Appendix 3
of this study.
139 Official Gazette, op. cit., No. 6, pp. 58-59, December 6, 1949.
66
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Although there was provocation, particularly from the Com-
munist press, the Allies did not immediately invoke the penalties
laid down in Law No. 5. Communist newspapers, freed from li-
censing and parroting the latest Kremlin line, attacked the Allies
and the new West German Federal Government. The slogan key-
noting all Communist propaganda in both East and West Ger-
many was "Ami (Yanks) go home!" From the beginning, U.S. of-
ficials had never imposed pre-publication scrutiny of the licensed
press.140 There was, of course, daily post-publication scrutiny and
this was continued in the HICOG period. But no action was taken
until 1950 when matters reached a climax with the Deutschland-
treffen in Berlin and the outbreak of war in Korea.141 The develop-
ment of this new phase of Communist tactics, in which the West
German Communist press played a leading role, caused the Allied
High Commission to issue three regulations implementing High
Commission Law No. 5.
Regulation No. 1, May 16, 1950, required that one copy of every
newspaper, periodical, book, or pamphlet published in, or im-
ported into Germany, be made available to the designated agency
of the High Commission; that copies of their programs be retained
by producers of radio scripts for a three-month period after trans-
mission; and that motion picture films be exhibited on the request
of the designated agency of the High Commission. Regulation
No. 2, of the same date, established a Board of Appeal charged
with the duty of hearing and determining appeals under par-
agraph 3, Article 2 of Allied High Commission Law No. 5; the
three-member Board of Appeal should consist of members of the
General Committee or alternates designated by them.142 Regula-
tion No. 3, December 21, 1950, was designed specifically to pro-
tect Allied Forces and interests against the importation into West
Germany of detrimental publications. It was prohibited to bring
into the federal territory any publication, sound recordings,
140 Although the United States had originally planned to institute a system of pre-
publication scrutiny, this was abandoned with the licensing of the first German
newspaper in Frankfurt in July 1945 and was never put into effect. See "The German
Press in the U.S. Occupied Area, 1945-1948." op. cit., p. 7. On the other hand, in the
early days, the British and French had engaged in pre-publication censorship.
141 See "New Phase of Communist Tactics in Germany," HICOG, Fourth Quarterly
Report on Germany, July 1-September 30, 1950, pp. 35-41; HICOG. ISD, "Monthly
Press Report," April 1950; and HICOG, Press Release No. 442, August 16, 1950. See also
F. Gardner Cox, Jr., "Communist Press in West Germany," HICOG, Information
Bulletin, September 1950, pp. 5-7.
142 For the text of these regulations, see Allied High Commission, Official Gazette,
No. 21, May 30, 1950, pp. 330-331. Article 2, Paragraph 3 of Allied High Commission
Law No. 5 provided for appeal when an enterprise is prohibited for more than three
months, or any person for more than one month.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
67
motion picture films, news and photographic services or products,
radio facilities, and the like, which urged resistance to the Allied
Forces, incited to riot or disorder prejudicial to the security of the
Allied Forces, or which were otherwise likely to prejudice their
prestige or security.
143
Of importance at this point was the Foreign Ministers' Declara-
tion regarding Berlin, because the Berlin situation had great effect
on the activities of the West German Communists. In their May
1950 meeting in London, the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France
and the United States declared that their respective countries
would continue to uphold their rights in Berlin and were resolved
to protect the democratic rights of its inhabitants.
After the outbreak of the Korean war, the Council of the
Allied High Commission agreed that each High Commissioner
would issue to the Land Commissioners of his respective zone a
"directive concerning counter-measures against unlawful activities
of the Communist party (KPD), the Communist Free German
Youth (FDJ) and other Communist, Fascist or subversive organiza-
tions."¹ In its meeting on August 31, 1950, the Council stated:145
Unlike the practice in reactionary or totalitarian countries,
opposition parties are not prescribed in West Germany merely
because of disagreement with their doctrines. So long as the
KPD functions like all genuine political parties, it is free to
preach its political doctrines and to carry on all other activities
permitted by law to political parties as part of the life of a
democratic state. But any incitement to violence, subversive
activities or resistance to authority, constitute abuses of dem-
ocratic principles and breaches of law.
The Allied forces of occupation are in Germany by right
and in virtue of the declaration of unconditional surrender of
June 5, 1945. In consequence, the High Commission will not
tolerate Communist-inspired incitement to disobedience and re-
sistance to its over-all authority. This applies with added force
in the case of action undertaken by individuals in West Ger-
many in obedience to instructions from foreigners and others
143 Ibid., No. 44, January 10, 1951, pp. 731-733.
144 For the text of the HICOG directive, see Outgoing Message to All Land Com-
missioners and the Chief Attorney, Nuremberg, September 11, 1950, CN 4498. The
text may also be found in a HICOG Staff Memorandum, issued by the Staff Sec-
retary, September 29, 1950, in files of Historical Division.
145 Quoted from ibid.
68
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
outside the Federal Republic such as certain leaders of the
SED 146 Individuals and associations, responsible for illegal ac-
tivities, will be subjected to the penalties laid down by law.
Under the agreed procedure, when post-publication scrutiny
revealed violations of Law No. 5, the cases were reported to the
Council of the Allied High Commission. After approval by the
Council of the steps to be taken, the Land Commissioner of the
Land where the violation occurred was notified; he proceeded with
administrative action through the Land ministry of the interior.
Between August 3 and September 30, 1950, the Allied High
Commission suspended all but one of the 16 Communist news-
papers in West Germany. The ban was generally for a period of
90 days and was for specific subversive statements such as ad-
vocating resistance to the Western Occupying Powers and to the
West German Federal Government.147 This caused the Communists
to resort to illegal publications which were confiscated when dis-
covered. On September 20, 1950, the General Committee of the
Allied High Commission decided that no German court could
penalize a printer for breach of contract through refusing to print
material which violated the provisions of Law No. 5. The General
Committee also agreed to review hardship cases where printers
were unemployed in plants which depended on Communist con-
tracts but which were not officially connected with the Com-
munists.
The suspensions produced an outcry from the Communists
who alleged infringement of Article 5 of the West German Con-
stitution which provides that "everyone has the right freely to
express his opinion in speech, writing and pictures." They also
appealed unsuccessfully to the Board of Appeal established by
Regulation No. 2 under Law No. 5.
Implementation of Law No. 5 was further strengthened by
Regulation No. 3, December 21, 1950 which was designed to pro-
tect Allied interests against the importation into West Germany of
detrimental publications. It prohibited bringing into the federal
territory any publications, sound recordings, motion picture films,
news and photographic services or products, radio facilities and
146 "SED" stands for the Socialist Unity party of the Soviet Zone and East Berlin.
147 See "The Communist Press," Background Letter, Vol. III, 1950, pp. 169-170, pub-
lished by the Publications Branch, Information Services Division, Control Commis-
sion for Germany (British Element).
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
69
the like which urged resistance to the Allied Forces, incited riot
or disorder prejudicial to the security of the Allied Forces, or
otherwise prejudiced their prestige security.'
148
The enforcement149 of Regulation No. 3 was difficult because it
fell chiefly on the already overworked German customs police
who were having troubles of their own with commercial smug-
glers. Specifically the customs officials had to be instructed as to
the nature of the material which could be seized under Regula-
tion No. 3. This was worked out in the early months of 1951.
The proposed Communist "plebiscite against militarism and
for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany in 1951" pro-
duced counter-measures. On April 24, 1951, the West German
Federal Government specifically prohibited every activity relating
to the "plebiscite. "150 The Communist newspapers, however, con-
tinued agitation for the plebiscite. The Allied High Commission
supported the Federal Government with a new round of suspen-
sions. In March, the Hanover Communist newspaper, Die Wahr-
heit, was banned for 90 days because it incited the population to
resist Allied measures for the defense of Germany and published
a faked photograph showing U.S. High Commissioner McCloy
studying photographs of Korean war dead.151 By the middle of
July, a total of 15 Communist papers had been suspended for
90 days.152 Twelve of these subsequently resumed publication and
have continued since that time.
The Allied High Commission also dealt with the reactionary
and neo-Nazi press. In some instances warnings were given, in
others suspensions. Thus in December 1950, Der Stern, an il-
lustrated weekly magazine published in Hamburg, was suspended
for two issues because of its article, "Hoppla, wir leben auf Be-
satzungskosten" (Hurrah, we're living on occupation costs"). The
editor apologized and the High Commission reduced the suspen-
sion to one issue. However, in place of the first suspended issue,
148 For the text of Regulation No. 3, see Official Gazette, op. cit., No. 44, pp. 731-733,
January 10, 1951.
149 One example may be given. In June 1951, the Allied High Commission prohibited,
"effective immediately and until further notice, the importation into and the dis-
tribution or display in federal territory of the Neue Berliner Illustrierte, a weekly
published in East Berlin." See Press Release No. 839, Public Relations Branch, Office
of the Land Commissioner for Bavaria, June 6, 1951.
150 Bundesgesetzblatt, No. 52, p. 1, April 28, 1951.
151 Allied High Commission for Germany, Press Release No. 286, March 29, 1951.
152 New York Times, July 12, 14, 18, 1951.
70
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
an equally objectionable leaflet was issued in spite of the apology.
The High Commission therefore reimposed the suspension of the
second issue.
As the negotiations for the contractual agreements got under
way, the Allies became reluctant to invoke sanctions except in
very extreme cases. It was felt that control of subversive press
activities should be a German responsibility.154 Action by the
Allied High Commission under Law No. 5 was thus practically at
an end.
2. German Legislation
In the preceding section, Allied High Commission Law No. 5
was discussed. The subject of German press legislation 155 will now
be considered with particular reference to the developments since
1949 when the states enacted press laws as a prerequisite to the
cessation of licensing.155
The struggle against extremist elements and their publications,
which the Allied High Commission began, has been continued by
the German authorities on their own initiative. On November 16,
1951, the West German Federal Government decided to call upon
the Federal Constitutional Court to decide whether the neo-Nazi
Sozialistische Reichspartei (SRP) and the Communist party (KPD)
are unconstitutional in the sense of Article 21 of the Basic Law."
Although various Communist activities have been and are being
prosecuted as illegal, the Court has not yet handed down its
decision with respect to the constitutionality of the KPD as such.
157
153 Allied High Commission for Germany, Press Release No. 256, December 29,
1950; Press Release No. 260, January 5, 1951; Press Release No. 264, January 12, 1951;
Background Information for Correspondents No. 123, January 12, 1951.
Other questions involving the press arose in this period. In January 1951, the Land
Commissioner for Bavaria directed the Bavarian Minister President to dissolve the
Langen-Mueller Verlag in Munich, a Nazi-owned press, which had undertaken to
resume operations under the former management. See Press Release No. 614, Press
Relations Branch, Office of the Land Commissioner for Bavaria, January 16, 1951.
The Land Commissioners sometimes became involved in controversies with the
German press. See the letter of Rear Admiral Charles R. Jeffs, Land Commissioner
for Bremen, to Erich Traumann, Editor, Bremer Volkszeitung, released by the Office
of the Land Commissioner for Bremen, February 16, 1951.
15 For the U.S. view, see memorandum, Office of Public Affairs, Alfred V.
Boerner to Wolfgang von Eckhardt, subject: The Publication Aachener Nachrichten,
October 12, 1951, in files of Policy Staff, Office of Public Affairs.
155 For the text of relevant laws, see C. H. Lueders, ed., Presse- und Rundfunk-
recht (Berlin and Frankfurt, 1952).
156 See Chapter III.
157 See "Constitutionality of Extremist Parties," Background Letter, op. cit., Volume
IV, 1951, pp. 210-212.
15 For example, in late March 1953, the Hesse Minister of the Interior announced
that the entire issue of the periodical, Die Nation, had been confiscated by the
police. This periodical was issued by a Communist front organization, the West-
deutscher Arbeitsausschuss der nationalen Front des demokratischen Deutschlands.
Die Neue Zeitung, March 27, 1953.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
71
On the other hand, the Court in two decisions struck at the
Socialist Reich party. On July 15, 1952, the Court issued an interim
injunction severely limiting the activities of the SRP.15 Among
other things, the injunction prohibited the printing and distribu-
tion of all SRP publications, including the Deutsche Opposition,
Der Ruf, and Deutsches Reich. On. October 23, 1952, the Court
issued its final verdict which declared the party unconstitutional
and ordered its dissolution.160 Moreover, the formation of alter-
native or substitute organizations was also forbidden.161
A quite different kind of question is presented by the proposed
"Schmutz- und Schundgesetz" (Dirt and Trash Law) which was
designed to protect young people under 18 years of age from lit-
erature glorifying immorality and crime by forbidding the exhibi-
tion, advertisement and sale of such publications to juveniles.
Undoubtedly, the cessation of licensing did result in an increase
in the trashy tabloid type of publication. On the other hand, the
German Criminal Code (Arts. 184 and 184a) had for many years
prohibited the sale of obscene and pornographic literature to per-
sons under 18. Was additional legislation needed?
163
182
Early in 1950, the Federal Ministry of the Interior began draft-
ing a bill on the subject which was subsequently introduced into
the Bundestag and referred to the Youth Welfare Committee.
After almost two years of study, the Committee reported the bill
favorably. In September 1952, it was passed by the Bundestag,
165 to 133,' was amended and passed the Bundesrat, and went to
a Conference Committee (Vermittlungsausschuss). In March 1953,
the Bundesrat rejected the report of the Conference Committee
and the bill was lost.16+
159 "Federal Government's Action against Neo-Nazism," Background Letter, op. cit.,
Vol. 5, No. 43, pp. 1-5, July 18, 1952.
10" Dissolution of the SRP." ibid., Vol. V, No. 56, pp. 1-2, October 28, 1952.
161 It is comparatively easy to invoke constitutional and statutory prohibition
against outright neo-Nazi publications. It is more difficult to deal with sensational
feature articles on Nazi leaders, often glorifying them or showing their "human side"
to the exclusion of their criminal activities. These articles avoid incitement to
resistance and disorder and refrain from directly and maliciously attacking the
prestige of the Western Allies and of the West German Federal Government. Hence
they cannot be prescribed either under Allied High Commission Law No. 5 or under
German law. See Report, Press and Publications Branch, Information Services
Division, HICOG, August 1950.
162 Die Neue Zeitung, July 12, 1952.
163 Despatch No. 868, from HICOG Bonn, dated September 26, 1952, subject: Current
Informational Report: West German Reaction to the "Dirt and Trash Law". This
report was prepared by Robert H. Lochner, Information Division.
164 Die Neue Zeitung, March 21, 1953.
72
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
165
The bill as passed by the Bundestag was a much stronger ver-
sion of a similar federal law enacted in 1926 under the Weimar
Republic. The bill provided for the establishment of committees
consisting of representatives of the government, the churches,
youth organizations, publishing houses and other branches of the
book business. These committees would be charged with examin-
ing publications and establishing a black list. The procedure was
a purely bureaucratic in nature with no provision for a publisher
or bookseller to appeal to the ordinary or administrative courts.
HICOG officials doubted that such legislation, whether at fed-
eral or at state levels, was the correct solution of the problem,
since it might ultimately lead to undue government control of the
press. The Social Democratic members of the Bundestag were
unanimously against the proposed federal law. It was opposed by
most of the German press which noted that it would encourage
black marketing. As the Deutsche Zeitung und Wirtschaftszeitung
put it, "This law, like other laws before it, cannot be expected to im-
prove mankind. Experience of the recent past shows that prohibi-
tions, especially in this field, only tend to stimulate rather than
subdue. 166
A far more controversial question is presented by the problem
of a general federal press law. In February 1951, three different
drafts of such a law were worked out by organizations of jour-
nalists and publishers and were submitted to the Federal Ministry
of the Interior. The Ministry also produced its own draft in Feb-
bruary 1952. In view of the unhappy experiences which the Fed-
eral Government has had with certain irresponsible elements of
the press, it is not surprising that the Ministry bill contains a
provision requiring the press to publish only what is true.17 The
press rightly regarded this as a dangerous weapon in the hands
of governmental authorities which could easily lead to abuse. On
the other hand, the press has its own grievances against govern-
ment. Government press officers and officials in general have not
105 The above account is largely based on "West German Press Reaction to the
'Dirt and Trash Law'," op. cit.
op. cit. The law of 1926 proved unworkable and was
repealed after two years. In the summer of 1950, the HICOG Press Branch, Informa-
tion Services Division, prepared two reports on the 1926 law. These are entitled "Das
Schmutz- und Schundgesetz von 1926: Zustandekommen und Auswirkung," and "Aus
der bisherigen Arbeit fuer ein 'Schmutz- und Schundgesetz': Nach Pressemeldungen,"
and may be found in the files of Press Branch.
166 Information supplied by Mr. Dawill of the Deutscher Journalistenverband, Bonn,
April 14, 1953.
187 "Bonn stellt Pressegesetz-Entwurf zur oeffentlichen Diskussion," Die Neue Zei-
tung, March 13, 1952.
THE PRESS, 1949-1953
73
always dealt frankly with the press and have withheld informa-
tion to which the voters in a democracy are entitled. It has also
happened more than once that government subscriptions to news-
papers have been cancelled because of some unfavorable item that
was printed. For a local newspaper, this is a risk not to be lightly
assumed.
No one would pretend that American experience has provided
the answer to all these questions but in general public opinion
is against restrictions imposed by law. It is expected that poli-
ticians and civil servants in the United States will have "thick
skins" and that the press will try to develop its own standards
of ethics and responsibility. Both government and press in Ger-
many still have much to learn in these respects. The battle over a
federal press law is just beginning and much more will certainly
be heard on the subject in the future.
CHAPTER VI
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
The development of radio broadcasting168 in Germany since
1945 has been much influenced by the zonal division of the coun-
try. Here as elsewhere, Berlin is a special case and will be treated
in another Historical Division monograph now in preparation.169
Since the present study deals with West Germany, there will be
only incidental references to the radio patterns of the Soviet areas
of control. But even within West Germany, differences will be
found between the British, French and U.S. Zones.
In Chapter III, it was pointed out that OMGUS returned radio
broadcasting to the Germans in 1949. U.S. policy emphasized de-
centralization which meant the organization of radio according to
state areas. Thus in Bavaria, there was set up the Bayerischer
Rundfunk in Munich; in Wuerttemberg-Baden, the Sueddeutscher
Rundfunk in Stuttgart; in Hesse, the Hessischer Rundfunk in
Frankfurt; and in Land Bremen, Radio Bremen. These are not
controlled by the Land governments but are organized under state
law as autonomous public law corporations directed by represent-
ative councils.
British and French Zones
British Military Government established a single zonal radio
network, the Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk, modelled after the
British Broadcasting Corporation. The Nordwestdeutscher Rund-
funk charter came into effect on January 1, 1948, as a result of the
promulgation of British Military Government Ordinance No. 118.
The charter, which was published as a schedule to Ordinance
No. 118, created the Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk as a German
public law corporation, free from governmental and party in-
16 For the text of relevant laws dealing with radio, see C. H. Lueders, ed.,
Presse- und Rundfunkrecht (Berlin and Frankfurt, 1952).
169 The title of the monograph is "U.S. Information Programs in Berlin."
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
75
fluence, financially independent and separate from the German
Post Office.170 It operates under a committee which represents the
political, economic and cultural interests of the four Laender. In
August 1949, the charter was amended so as to bring it in line
with the Occupation Statute. Under the British interpretation of
the Occupation Statute, Military Government radio legislation is
a subject which may, with Allied authorization, be repealed by
German law. Since no such German legislation has yet been en-
acted, the Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk continues to rest ex-
clusively on Military Government decree.""
French Zone experience has been similar to that of the British
Zone. In their Zone, the French created a single zonal radio net-
work, the Suedwestfunk. In the fall of 1950, the three Laender of
the French Zone drafted a treaty concerning the Suedwestfunk
which was intended to replace the French Military Government
radio ordinances.172 The draft aroused much criticism in newspaper
and broadcasting circles because it gave the state governments
too much power, particularly with respect to the budget of the
Suedwestfunk. The French High Commissioner let it be known he
would not agree to the repeal of the French ordinances unless the
proposed treaty were amended.173 Certain amendments were there-
upon made and the treaty came into force on April 25, 1952.17 At
the same time, various parts of the Military Government legisla-
tion on the radio were repealed.175 Other parts were retained such
as the provision that the Suedwestfunk should have a broadcast-
ing monopoly in the area, and that property of the German Post
Office, transferred to the Suedwestfunk by French ordinance,
should not be returned to the Deutsche Post."
Property Rights of the German Post Office
The question of the property rights of the German Post Office,
referred to in the preceding section, deserves further explanation.
Prior to 1945, the ownership of radio broadcasting stations and
170 The question of the property rights of the German Post Office will be
discussed in the following section.
171 Memorandum, F. A. W. Grinyer, Broadcasting Liaison Branch, Hamburg, to
Brigadier W. L. Gibson, Chief, Information Services Division (British), Wahnerheide,
October 4, 1950, subject: "N.W.D.R.", in files of HICOG Historical Division. This
memorandum is a summary of British experience with the Nordwestdeutscher Rund-
funk.
172 For the original text of the proposed treaty, see Staatszeitung fuer Rheinland-
Pfalz, September 2, 1950.
173 Sueddeutsche Zeitung, October 6 and 7, 1951.
174 Die Neue Zeitung, April 28, 1952.
175 Gazette Officiel, No. 81, pp. 1637 ff., May 8, 1952.
174 Ibid., Ordinance No. 188, Article 2.
76
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
equipment was vested in the Deutsche Reichspost. At the begin-
ning of the occupation, Military Government requisitioned the
property. U.S. Military Government Law No. 19, April 20, 1949,
provided that the "property of the former Reichspost used directly
or indirectly for the purpose of radio broadcasting on Decem-
ber 31, 1948 is hereby transferred to the public service institution
organized in each Land pursuant to German legislation. ...
9177
Throughout the HICOG period, there has been discussion about
Law No. 19 and the property rights of the Bundespost, the West
German successor organization of the old Reichspost. Thus in 1950,
a transmitter plant in Ismaning, Bavaria, was serving both the
Bayerischer Rundfunk and the AFN-ARBIE programs at the same
time.178 The Bundespost argued that part of the Ismaning property
did not relate to broadcasting as defined by Law No. 19 since some
of the broadcasting equipment, especially the short-wave installa-
tion used by ARBIE, was not being employed for German broad-
casting. However, HICOG took the position that under Law No. 19
all the property concerned had been transferred to the Bayerischer
Rundfunk.179
On January 30, 1951, the Federal Law concerning the Property
Rights of the German Federal Post was submitted to the Allied
High Commission. This law proposed to transfer to the Deutsche
Bundespost all the radio property of the Deutsche Reichspost ex-
cept property used exclusively for purposes of German radio
broadcasting on December 31, 1948. The U.S. High Commissioner
opposed the law and the Council of the High Commission agreed
that, if no satisfactory agreement could be reached with the Fed-
eral Government, the law would be provisionally disapproved.
After two Allied-German meetings (February 16 and July 24,
1951), the Federal Minister of Justice stated in the Bundestag:
"We have finally decided to hold off the promulgation [of the law]
until the time of the lifting of the Occupation Statute and with it
the restoration of our legislative sovereignty.
"180
Allied High Commission Law No. A-16, May 4, 1951, repealed
U.S. Military Government Law No. 19 but provided that the action
177 Law No. 19, Art. IV, Par. 5, in Military Government Gazette, Germany, United
States Area of Control, Issue N, p. 9, 1949.
178 “AFN” stands for American Forces Network; “ARBIE" stands for American
Relay Base in Europe and is a broadcast relay station for the Voice of America.
17 Letter, Information Services Division, Office of Public Affairs, to Legal Advice
Division, Office of General Counsel, December 8, 1950, requesting interpretation of
Law No. 19; letter of reply, Legal Advice Division to Information Services Division,
December 15, 1950. Files of Legal Advice Division.
180 Proceedings of the Bundestag, 174th Meeting, p. 7155, November 14, 1951.
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
77
should not be deemed to affect any right, title or interest con-
ferred by paragraphs 5 or 11 of Law No. 19.181 This confirmed the
title of the German broadcasting companies to the former Reichs-
post property. The title is further confirmed by the Contractual
Agreement, signed on May 26, in the following language:182
All rights and obligations created or established by or under
legislative, administrative or judicial action of the Occupation
Authorities are and shall remain valid for all purposes under
German law whether or not their creation or establishment
was in conformity with other legislation. Such rights and ob-
ligations shall be subject without discrimination to the same
future legislative, judicial and administrative measures
similar rights and obligations created or established by or
under German Municipal Law.
Finance
Unlike the United States where the owners of radio receiving
sets pay nothing for the programs they hear, the German radio is
almost entirely financed by fees.183 The fee is two marks per month
for each receiving set. It is collected by the Bundespost which
turns over most of the money to the radio broadcasting corpora-
tion of the zone, area or Land in question. For its services in col-
lecting fees, locating illegal stations, and discovering unregistered
(and hence non-paying) receiving sets, the Bundespost retains
19.3 percent of the gross collection in the U.S. Zone, 25 percent in
the British Zone, and 20 percent in the French Zone.185 The follow-
ing table shows the number of registered radio receivers in West
Germany as of November 1, 1952.¹
184
186
181 Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission for Germany, No. 54, p. 881,
May 9, 1951.
182 Chapter 1, Article 2, paragraph 1, Convention on Relations between the Three
Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany and Related Conventions, p. 12, in
the English text as prepared by HICOG, Office of the Executive Secretary. The
continued operation by the U.S. Government of ARBIE and RIAS-Hof is covered
by a bilateral agreement between the United States and the West German Republic,
signed at Bonn on June 11, 1952. New York Times, June 12, 1952.
183 In the 1952-1953 budget of the Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk, 99.5 percent of the
income came from fees. Die Neue Zeitung, February 12, 1953.
184 Special legislation was required to deal with these "black listeners."
185 In West Berlin, the fees go into the general city treasury. They would be used
to develop a West Berlin radio if such a project were undertaken. The Nordwest-
deutscher Rundfunk station in West Berlin is financed by fees collected in the British
Zone.
186 Die Neue Zeitung, November 14, 1952. Of the total given, 458,049 receivers are
exempt from the payment of the fees.
78
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk
Bayerischer Rundfunk
Suedwestfunk
Hessischer Rundfunk
Sueddeutscher Rundfunk
Radio Bremen
Total
5,459,455
1,846,333
1,068,726
956,514
856,723
144,728
10,332,479
Because of the economic recovery of West Germany since the
currency reform of 1948, the number of registered radio receivers
has been increasing steadily. With the exception of Radio Bremen,
the revenues from fees have been sufficient to operate the net-
works and finance the necessary improvements, including the
gradual conversion to frequency modulation broadcasting. Because
of the small number of registered sets and hence small income,
Radio Bremen has had considerable financial difficulty. In August
1950, Radio Bremen received a HICOG grant of DM 1,176,450 in
order to enable it to complete its studio building.
Allocation of Frequencies
After the return 188 of the radio broadcasting networks to Ger-
man hands, Military Government retained the authority to allocate
frequencies. Frequency assignments were coordinated through a
tripartite committee consisting of British, French and U.S. Mil-
itary Government representatives. This arrangement was con-
tinued after the passage of Allied High Commission Law No. 5 on
September 21, 1949. Article 3 of that law provides:
Madde
1. No new radio broadcasting, television or wired trans-
mission installation shall be set up and there shall be no trans-
fer of control of any installation of this nature without the
187 See the Historical Division monograph, The Special Projects Program of the
Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany (1952), by J. F. J. Gillen, p. 50.
188 On November 18, 1949, as a final step by OMGUS in returning radio to the
Germans, the Radio Technical Institute of Nuremberg was incorporated as a radio
engineering cooperative. This organization in an unincorporated form had played a
major role in the technical development of the German radio. It had been established
in 1945 by U.S. Military Government with a small group of German engineers utiliz-
ing U.S. Army equipment. At first the Institute served primarily as a source of
manufactured equipment, but, as minimum technical requirements were met, fuller
use was made of the laboratory for the further advance of the technical phases of
broadcasting in such fields as high frequency transmission, studio and recording
techniques, electro-acoustics, and frequency modulation.
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
79
authorization of the Allied High Commission. German radio
operations shall be conducted in accordance with frequency
and power allocations made by the Allied High Commission.
2. International relays, foreign language broadcasting and
negotiations with foreign countries on matters of broadcasting
shall be subject to prior authorization by the Allied High Com-
mission.
The allocation function was taken over by the Allied High Com-
mission for Germany through a similar tripartite committee, with
HICOG retaining control over frequency assignments in the U.S.
Zone and Bremen.189
Although the allocation of frequencies has thus far been dis-
cussed only with reference to the Occupying Powers and the West
German Government, the problem is one which involves many
nations. A European Broadcasting Convention was held in Copen-
hagen in the summer of 1948. Since the United States is not a
European state, it had no voting membership in the conference
but was represented by observers because of its occupation re-
sponsibilities in Germany. Dissatisfied with the frequency assign-
ments made by the Convention, the U.S. Delegation lodged a pro-
test19 which specifically reserved all rights to safeguard broad-
casting interests in the U.S. controlled areas of Germany. There
189 Under the Contractual Agreements signed on May 26, 1952, a frequency com-
mittee will be established composed of representatives of the Three Powers and of
the Federal Republic and charged with determining the frequency assignments re-
quired for the Armed Forces of the Three Powers stationed in Germany. In effect,
the committee will control all frequency assignments since in this matter the civil
radio stations cannot be entirely separated from the military stations. See Conven-
tion on the Rights and Obligations of Foreign Forces and Their Members in the
Federal Republic of Germany, Article 18, "Communications," and Annex B, "Provi-
sion on Radio Frequencies," in Convention on Relations between the Three Powers
and the Federal Republic of Germany, op. cit.
The present study does not deal with the negotiations leading up to the Con-
tractual Agreements. These will be dealt with in a secret Historical Division mono-
graph by Rodney C. Loehr entitled "Contractual Agreements: History of the Nego-
tiations prior to the Signing of the Conventions." However, it may be noted that,
as early as June 1951, the Chancellor wrote a letter to the Allied High Commission
saying that the Federal Republic would like to enact a law restoring its sovereignty
over broadcasting which, inter alia, would replace Article 3 of Allied High Commis-
sion Law No. 5. AGSEC(51)943, June 5, 1951; AGSEC(51)1002POL, June 14, 1951.
190 See Final Protocol of the European Broadcasting Convention, Copenhagen 1948,
published in 1948 by the General Secretariat of the International Telecommunications
Union. The United States protest was not supported by the British and French
who from the beginning had used zonal rather than Land radio networks. Moreover,
the British and French had no need for carrying on as extensive a system as AFN
and ARBIE since the British Broadcasting Corporation and the French radio reach
all Europe.
80
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
were only two good frequencies assigned to the U.S. Zone of Ger-
many and the U.S. Sector of Berlin. Since one of these was re-
quired for RIAS, there remained only one for Bavaria, Bremen,
Hesse and Wuerttemberg-Baden. In addition, the United States
needed frequencies for AFN and ARBIE.
The Copenhagen Agreement went into effect on March 15,
1950. Various formal and informal conferences were held in Wash-
ington and London to consider the needs of the United States in
Germany but without success. While the United States was not
a signatory to the Agreement and did not recognize its decisions,
this did not alter the conflict in frequencies which developed after
March 15, 1950. It has been necessary to change the power and
frequencies of U.S. area without, however, completely resolving
the complications. Thus the power of the Hessischer Rundfunk
was changed from 100 kilowatts in 1950 to 120 in 1952; its frequency
was changed from 1439 kilocycles to 593 kilocycles.191
During September and October 1950, another serious problem
arose when areas behind the Soviet Iron Curtain began using the
same frequencies as were being employed in the U.S. Zone. For
example, Radio Schwerin in the Soviet Zone operated on the same
frequency as the Hessischer Rundfunk. This amounted to one form
of “jamming.”" However, it must be noted that Russian jamming
was mainly directed against RIAS, AFN Berlin, ARBIE and Radio
Free Europe rather than against the West German radio stations.'
Two solutions to these problems were undertaken. One con-
sisted in turning from the medium wave band to frequency mod-
ulation (FM). The other was to employ directional antennae and
a network of small stations to cover those territories not reached
by the principal transmitter, since almost any frequency can be
used on a shared basis if the power is kept between two and five
kilowatts. The HICOG period has seen progress in both these
directions.
By July 1952, the following network of small stations to cover
the areas not reached by the principal transmitter had been estab-
lished. 19:
191 The most recent developments center around the Stockholm Broadcasting
Agreement of 1952 and the advent of television and related questions in Germany.
These are not discussed in the present study because they involve classified materials
and current negotiations.
192 This and the following paragraphs are based on information supplied by the
HICOG Radio Branch.
193 In the British and French Zones, there are similar networks of smaller stations
centering about the major station in each zone,
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
81
Main Station
Sueddeutscher Rundfunk
(Stuttgart)
Bayerischer Rundfunk
(Munich)
Hessischer Rundfunk
(Frankfurt)
RIAS (Berlin)
Radio Bremen
Smaller Stations
Located at
Bad Mergentheim
Heidelberg
Ulm
Bayreuth
Nuernberg
Hof
Landshut
Landau
Augsburg
Coburg
Kempten
Passau
Regensburg
Weiden
Wuerzburg
Fritzlar
Kassel
Hof (Bavaria)
Bremerhaven
Meanwhile the institution of frequency modulated programs
on the ultra high frequency band has been proceeding satisfac-
torily. All West German broadcasting companies have reserved
part of their income for FM development. By March 1952, two-
thirds of West Germany was covered by frequency modulated
programs emanating from 68 stations. At the same time, 42 addi-
tional stations were under construction.
Until August 1950, the manufacturers of radio equipment were
reluctant to face the need for low-priced FM receivers. However
in that month, at the Duesseldorf Radio Fair, the manufacturers
introduced relatively low-priced FM sets and converters. By 1952 it
was estimated that there were 3,000,000 FM receivers in use in
West Germany and the number is still rapidly increasing.
82
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
HICOG Relations with German Broadcasting Companies
In Chapter IV, the Department of State's guidance and as-
sistance to HICOG in radio and other mass communications fields
was discussed. This section will describe HICOG's relations with
the four German broadcasting companies of the U.S. Zone and
Bremen. Under the radio provisions of Allied High Commission
Law No. 5, HICOG issued to the four companies letters of author-
ization which prescribed the terms of operation, called for full
compliance with German and Allied legislation, and required the
broadcasting of overt Allied programs.
With respect to the last point, the German stations were re-
quired to relay the Voice of America (VOA) programs, known in
Germany as "Die Stimme Amerikas," for a 30-minute period daily.
In 1951, as a result of negotiations between Voice of America of-
ficials and the managers of the German companies, agreement was
reached to cut the time to a 15-minute program six nights weekly
between 1845 and 1900 hours.194 The Voice of America also agreed
to furnish feature material from the United States such as special
musical programs and official or semi-official commentary on im-
portant events. Among the feature articles, programs which il-
lustrate less well known aspects of American life are the most
popular.
→
As an aid to programming, the VOA staff in New York has
been furnished a weekly analysis of its German-language broad-
casts measured against a daily review of press and radio comment
in Germany. This current. information has been of assistance in
scheduling programs to reflect immediate reaction to local events
and attitudes. Five afternoons a week Monday through Friday,
VOA-New York and HICOG radio officials have a two-way con-
versation.195 It contains a simultaneous play-over of the RIAS news-
cast at 1630 hours which enables VOA to see what the news
emphasis of the moment is and what will probably be the subject
of the RIAS political commentary that evening. This is imme-
diately followed by a two-way broadcast in which urgent RIAS-
VOA programming issues and the Communist propaganda line
of the day are discussed. Frequently HICOG is in a position to
suggest material for that evening's VOA commentaries. This ex-
C
194 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXIV, No. 616, p. 652, April 23, 1951.
195 Since the conversation is not classified, there are limitations on what may be
discussed.
THE RADIO, 1949-1953
83
change also enables the VOICE to comment, directly or indirectly,
on German newspaper editorials, both non-Communist and Com-
munist, of the same day.196
Turning more directly to the German stations, it may be noted
that HICOG has maintained an extensive monitoring service of
broadcasting in both East and West Germany. This service was
established in West Berlin and in the offices of the Land Com-
sioners. When the latter were abolished in 1952, the function was
taken over by the U.S. consulates.
During the Military Government and early HICOG period,
U.S. radio liaison officials were stationed in the offices of each of
the four German broadcasting stations of the U.S. Zone and
Bremen. These were subsequently withdrawn but their functions
were conducted on a reduced scale as a part of the duties of the
HICOG Information Officers in the Consulates and Regional Af-
fairs Centers.197 They are charged with reporting on the political
output and commentaries of the stations; with becoming acquainted.
with the leading personnel of the stations; and with assisting the
stations in securing feature program materials from the Voice of
America and other Department of State sources. Amerika Dienst
through its mail and wire service is another source of news and
background utilized by German radio stations.
Mention should also be made of the exchange program. In
April 1948, the first exchange program for German radio person-
nel was initiated which consisted of two-months periods of study
and practical training in the United States. Since then, about
100 Germans whose major interest is radio have been sent to the
G
196 The Department of State's Munich Radio Center has since October 1, 1951
operated ARBIE (American Relay Base in Europe). This is a VOA enterprise which
broadcasts 325 hours a week over its Munich transmitters to Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union. Three and a half hours originate in the Munich studios; the rest is
relayed from New York. Programs are given in Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, Estonian
and other languages. See William Mahoney, "Western Broadcasts Pierce the Iron
Curtain," Stars and Stripes, Feature Section, January 4, 1953.
In addition to ARBIE, there are two private American broadcasting undertakings
located in Munich. Radio Free Europe was set up by the National Committee for a
Free Europe and is financed by the Crusade for Freedom campaign led by General
Lucius D. Clay. It is primarily beamed to Czechoslovakia and began operations late
in 1950. See "Morning-to-Night Programs to be Beamed to Czechoslovakia," New
York Times, May 1, 1951. Still more recent is Radio Liberation, financed by the Amer-
ican Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, which started broadcast-
ing on March 1, 1953. It broadcasts anti-Communist programs from political exiles.
See Stars and Stripes, March 2, 1953.
Both Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberation operate under HICOG license but
have been subjected to considerable German criticism on the ground that they sup-
sort or promote political interests contrary to the policies of the West German
Federal Government. Ibid., November 30, 1952.
197 Information supplied by HICOG Radio Branch.
84
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
United States. These included a small group of radio officials who
went to observe the 1952 presidential election campaign. During
the early period, a few U.S. specialists were brought to Germany.
Thus in the summer of 1949, Werner Michel, Chief of the Doc-
umentary Unit of the Columbia Broadcasting System, spent four
weeks with the staffs of the U.S. Zone radio stations. During the
later HICOG period, this part of the program was discontinued
except for one U.S. specialist to assist in the musical programming
of RIAS.198
In the transition from HICOG to embassy, the U.S. staff con-
cerned with radio is being further reduced. Meanwhile the Ger-
man companies are going concerns. How well they are accom-
plishing their tasks and what will be the outcome of the proposed
federal radio law (Bundesrundfunkgesetz) are subjects which will
be examined in the concluding chapter.
19h Ibid.
CHAPTER VII
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
During the Military Government period, the various German
companies concerned with film production, distribution and ex-
hibition organized themselves into the Arbeitsausschuss der Film-
wirtschaft. In December 1949, this working committee was re-
organized and took the name, Spitzenorganisation der Filmwirt-
schaft e. V. (SPIO). There had been a similar body before 1933
which was superseded by the Nazi Reichsfilmkammer. As the sole
representative of the film industry in West Germany, SPIO as-
sumed all the functions of the former Arbeitsausschuss, including
the voluntary film censorship authorized by Military Government.
It has concerned itself with the problems arising from the decon-
centration of the film industry, the financing of production, price
policy with respect to theater tickets, and the granting of tax ex-
emptions on films of outstanding cultural, artistic and technical
value. SPIO has always operated independently of Allied control.
C
Under Military Government licensing, the applicants for li-
censing gave too little consideration to the highly competitive
conditions prevailing in the industry. Some 150 producing com-
panies were licensed or were formed after the cessation of li-
censing. By the summer of 1952, there were about 50 in operation,
of which 36 had produced one or more films.199
The most urgent problem was the lack of capital and credit.
In addition, production costs were too high-DM 800,000 to
DM 1,000,000 for an ordinary film and twice these amounts for
an outstanding film. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising
that 43 out of the 57 companies then in West Berlin had not made.
a single film by 1950. On a number of occasions, the Munich
Geiselgasteig studios were idle for several months because no
company had any money. The little interest shown by bankers
199 Film Statistisches Material, collected and edited by Goetz von Pestalozza of
the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Filmindustrie in Deutschland for SPIO (Wiesbaden,
August 1952).
86
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
because of the uncertainty of the industry, the difficulties in ob-
taining adequate personnel, and the competition from foreign and
pre-1945 films all contributed to the slow progress of the German
film industry.
HICOG meanwhile was trying to assist the struggling German
film industry and at the same time to deconcentrate the great
UFA-UFI trust which had monopolized film production and dis-
tribution in Germany. But the inability of private industry to
finance motion pictures and the long delay in clarifying the status
of UFA-UFI were formidable obstacles and brought an increasing
threat of government domination of the industry.
This chapter outlines the steps taken to accomplish the desired
deconcentration, the efforts of the German industry to reestablish
itself, and the role of HICOG in both of these developments. In its
activities, HICOG could not afford to neglect the information
medium which has the greatest impact on the less well educated
and more impressionable elements of the German population. Its
influence is exerted particularly on workers, housewives, shop-
keepers, farmers and youth groups. Paid admissions in motion
picture theaters in West Germany in 1951 were almost double the
paid admissions for all of Germany in 1940.200
Liquidation of the UFA Interests
During the National Socialist regime, the entire film industry
was brought under a holding company, the Cautio Treuhand
G.m.b.H.201 This included film production and the major distribu-
tion and theater chains. It also comprised film enterprises in 17
foreign countries including the United States.
When HICOG was established in the fall of 1949, it faced a
very difficult situation. All the motion picture properties were
held in trust by a German custodian committee which had been
appointed by Military Government, but little progress had been
made toward the decartelization and deconcentration of the in-
dustry.
200 Memorandum from Shepard Stone, Director of the Office of Public Affairs, to
John J. McCloy, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, August 29, 1951, subject:
Plan for Disposing of Bavarian Film Studios.
201 After the reorganization of 1942, the German film industry was supervised by
Max Winkler, Reichsbeauftragter fuer die Deutsche Filmwirtschaft, who was under
Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
87
On September 7, 1949, the U.S.-British Military Government
Law No. 24, commonly known as "Lex UFI," came into effect.202
French Military Government did not join in this action but pro-
vided for liquidation of Reich-owned motion picture property in
its Zone through French Military Government Ordinance No. 236.
Lex UFI was aimed at breaking up the UFA monopoly, its pre-
amble reading in part:
Whereas it is desired to dispose of such property in a
manner best calculated to foster a sound, democratic and
privately owned motion picture industry in Germany, organized
so as to preclude excessive concentration of economic power
as defined in U.S. Military Government Law No. 56... .20
In accordance with Law No. 24, the Liquidation Committee con-
sisting of the former German custodians was to be established,
but the Committee was not actually set up until February 1950
and it never functioned.20 It had title to the properties and au-
thority to sell them, subject to the various restrictions laid down
in Law No. 24. These restrictions included a requirement of pub-
lic sale; they prohibited sale to government bodies, officials of
political parties, leading Nazis, and former high employees of
UFI-UFA.
SPIO claimed that the UFA properties, far from being liq-
uidated, were continually being increased in value. Rentals, re-
ceived from old UFA films and from UFA studios and copying
plants leased by groups of film producers, all served to increase
UFA assets.205 At the same time, the small private film companies
were close to financial ruin.
In June 1950, the West German Federal Government entered
the UFI controversy.206 In a letter to the Allied High Commission,
the Federal Government protested against Law No. 24 and pro-
posed that it be replaced by a German law which would carry out
Allied objectives. The communication also contained a plea for
202 All questions in connection with the dissolution of the UFA concern are refer-
red to as UFA or UFI problems. Law No. 24 is referred to as Lex UFI because it
dealt with all Universal Film Industries, i. e. all industries connected with UFA,-
the Universum Film Aktiengesellschaft.
203 Law No. 24, Disposition of the Reich-owned Motion Picture Property, Military
Government Gazette, Germany, U.S. Area of Control, Issue 0, pp. 11-17, Septem-
ber 21, 1949.
204 HICOG, ISD, "Motion Picture Branch Report," May 1950. In Berlin, the control
of the film properties rested upon Allied Kommandatura Law No. 10.
205 Although the UFA properties were in the hands of custodians and did not
operate as formerly, they were rented by film producing companies and thus con-
tributed to film production.
*** HICOG, ISD, "Motion Picture Branch Report," June and July 1950.
88
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
clearance of the former UFA chiefs who were excluded under
Law No. 24. SPIO was invited by the Federal Government to dis-
cuss the whole problem.
In July 1950, Allied High Commission Law No. 32 was passed
which repealed Law No. 24 and French Military Government Or-
dinance No. 236.207 It provided for the Deconcentration Committee,
composed of three or more Germans appointed by the Allied High
Commission, and for the dissolution of the Liquidation Committee.
The new committee had power to dispose of the UFI properties.
At the same time, the Allied High Commission informed the Fed-
eral Government that AHC Law No. 32 would be repealed after
the passage of a suitable German law on film deconcentration.
Shortly thereafter, the Federal Government submitted a pro-
posed bill to the Allied High Commission but it was not considered
satisfactory. This was followed by another draft accompanied
by a letter from the Federal Government which stated that "this
draft law establishes a basis for the liquidation by German agencies
of the former Reich-owned motion picture property in agreement
between the Allied High Commission and the Federal Govern-
ment." Therefore, the Allied High Commission was asked to post-
pone the sale of the most important UFA assets pending the enact-
ment of the German law. In reply, the High Commission noted
that the bill was generally acceptable but regretted that the Allies
were unable to accede to the request. They intended to proceed
as soon as possible with the steps necessary for the sale of the
properties concerned.200 Beginning in September 1950, the Allied
High Commission prepared prospectuses for the sale of the four
principal groups of properties:210
(1) Munich-Geiselgasteig
(2) Berlin-Tempelhof
(3) Berlin-Spandau
(4) Wiesbaden
Bavaria Filmkunst G. m. b. H.
Universum Film A. G.
Messter Film G. m. b. H.
A. G. fuer Filmfabrikation
Mars Film G. m. b. H.
A. G. fuer Filmfabrikation (AFIFA)
207 Allied High Commission Law No. 32, Disposition of former Reich-owned Motion
Picture Property, Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission for Germany,
No. 28, pp. 498-505, August 1, 1950. For the text of this law, see Appendix 3.
208 AGSEC(51)1079, June 26, 1951.
209 AGSEC(51)1308, August 10, 1951.
210 These prospectuses are in the files of HICOG Film Branch. The total value of
the former Reich-owned motion picture assets in West Germany and West Berlin
is estimated to be approximately DM 80,000,000. See Allied High Commission Press
Liaison Office, Mehlem, Background Information for Correspondents, No. 230, p. 3,
March 31, 1953.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
89
The first auction of motion picture assets took place in Wies-
baden in November 1950 in the face of strong German criticism.
When the issue was discussed in the Bundestag, all the speakers
contended that the auction had proved that implementation of
Law No. 32 was impossible without German participation. The
German press stressed the danger of enforcing Allied regulations
adversely affecting the German economy. It was urged that the
financial difficulties of the motion picture business were more
dangerous for the subsequent development of the industry than
another motion picture monopoly in the hands of a few big com-
panies would be.
In October 1951, the Bundestag adopted a motion by the Press,
Radio and Film Committee, instructing the Federal Government
to make representations to the Allied High Commission to prevent
the sale of the Bavaria Filmkunst assets while German legislation
on motion picture deconcentration was still pending.211 After fur-
ther negotiations between Allied and German officials, the High
Commission declared in a letter to the Federal Government that
"in view of the expectation that the German draft law will be
enacted in the near future, the High Commission has determined
that it will for the time being issue no new advertisements for
properties not already made the object of advertisements in the
territory of the Federal Republic. "212
Before speaking further about the legislative history of the
German substitute for Allied High Commission Law No. 32, it
should be noted that the subject also figured in the negotiations
which culminated in the Contractual Agreements signed on
May 26, 1952. It is there stipulated that Law No. 32 shall be re-
tained until the entry into force of a federal law on the liquida-
tion and deconcentration of former Reich-owned motion picture
property which "is in accordance with the substantial provision of
the draft law submitted by the Federal Government to the
Bundestag..." and that "the federal law shall be maintained in
force until completion of the transfer of the property covered by
the law to private ownership.
>> 213
211 Allied General Secretariat of the Allied High Commission, Office of the U.S.
Secretary, "Summary Report of the 187th and 188th Meetings of the Bundestag held
on January 23 and 24, 1952," pp. 3-8, January 26, 1952. These reports were prepared
by C. S. Goldsmith.
212 AGSEC(51)1816, December 8, 1951.
218 Convention on the Settlement of Matters arising out of the War and Occupa-
tion, Chapter II, Art. 2, in Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and
the Federal Republic of Germany, op. cit.
90
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
In July 1952, the Bundestag passed on third reading a greatly
amended version of the bill which the High Commission had said
was generally acceptable in 1951. The chief modification consisted
of giving the Bundestag control over the disposition of the prop-
erties. This was not acceptable to the Bundesrat which amended
the bill to place control largely in the hand of the Laender. The
measure then went to a joint conference committee which for the
most part supported the Bundesrat's wishes. The compromise
draft agreed to by the conference committee was passed by both
houses in March 1953.214
When the new federal law becomes operative after the repeal
of Allied High Commission Law No. 32, it will return the legal
title of the assets to the companies which previously owned them
and these companies will be liquidated. Liquidation will be the
responsibility of a liquidation committee composed of represent-
atives of the Federal Government and of the Laender. In principle
the assets shall be disposed of by private treaty or sale but gov-
ernmental bodies as well as their officials and political parties
may not purchase them. Moreover, persons who are restricted in
the acquisition of property because of National Socialist activities
and militarism are excluded. Foreign participation in the acquisi-
tion of such property is limited to 25 percent.²
In the course of the negotiations between the Allied High Com-
mission and the Federal Government, the federal representatives
proposed a reorganization plan for the film industry calling for
"unit companies" like those agreed to for the coal and iron and
steel industries.216 These companies would be privately owned,
independent, viable, competitive and free from governmental and
political control. This plan has been accepted in principle by the
Allied High Commission. Although the new federal law contains
no provision to this effect, it was drafted in sufficiently broad
214 Die Neue Zeitung, March 28, 1953. See also "Adoption by the Federal Parliament
of the Law Governing the Deconcentration of the former Reich-owned Motion Pic-
ture Assets," Background Information for Correspondents, No. 230, March 31, 1953,
prepared by the AHC Liaison Office, Mehlem.
#15 See Background Information for Correspondents, No. 230, op. cit.
11 Ibid. See also the Historical Division monograph, “Reorganization of the West
German Coal and Iron and Steel Industries under the Allied High Commission for
Germany" (Confidential, 1953), by Hubert G. Schmidt.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
91
terms to make it possible for the Federal Government to proceed
with such a plan.217 Accordingly, negotiations are now in process
for the repeal of Allied High Commission Law No. 32.218
Location of German Film Industry
Geographically the German motion picture industry is located
in four areas-Hamburg, North Rhine Westphalia, Bavaria and
West Berlin. The most successful producers are in Hamburg where
the Land Government, banks and industrialists have been in-
terested in film production and have assisted in financing it. In
North Rhine Westphalia, there is a group of persons formerly
connected with UFA. They naturally favor revival of the old firm
and have brought pressure to bear on the West German Federal
Government. Much of the opposition to the Allied policy of de-
concentration stems from this group.
In the U.S. areas of responsibility, the principal center is
Bavaria with the facilities in West Berlin second in importance.
Due to the extensive loss of production facilities located at Neu
Babelsberg, a Berlin suburb in the Soviet Zone, it was necessary
to increase the Bavaria Filmkunst studios from two to eight by
using capital of the UFI-UFA chain. With the coming of colored
film, a new color copying establishment was added to Bavaria
Filmkunst. To replace the facilities lost at Neu Babelsberg, a new
studio has been built at Berlin-Tempelhof. During the Berlin
blockade, this studio opened a second small studio, AFIFA, at
Wiesbaden. However, the Bavarian studios represent 60 percent
of the producing capacity of West Germany and West Berlin.
Financial Assistance to Producers
The financial weakness of German film companies and their
low rate of production have already been mentioned. With respect
to the latter, it may be noted that, up to the summer of 1949, 749
theatrical films had been released for showing in West Germany.
Of this number, only 59 had been produced in Germany, the re-
mainder coming chiefly from the United States, France and Eng-
land. From the summer of 1949 to the summer of 1952, 1,247 films
were available for showing in West Germany, of which 573 were
imported from the United States. Two hundred and four had been
217 Background Information for Correspondents, No. 230, op. cit.
218 AGSEC(53)160, February 27, 1953 (Restricted); AGSEC(53)337, April 13, 1953
(Restricted). While this monograph was being printed, the Council of the Allied High
Commission repealed Law No. 32 on May 13, 1953. AGSEC(53)425, May 13, 1953
(Restricted).
92
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
produced in Germany and the rest were from England, France and
Italy. The German producers were thus clearly not able to com-
pete and secure their share of the business.219
Both OMGUS and HICOG gave some business to German film
companies for the production of non-theatrical documentary films
used for U.S. programs for German audiences. They also rented
German facilities for the synchronization of documentary films
secured from other sources.220 However, this income was far from
sufficient to meet the capital and credit needs of the industry.
Late in 1950, officials of the HICOG Office of Public Affairs
studied the problem of Bavaria Filmkunst. While the Decarteliza-
tion Division, Office of General Counsel, was charged with the
responsibility of selling Bavaria Filmkunst under Allied High
Commission Law No. 32 as a deconcentration measure, it was also
to the interest of the Office of Public Affairs to see that the studios
were sold to democratically minded producers and distributors
who were independent of government control. It was decided that
an attempt should be made to find such a group and to assist them
in raising the purchase money.
In the spring of 1951, it was believed that the proper group had
been discovered, and that it would probably command the con-
fidence of the Federal Government since two of its members had
been appointed by the Federal Government to the German Film
Reorganization Advisory Committee. Various plans for assisting
in the financing of the purchase were discussed, one of which
called for a group of banks to lend the money to the intended pur-
chasers, the loan to be repaid over a period of ten years. The
banks, however, made it a condition of the loan that HICOG
should deposit with them a sum equal to the purchase price in
order to safeguard their liquidity.
219 HICOG, ISD, "Motion Picture Branch Monthly Reports," January, February,
March 1950. From 1950 onward, Communist films produced by the Deutsche Film
Aktiengesellschaft (DEFA) in the Soviet Zone were shown by various front organiza-
tions. It was known that DEFA films sponsored by the Film Forum of the Kultur-
bund could be seen in private showings at moderate rates throughout West Ger-
many. The Selbstkontrolle (German film censorship in Wiesbaden) reviewed one
Hungarian and two Russian films in 1951 which were shown in West Germany. In
1952, DEFA films were being shown in 28 foreign countries, including the United
States. Despatch, HICOG, Frankfurt, to Department of State, No. 2784, subject: DEFA
Films in Foreign Countries, April 23, 1952.
220 For details, see the Historical Division monograph, The History of the Develop-
ment of Information Services through Information Centers and Documentary Films
(1951), by Henry P. Pilgert, Chapter IV.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
93
To accomplish this, it was proposed that HICOG should estab-
lish a cultural foundation and give it approximately DM 10,000,000
in counterpart funds. The money would be placed in long-term
deposits in the banks and paid out to the foundation in annual in-
stallments. Although this plan was approved in principle by offi-
cials of the Federal Government, by July 1952, the Office of Pub-
lic Affairs had decided not to implement it. HICOG felt that if
the group did manage to purchase the properties, there were not
sufficient assurances that it could operate them without govern-
ment control. The major aim of the project would thus be de-
feated. Moreover, it was questionable whether counterpart funds
could be used in this way.
221
223
C
Meanwhile there had been some financial assistance on the
German side. In January 1950, a group of Bavarian banks and the
Bavarian Ministry of Economics announced the formation of a
film financing bank which extended the first credit of DM 300,000
in March of that same year. In addition, loans to producers, guar-
anteed by the Bavarian government, were made by some of the
banks in Munich and elsewhere in Bavaria. By the end of 1952,
the Bavarian government had guaranteed DM 27,400,000 of such
loans. However, it was estimated that DM 15,000,000 had been
lost through the failure of various producing companies."
224
221 During the fall of 1952, there was some further discussion in HICOG and in the
Department of State of the plan described here.
22 As will be pointed out in the following paragraphs, government control could
arise from government guarantees to banks for loans which they make to film pro-
ducers. Before making such a guarantee (or granting an outright subsidy), will the
government insist on reviewing the script in order to determine whether the loan
(or grant) is "sound?" such scrutiny could lead to a form of censorship.
223 Memorandum, S. E. Disney, Decartelization Division, to S. H. Willner, same Divi-
sion, August 1, 1952, subject: Film Branch Plan to Assist the Sale of Bavaria Film-
kunst. Further details are contained in the following series of memoranda to be
found in the files of the Office of Public Affairs:
Memorandum, Theodore Kaghan, Information Services Division, to Shepard Stone,
Director, Office of Public Affairs, June 7, 1951, subject: Plan for Disposing of Bavaria
Film Studios.
Memorandum, Charles C. Baldwin, Information Services Division, to Theodore
Kaghan, July 3, 1951, subject: Financial Aid for German Film Production.
Memorandum, Shepard Stone to John J. McCloy, U.S. High Commissioner for
Germany, August 13, 1951, subject: Disposal of Reich-owned Motion Picture Properties.
Memorandum, Charles C. Baldwin to A. V. Boerner, Office of Public Affairs,
August 21, 1951, subject: Status of German Motion Picture Industry.
Memorandum, Shepard Stone to John J. McCloy, August 29, 1951, subject: Plan for
Disposing of Bavaria Film Studios.
Memorandum, Theodore Kaghan to Shepard Stone, September 14, 1951, subject:
Sale of Bavaria Studios.
Memorandum, Theodore Kaghan to Shepard Stone, October 19, 1951, subject:
Recent Developments affecting German Film Industry.
224 Information supplied by HICOG Film Branch. In April 1950, it became known
that the Hamburg government had tentatively approved a subsidy of DM 7,000,000
to a group of motion picture producers at the Hamburg-Rahlstedt studios. HICOG,
ISD, "Motion Picture Branch Monthly Report," April 1950.
94
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
In June 1950, the Federal Government approved a subsidy of
DM 20,000,000 for motion picture production, the method of ad-
ministration being worked out with the assistance of SPIO. The
subsidy was intended to cover 35 percent of the production cost
for each project which had been examined and approved by the
Interministerial Guarantee Committee made up of government
officials. The Committee had the special responsibility of judging
the economic merits of the projects but could not control the
producers in their choice of materials or in their artistic presenta-
tion.225 The subsidy was not repeated but the Federal Government
is still working on a method of assisting the film industry. The
latest proposal calls for the establishment of a motion picture
bank with a federal guarantee.220
Voluntary Censorship
OMGUS discontinued film censorship in July 1949 when a
German voluntary censorship agency was established. This is
known as the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle227 and is a part of SPIO,
the top organization of the German film industry. The develop-
ment of the Selbstkontrolle was urged by the Tripartite Advisory
and Coordinating Film Committee228 and was formed with the
advice of British, French and U.S. film officers. The Selbstkon-
trolle reviews all kinds of films, both German and foreign, in
order to prevent the showing of those which are objectionable on
moral or ethical grounds. It consists of a panel appointed by the
film industry, the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish churches, the
youth organizations and the Land governments. Each element
names six persons to the panel and from the roster thus created
committees are drawn in rotation. There is an operating commit-
tee to review films, a chief committee, and an advisory committee
of lawyers.
The Selbstkontrolle does not review films with respect to
quality, art or taste. If an adverse decision is made by the operat-
ing committee, the producer is asked to cut or change portions of
the film but he may appeal to the chief committee. Members of
225 Ibid.
226 Theo Aulick, "Klarheit ueber Filmbank," Der neue Film, No. 62, August 14, 1952.
227 See Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der deutschen Filmwirtschaft, publication No. 3
of SPIO. This is a reprint of an article in Der neue Film, Vol. IV, No. 16, April 17,
1950.
228 The committee was really a working party of the Information and Cultural
Affairs Sub-Committee which in turn operates under the Political Affairs Committee
of the Allied High Commission. See the Historical Division monograph, The Allied
High Commission for Germany (1953), passim, by Elmer Plischke.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
95
SPIO have agreed to observe the decisions of the Selbstkontrolle.
Producers and distributors, who are not members of SPIO, are
not obliged to comply; but if they do not, they run the risk of
prosecution under the German Criminal Code or under Land
legislation for distributing harmful material. Hence it really does
not pay to disregard Selbstkontrolle's rulings.
Selbstkontrolle publishes a weekly list of new films in Der
neue Film, the professional journal of the industry, and classifies
them in four categories: released for public performances; released
for children under 10 years; released for youth from 10 to 16
years; and released for performance on special religious holidays.
It also prints brief descriptions of new films with the names of the
authors and producers.2
229
Film Evaluation and Tax Rebates
The German Gemeinden are authorized to levy various forms
of amusement taxes, including taxes on admissions to motion pic-
ture theaters. The latter are particularly important and produced
in 1951 a revenue of DM 105,700,000. Under the Nazi regime in
1933, regulations were enacted which provided that films which
had a high classification from the Reich Propaganda Ministry were
to have rebates in the amusement taxes.2
amusement taxes.250 Similar rebates are
now granted by state law in the West German Laender.231 There
is considerable variation from Land to Land and the West Ger-
man Government and the Laender are still discussing ways of
bringing greater uniformity.
:
Who determines the amount of the tax rebates? This is now
handled by a joint agency created by the Laender, the Filmbewer-
tungsstelle located at Wiesbaden-Biebrich. Depending upon its
22 The censor's life, like that of the policeman in Gilbert and Sullivan, "is not a
happy one." When Selbstkontrolle approved the lurid German picture, "The Sinner,'
the church members walked out in protest. See Jack Raymond, "Voluntary Film
Censorship Periled in Germany," New York Times, February 18, 1951. Youth may
theoretically be protected by signs on theaters saying "Jugendliche haben keinen
Zutritt," but many Germans are unhappy about the influence of commercial films
on youth. See "Jugend im Bann des Films," Die Neue Zeitung, June 13, 1952. When
the film producer, Veit Harlan, who under the Nazis had produced the picture “Jud
Suess," again started production, his new films caused riots and police prohibitions
in various German communities. See the Historical Division monograph, The West
German Educational System (1953), by Henry P. Pilgert, pp. 114-115. Selbstkontrolle
passed his films but public opinion would not approve the producer. In 1952, Erich
Remarque's famous post-War I film, "All Quiet on the Western Front," which had
been banned by the Nazis, was revived and an angry controversy was precipitated.
See Stars and Stripes, April 1, 1952.
230 Bestimmungen ueber die Vergnuegungssteuer vom 7. Juni 1933, Reichsgesetzblatt,
1933, Part I, pp. 351 ff.
231 See, for example, Gesetz ueber die Vergnuegungssteuer vom 5. November 1948,
Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt fuer das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1949, pp. 9 ff.
96
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
1
population, each Land is entitled to appoint from three to five
members. They are chosen from various elements in the popula-
tion including government officials, artists, businessmen and experts
in the film industry. From this panel, the names are chosen in
rotation to staff the evaluation committee and the main commit-
tee. Decisions of the evaluation committee may be appealed to the
main committee.232
The Filmbewertungsstelle rates films for amusement tax pur-
poses and gives a special note showing the films which are entitled
to tax rebates. Films of the cultural type for showing in schools
and universities are thus almost entirely relieved of the tax. Those
of general cultural value get a smaller rebate and so on. Because
the rebates mean greater profits for exhibitors, the Bewertungs-
stelle exercises a powerful influence on the industry. For example,
on August 1, 1952, it decided that it would review only twelve
foreign films whose release date was more than six months pre-
vious to August 1. This was intended to help eliminate a lot of old
films which have cluttered up the film industry in the postwar
period by denying such films any tax rebates.
Import Quotas
With licensing discontinued, a large number of new distributors.
appeared on the scene. These distributors exploited old and often
inferior foreign films, bringing the number of foreign films to 700
in the year 1949. The result was a further weakening of the finan-
cial position of the producers of new films, since it kept a sub-
stantial amount of the available credit in the distribution channels.
Because of this development, German film circles became
alarmed. SPIO proposed an indirect quota regulation to restrict
the showing of foreign films in West Germany. The saturation of
the market with foreign films also caused the West German Gov-
ernment to consider the advisability of imposing restrictions on
the importation of foreign films. In June 1950, it was reported to
be pressing for a quota on foreign films.
In July 1950, long drawn-out negotiations concerning the pro-
posed film import quota for 1950-1951 took a new turn.233 Orig-
inally it had been proposed that the import of U.S. films be limited
232 Memorandum, Hans Stueck, Office of General Counsel, Decartelization and De-
concentration Division, to Henry P. Pilgert, August 26, 1952, subject: Film Evaluation
Agency.
233 HICOG, ISD, "Motion Picture Branch Monthly Reports," May, June and July
1950.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
97
to a maximum of 100 during the first year. American motion pic-
ture interests in negotiations with representatives of the German
motion picture industry and the Federal Government had reached
an agreement whereby no fixed quota would be established for
the import of U.S. films, but under which there would be vol-
untary restriction agreeable to both sides. This was not successful
and the number of foreign films continued to increase. The Ger-
man producers faced more competition through these increased
imports and through the unblocking of foreign accounts and envi-
sioned the possibility that foreign film companies might seize the
entire German market.
Rental Year
The following table shows the proportion of German and for-
eign films distributed in West Germany during the postwar pe-
riod.23
Germany
Austria
U.S.A.
France
England
Italy
Other
Total
Prior to
1948 49
1948/49
16
15
131
203
148
0
21
534
33
18
64
47
42
5
6
1949/50
215
65
29
145
50
50
4
31
374
1950/51
75
32
202
31
28
33
34
435
Foreign competition continued to plague the German motion pic-
ture industry throughout the HICOG period since many of the com-
panies did not adhere to their self-imposed quotas as is indicated
by the above table.
1951/52
64
22
226
44
21
24
37
438
-
A minor problem also arose from foreign producers desiring
to use their blocked marks, which resulted from their film dis-
tribution in Germany, to finance the production of films in Ger-
many. Actors, actresses, cameramen, and studio technicians, seek-
ing employment, welcomed this development but the German pro-
ducers regarded it as a further blow to the industry. Metro-
Goldwyn-Mayer was the first to enter film production in Germany
234 Film-Statistisches Material, op. cit.
98
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
in the postwar period, and made three pictures to the beginning
of 1953. Fox was making its fourth. In addition, British, French
and Italian companies have produced films in Germany. However,
these undertakings are fraught with so many difficulties, involving
negotiations with a foreign government, labor and technical prob-
lems, that production is not likely to be large enough to interfere
greatly with German film output.
Direct HICOG Activities
With the promulgation of the Occupation Statute in 1949, the
compulsory showing of the official British-American newsreel,
"Welt im Film," ceased and the exhibitors were left free to decide
whether or not to continue using it. "Welt im Film" was estab-
lished early in 1945 as a joint Britsh-American operation and was
first shown in German theaters in May 1945, one week after the
end of the war. As of January 1950, it was issued exclusively by
HICOG.235 In the spring of 1952, it was decided that the film had
served its purpose and that the field would be left open to com-
mercial competition. Hence "Welt im Film" was discontinued on
June 30, 1952 with Weekly No. 369.236 At that time, it was being
shown in 2,564 German theaters out of a total of 4,074 to an au-
dience of about 25,000,000 per month.
When the showing of "Welt im Film" ceased to be compulsory,
Twentieth Century Fox announced that the popular Fox newsreel
would reappear in Germany on January 1, 1950. A similar an-
nouncement was made by a German group producing the "Neue
Deutsche Wochenschau."
Besides "Welt im Film," HICOG direct operations in the motion
picture field were chiefly concerned with the production and dis-
tribution of documentary films of educational value. This program
had been initiated by OMGUS as far back as 1945 with films
largely purchased from American producers.237 With the advent of
HICOG, documentary films were secured through the Department
of State's International Motion Picture Division in Washington
and were adapted for Germany by the HICOG synchronization
unit. The Economic Cooperation Administration made available
a considerable number of their films for German showings. HICOG
235 HICOG, Final Report on Germany, op. cit., p. 71.
236 HICOG, Information Division, Press Branch, Press Release No. 881, June 18, 1952.
237 See Monthly Report of the Military Governor, "Information Control," No. 13,
pp. 10-11, August 20, 1946.
MOTION PICTURES, 1949-1953
99
also produced directly documentaries for this purpose. As is ex-
plained in another Historical Division monograph, 238 the documen-
tary film program was a large one in the first three years of HICOG
but by 1953 it had been greatly curtailed.239 The films were designed
to show life in foreign countries, particularly in the United States.
They revealed the accomplishments of democratic governments
and their peoples; their attitudes and ways of living; their cultural,
professional, educational, industrial and technical developments;
as well as important past and present events.
Along with "Welt im Film," some of these documentary films
were exhibited in the regular German theaters under the trade
name, "Zeit im Film." They were distributed through the All-
gemeiner Filmverleih (AFI). In addition, about 2,500,000 persons
per month saw the same films and others made especially for the
program in free showings
free showings in rural areas and in the Amerika
Haeuser and Reading Rooms in urban centers.
Another direct HICOG activity was the exchange program in
the motion picture field. Most of the persons who were sent abroad
were interested in documentary film utilization. Plans for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1953 call for sending 50 persons to
West European countries and 17 to the United States.240
238 Henry P. Pilgert, The History of the Development of Information Services
through Information Centers and Documentary Films, op. cit.
£39 At the same time, HICOG no longer had power to control what American film
producers did in Germany. Thus although both the State Department and HICOG
advised Twentieth Century Fox not to show "Desert Fox" in Germany, the producer
disregarded the advice. See Stars and Stripes, July 6 and August 25, 1952. See also
"Das gefaelschte Bild des deutschen Widerstandes. Politische Betrachtungen aus
Anlass der Auffuehrung des Rommel-Films in Deutschland," Die Neue Zeitung,
August 25, 1952.
240 For further details, see the Historical Division monograph, The Exchange of
Persons Program in Western Germany (1951), by Henry P. Pilgert.
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSION
In the preceding chapters, an attempt has been made to sketch
the development of press, radio and film in West Germany since
1945. This is an integral part of the general problem of restoring
or creating democratic institutions after the nightmare of Nazi
rule. It is a problem which has engaged the attention of all three
of the Western Allies although, so far as mass communications are
concerned, the programs of the United States have been more ex-
tensive than those of Britain and France. Many of these programs
were begun under Military Government and were then greatly
expanded during the first three years of HICOG. Thereafter the
field was left largely to German initiative and responsibility. In
trying to estimate the progress made thus far, reliance must be
placed primarily on the facts as they appear in 1953. Observers
differ in their appraisals of the present situation and evaluations.
range from optimism to pessimism. Doubtless much depends on
the criteria which are used. If one measures by an ideal standard
of what mass communications media ought to be in a democratic
society, press, radio and film in West Germany leave much to be
desired. On the other hand, if comparisons are made between the
German record and that of other Western democracies, a better
basis for judgment is afforded. Sensational newspapers, trashy
literature, poor radio performances, and questionable motion pic-
tures are by no means unknown in America. West Germany like-
wise has shortcomings in these respects.
C
On the other hand, the threat of government intervention or
control of mass communications media is greater in West Ger-
many than elsewhere in the West. This danger, however, is a
universal one, and now as in previous centuries, "eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty." In West Germany, the danger is enhanced
because of tradition, education, and popular and governmental
attitudes, while on the other hand the postwar press, radio and
film are relatively new and inexperienced.
CONCLUSION
101
The Press
If circulation figures are an indication, the postwar press has
had considerable success. In 1951, the 1,000 newspapers of West
Germany had a circulation of approximately 13,000,000,241 an
average of one paper for every four persons in the population.
Moreover, no one of these newspapers came anywhere near to
monopolizing the field. Only 70 dailies had a circulation of over
50,000, the largest being the Westdeutsche Allgemeine in Essen
with more than 250,000 circulation.
Circulation statistics, however, need to be supplemented by
examining what is circulated. (The Nazi Voelkischer Beobachter
had a big circulation during the Hitler regime.) When the Western
Allies gave up the licensing of newspapers, there began a period
of testing the permanence of Allied press reforms. It was freely
predicted that the new freedom would result in the revival of the
Nazi press and that editors, freed from Military Government con-
trol, would soon develop or revert to the evils of the past. Neither
of these developments materialized. A number of Nazi newspapers
and journalists reappeared243 but failed to win wide public sup-
port. In addition, some of these papers were banned by the Fed-
eral Constitutional Court.
On the other hand, the former licensed press has clearly dem-
onstrated its ability to hold reader interest against all opposition.
Its circulation is about three times that of the other newspapers
which sprang up after the end of licensing in 1949. Editors who
had come into their positions between 1945 and 1949 continued
for the most part to uphold democratic press traditions and in-
spired many of the new editors to follow them. The traditional
Heimatzeitung, which in prewar years restricted itself to local news
with limited coverage of international events, displayed notable
improvement in journalistic standards, much of it brought about
by reader demand for better reporting and analysis of national
and international events like that offered by the former licensed
press.24 Moreover, the vigor with which the press has criticized
the proposed federal press law indicates the awareness of the dan-
gers of government control.
241 This paragraph is based on "Facts about the West German Press," op. cit.,
November 1951.
142 According to the census of 1950, the population of West Germany was 48,371,000.
14 See, for example, Percy Winner, "Nazi Press Reappears," New Republic, Vol. 126,
No. 22, p. 9, June 2, 1952.
24 See Visiting Expert's Report, "Report on German Journalists' Organizations and
Their Relations with Other National and International Journalists' Professional Or-
ganizations," by Louis P. Lochner, December 1, 1952, in files of Historical Division.
102
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
In the fall of 1952, three American visiting experts, Wayne
Jordan, Louis P. Lochner and Ralph V. Nafziger made surveys of
the German press. Jordan took most seriously the negative aspects
and expressed pessimistic views. He reported:
The press of the Federal Republic of Germany appears to
be in a very precarious position. This is necessarily the cause
of grave concern, since the free dissemination of information,
particularly of information about public affairs, is the very
core of the democratic process.
Lochner was impressed with the positive achievements and
hence reached more optimistic conclusions combined with a plea
for continuing HICOG efforts. He, of course, also noted the neg-
ative forces at work but felt that they were losing ground. Accord-
ing to Lochner:
Two encouraging factors stand forth as the most positive
impressions gained by my survey. (1) The German Fourth
Estate stands solidly for a free press and resists all efforts on
the part of ambitious departments of government to restrict this
cherished freedom. (2) The German journalists and publishers
have recently been admitted as full-fledged, equal members
into the corresponding international organizations. . . . To an
'old-timer' like myself who revisits Germany after having lived
in it during the Imperial, Weimar and Nazi regimes, the deter-
mination of journalists and publishers alike, to retain the free-
dom of the press which was vouchsafed to them under the
American, British and French licensing system, seems nothing
short of remarkable.246
Nafziger occupied an intermediate position between Jordan
and Lochner. He observed:
Criticisms which may justifiably be made of the new Ger-
man press cannot obscure the fact that, in the view of this
observer, the newspapers in contrast to various other institu-
tions generally have become defenders of the democratic pro-
cess. Despite exceptions, they have fought encroachments by
government officials on freedom of the press. In a relatively
short time, despite precedents in favor of a press made up
14 Visiting Expert's Report, "A Report on the German Press at the Beginning of
1953," by Wayne Jordan, January 3, 1953, in files of Historical Division.
246 Louis P. Lochner, op. cit.
CONCLUSION
103
largely of party organs of one party, they have developed a
spirit of independence which they appear to be determined to
maintain.247
The conclusion of this study is similar to those of Lochner and
Nafziger. While the period 1949-1953 has been fraught with dif-
ficulties and dangers, considerable progress has been made. A
sound basis has been established for a continuing democratically
oriented press which stands on its own feet without Allied props.
The Radio
In programs, administration and technical developments, the
record of the West German broadcasting systems has been very
good.2¹8 To the American listener, the first impression is the almost
complete absence of commercial advertising and commercially
sponsored programs. Since ample income is received from the fees
levied on receiving sets, there is little incentive to commercializa-
tion. At the same time, the absence of advertisements adds to the
quality of the total program.
The German broadcasting companies have done well in dis-
charging their "public service" responsibilities.240 They have pro-
vided forums for the discussion of community problems. Important
debates in federal and legislative bodies have been broadcast, at
least in part. Officials and representatives frequently "go on the
air. "250 During election campaigns, equal time is allotted to all the
major parties.
Under policies adopted by their governing councils, the admin-
istration of the stations has proceeded smoothly, with occasional
controversies, political and otherwise. Except in the case of the
247 Visiting Expert's Report," Report on Journalism Education in Germany and
Relations between Press and Government," by Ralph O. Nafziger, February 15, 1953,
in files of Historical Division.
248 The HICOG Radio Branch, Information Services Division, has published a num-
ber of reports analyzing programs and commenting on various other aspects of the
four German broadcasting systems in the U.S. areas of responsibility. See, for
example, Radio's Contribution in the Field of Public Service, July 1949-March 1950
(54 pp., June 1950); "Six Months of School Radio," Radio Scrutiny Report No. 3 (48 pp.,
September 1949); "Radio Programs for Women," Radio Scrutiny Report No. 4 (Sep-
tember 1949); "Radio Programs for Farmers," Radio Scrutiny Report No. 5, July 1
to December 31, 1949 (13 pp., February 1950).
24 As defined by HICOG Radio Branch, "public service" radio broadcasting includes
on-the-spot coverage of newsworthy events; services to the community; and pro-
grams designed to educate and inform the public. Radio's Contribution in the Field
of Public Service, op. cit., p. 1.
250 For example, see "Hessischer Rundfunk nimmt zur Kuerzung der Brentano-
Rede Stellung," Die Neue Zeitung, October 17, 1951; and "Bayerische Senatoren kriti-
sieren Rundfunk wegen der Affaere Schneider-Schelde," ibid., December 15, 1951.
104
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Sueddeutscher Rundfunk, the managers selected by OMGUS were
retained by the radio councils and in most instances the staff per-
sonnel trained by Mililtary Government was likewise continued.
Immediately after assuming authority, the council of the Sued-
westdeutscher Rundfunk replaced the manager with a Social
Democrat. This was followed by the dismissal or resignation of
all the prominent commentators associated with the station. After
negotiations, the matter was settled to the satisfaction of HICOG.
In Bavaria, there were strong political elements in the council;
however, a code for the fair presentation of political problems was
worked out and accepted. In Hesse, some council members were
opposed to the U.S. conception of a decentralized radio, but this
controversy was likewise resolved.
There have been advances in the technical aspects of trans-
mission, not the least of which is the adoption of frequency mod-
ulation aimed at easing the overcrowding of the medium wave
band. To the same end, comparable advances have been made in
applying directional qualities to antennae to permit the better
sharing of frequencies. Radio equipment manufacturers are mov-
ing forward in supplying frequency modulation receiving appara-
tus to the public. A television network is being planned and the
Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk presented the first television pro-
gram in December 1952.251 Earlier in that year, a television com-
mission had been created which visited Paris, London and the
United States. HICOG assisted in sending one representative from
RIAS, one from the Hessischer Rundfunk and one from the Sued-
westfunk on this trip.
The biggest problem of the moment is the proposed federal
radio law which might be an entering wedge both for a centralized
system and for government control. Since this is still very much
in the discussion stage, it will not be taken up in the present
monograph but a few references on the subject will be found in
the footnote given below.252 However, it may be said that there
are moderately good prospects that the West German broadcast-
ing companies will successfully resist Federal and Land Govern-
ment tendencies to move into a position of dominance in the radio
field. A large section of the German press cooperates and assists
251 Information supplied by HICOG Radio Branch, April 29, 1953.
252 See Walter Dirks, "Um Ordnung und Freiheit im Rundfunk," Frankfurter Hefte,
Vol. VII, No. 12, pp. 912-916, December 1952; "Bonn stellt Bundesrundfunkgesetz zur
Diskussion," Die Neue Zeitung, February 21, 1953; "Scharfe Auseinandersetzungen im
Plenum ueber das Bundesrundfunkgesetz," ibid., April 16, 1953.
CONCLUSION
105
the companies in their struggle to maintain their positions as pub-
lic service organizations. There is also a considerable body of
public opinion which is in favor of the present system.
253
Motion Pictures
In 1953, the German motion picture industry is still in a state
of uncertainty and insolvency. The deconcentration of the UFA-
UFI properties into economically viable and competitive unit
companies has not yet been accomplished. Experience with the
coal and iron and steel industries has already demonstrated that
deconcentration is a very long drawn out matter. While it is true
that federal legislation has been passed to replace Allied High
Commission Law No. 32, this is only the beginning of the process.
Meanwhile, the film companies, on the whole, are able to pro-
duce only through bank loans guaranteed by the Federal or Land
governments or through governmental subsidies. Germany is
flooded with foreign films and German companies, faced with this
competition and the difficulties of training German actors, artists,
writers and technicians, are encountering great obstacles, with
financial losses running very high. No speedy and effective solu-
tion of these difficulties is in sight. Therefore, the danger of too
much government control is greater than ever and the revival of
a motion picture monopoly, at least partly government dominated,
is a real possibility that cannot be overlooked.
The German democratic press has a good chance of survival.
The German radio shows a heartening consciousness of its public
service functions coupled with a determination to maintain its
gains. But in the film industry, it is perhaps too much to expect
that future developments will be along the lines desired by
HICOG.
253 Interviews with Charles S. Lewis, Chief, Radio Branch, Information Division,
May 27 and December 5, 1952.
APPENDICES
pada.
Appendix 1
GERMAN OPINION SURVEY REPORTS ON PRESS,
RADIO AND FILM254
March 1, 1946
June 28, 1946
August 27, 1946
September 25, 1946
December 28, 1946
February 5, 1947
February 17, 1947
April 8, 1947
April 29, 1947
Radio Listening in Germany-Winter 1946
(Series 1, No. 1)
A Preliminary Study of Book Reading in
Germany (Series 1, No. 13)
Preliminary Study of Motion Picture At-
tendance and Attitudes (Series 1, No. 20)
Attitude Toward Licensed Newspapers in
Some American Occupied Areas (Series 1,
No. 21)
Attitude Toward Licensed Newspapers in
Some American Occupied Areas (Supple-
mentary to Report No. 21) (Series 1, No. 34)
Readership of Heute, Amerikanische Rund-
schau, and Neue Auslese (Series 1, No. 43)
Radio Listening in the American Zone and
in Berlin (Series 1, No. 44)
Magazine Reading in the American Zone
(Series 1, No. 53)
Readership and Popularity of the Frank-
furt Newspapers (Series 1, No. 57)
254 The above list is confined to reports dealing with mass communications media.
For a complete list of the reports prepared by the OMGUS Opinion Surveys Staff
and the HICOG Reactions Analysis Staff, see "Index to German Opinion Survey
Reports" (through September 12, 1952, Restricted), prepared by the HICOG Reactions
Analysis Staff.
APPENDICES
107
November 5, 1947
November 6, 1947
December 9, 1947
March 24, 1948
March 27, 1948
March 29, 1948
April 28, 1948
May 10, 1948
September 13, 1948
September 21, 1948
September 18, 1948
November 30, 1948
January 26, 1949
February 3, 1949
May 23, 1949
May 23, 1949
Opinions on the Press in the American
Zone of Germany (Series 1, No. 77)
Bavarian Attitudes Toward Newspapers
(Series 1, No. 78)
Newspaper Readership and Newscast Lis-
tening (Series 1, No. 83)
Readership of Political Books and Pam-
phlets (Series 1, No. 103)
The Radio Audience in AMZON, Berlin
and Bremen (Series 1, No. 106)
Magazine Readers (Series 1, No. 108)
The Moving Picture Audience in AMZON
(Series 1, No. 116)
Cumulative Impact of the Mass Media
(Series 1, No. 119)
Radio Listening in Berlin Since the Block-
ade (Series 1, No. 135)
The Munich Movie Audience
(Series 1, No. 137)
Newspaper Reading in Berlin Since Cur-
rency Reform and the Blockade (Series 1,
No. 138)
Radio Bremen Evaluated by Bremen
Listeners (Series 1, No. 148)
Book Reading in the U.S. Zone, Berlin,
and Bremen (Series 1, No. 153)
Opinion on the Neue Zeitung
(Series 1, No. 154)
Characteristics and Attitudes of the Ger-
man Movie Audience — I. Impact of Cur-
rency Reform on Attendance (Series 1,
No. 171)
Characteristics and Attitudes of the Ger-
man Movie Audience II. Most Popular
Type of Movie (Series 1, No. 172)
108
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
May 18, 1949
May 27, 1949
June 15, 1949
July 7, 1949
July 26, 1949
September 1, 1949
January 6, 1950
February 8, 1950
April 4, 1950
July 26, 1950
August 4, 1950
August 28, 1950
September 8, 1950
October 12, 1950
October 23, 1950
Characteristics and Attitudes of the Ger-
man Movie Audience III. German Ver-
sus American Films (Series 1, No. 173)
German Opinions on the Voice of America
- A Preliminary Report (Series 1, No. 176)
Readership of Heute (Series 1, No. 181)
The RIAS Audience in Western Berlin
(Series 1, No. 181)
The Voice of America Audience in the U.S.
Zone, West Berlin and the Bremen En-
clave (Series 1, No. 184)
Characteristics and Attitudes of the Ger-
man Movie Audience IV. Appraisal of
Movie Influences (Series 1, No. 188)
M
Readers Evaluation of the U.S. Overt Pub-
lications (Series 2, No. 2)
RIAS and Its Listeners in Western Berlin
(Series 2, No. 4)
Readership of Heute and Other Illustrated
Periodicals (Series 2, No. 14)
Trends and Current Attitudes Regarding
the Voice of America Broadcasts
(Series 2, No. 26)
German Reactions to the American-Spon-
sored Newsreel, Welt im Film (Series 2,
No. 29)
A Summary of Trends in Radio Listening
in West Berlin (Series 2, No. 34)
Observers Evaluate Effectiveness of Com-
munist Press in West Germany (Restricted)
(Series 2, No. 35)
The Effectiveness of the ERP Information
Program in Western Germany (Series 2,
No. 39)
German Youth View the American Pro-
gram
III. The Voice of America and
General Radio Listening Among Youth
(Series 2, No. 41)
APPENDICES
109
October 25, 1950
January 25, 1951
May 30, 1951
July 25, 1951
August 28, 1951
August 31, 1951
September 27, 1951
October 17, 1951
October 17, 1951
April 10, 1952
October 14, 1952
October 15, 1952
German Youth View the American Pro-
gram V. Audience of U.S. Overt Mag-
azines and U.S. Documentary Film Pro-
gram (Series 2, No. 43)
Public Appraisal of Effectiveness of Com-
munist Activity in West Germany (Re-
stricted) (Series 2, No. 59)
The Effectiveness of Recent Informational
Efforts on the Schuman Plan (Series 2,
No. 81)
Attitudes Behind the Iron Curtain A
Survey Approach to East German Think-
ing IV. Radio Listening in the East
Zone (Series 2, No. 90)
-
I.
Germans View the Voice of America
The Extent and Characteristics of the VOA
Audience in West Germany and West
Berlin (Series 2, No. 95)
II.
Germans View the Voice of America
Some Technical Factors in VOA Listener-
ship (Series 2, No. 97)
Program Tastes of West German and West
Berlin Radio Listeners (Series 2, No. 100)
Germans View the Voice of America-III.
Program Preference and Evaluations of
VOA Listeners (Series 2, No. 104)
Germans View the Voice of America—IV.
The Question of Effectiveness
(Series 2, No. 105)
East Zone Farmers' Reactions to RIAS
Farm Broadcasts With Sidelights on the
Extent of VOA Listenership
(Restricted) (Series 2, No. 132)
West Germans Appraise Their Present
Day Press-I. Newspaper Readership and
Preferences (Restricted) (Series 2, No. 158)
West Germans Appraise their Present Day
Press II. Evaluations and Recommenda-
tions (Restricted) (Series 2, No. 159)
•
110
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
October 16, 1952
December 22, 1952
February 10, 1953
February 11, 1953
West Germans Appraise their Present Day
Press-III. Readership and Evaluations of
the Neue Zeitung (Restricted) (Series 2,
No. 160)
An Appraisal of Pamphlets as a Medium
of Influence in West Germany (Restricted)
(Series 2, No. 165)
RIAS Coverage and Programming as Eval-
uated by East Zone Listeners (Restricted)
(Series 2, No. 170) ·
How Do Germans Feel About an Amer-
ican Informational Operation in West Ger-
many (Restricted) (Series 2, No. 171)
1
Appendix 2
ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION LAW NO. 5
PRESS, RADIO, INFORMATION AND ENTERTAINMENT255
The Council of the Allied High Commission enacts as follows:
Article 1
1. The German press, radio and other information media shall
be free as is provided by the Basic Law. The Allied High Com-
mission reserves the right to cancel or annul any measure, govern-
mental, political, administrative or financial which threatens such
freedom.
Article 2
1. An enterprise or a person engaged therein or utilizing the
facilities thereof shall not act in a manner affecting or likely to
affect prejudicially the prestige or security of the Allied Forces.
2. Where in the opinion of the Allied High Commission an
enterprise or a person has violated the provisions of paragraph 1
of this Article, the Allied High Commission may prohibit the
enterprise from continuing its activities or the person from engag-
ing in any enterprise or utilizing the facilities thereof, for a def-
inite or an indefinite period of time. The Allied High Commission
may impose a like prohibition on an enterprise or person where in
its opinion there is sufficient evidence that such person or enter-
prise is about to violate the provisions of this Law.
3. Where any enterprise is so prohibited for more than three
months, or any person for more than one month, the enterprise
or person affected shall have the right to appeal to an agency to
be established for the purpose. Such agency shall, after hearing
the appellant or his representative and any witnesses whom the
appellant or the agency desires to call, either confirm, extend,
reduce or modify the terms of the order appealed from.
255 Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission for Germany, No. 1, pp. 7-10,
September 23, 1949.
?
112
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Article 3
1. No new radio broadcasting, television or wired radio trans-
mission installation shall be set up and there shall be no transfer
of control of any installation of this nature without the authoriza-
tion of the Allied High Commission. German radio operations
shall be conducted in accordance with frequency and power al-
locations made by the Allied High Commission.
2. International relays, foreign language broadcasting and
negotiations with foreign countries on matters of broadcasting
shall be subject to prior authorization by the Allied High Commis-
sion.
Article 4
Any radio broadcasting stations and any publications shall,
when required by the Allied High Commission, broadcast or pub-
lish any information deemed necessary by the Commission to fur-
ther the purposes of the Occupation Statute.
Article 5
A copy of every publication or production of any enterprise
shall, on publication or production in the federal territory, be filed
as the Allied High Commission may direct.
Article 6
The Allied High Commission may prohibit the distribution,
display or possession in the federal territory of any publication or
production of any enterprise which in its opinion is likely to pre-
Judice the prestige or security of the Allied Forces. It may also
prohibit the bringing into the federal territory of such publica-
tions or productions.
Article 7
The Allied High Commission may confiscate any publication or
production distributed or produced contrary to the provisions of
this Law.
Article 8
Administrative action taken in accordance with the provisions
of this Law shall not be a bar to criminal proceedings
APPENDICES
113
Article 9
Any person who violates any provision of this Law or of any
regulation or order made thereunder shall, upon conviction, be
liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or to a
fine not exceeding DM 10,000 or both. If the offense has been
committed by an enterprise, the fine may be increased to a max-
imum of DM 100,000. The Court may also order the forfeiture of
any property of which the possession or use was an essential ele-
ment of the offenses for which the person is convicted.
Article 10
The Allied High Commission may issue regulations imple-
menting this Law.
Article 11
For the purpose of this Law, the expression "enterprise" shall
mean any undertaking, private or public, individual or collective,
engaged in:
a. The printing, production, publication, distribution, sale or
commercial lending of any printed or any mechanically re-
produced matter;
b. the making or dissemination of sound recordings or motion
picture films;
c. the operation of news, feature or photographic services;
d. transmission by Hellschreiber, radio transmission and
broadcasting, television, transmission and broadcasting,
wired radio transmission and broadcasting and audio-fre-
quency distribution;
e. the operation of any place of entertainment, of film labora-
tories, film exchanges, film studios, as well as the produc-
tion or presentation of films and all forms of entertainment.
Article 12
The following legislation is hereby repealed:
United States Military Government Law No. 76 (Amended)
Posts, Telephone, Telegraphs and Radio, and the censorship re-
gulations issued thereunder,
114
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
United States Military Government Law No. 191 (Amended 1)
Control of Publications, Radio Broadcasting News Services, Films,
Theaters, and Music and Prohibition of Activities of Reichsmini-
ministerium fuer Volksaufklaerung und Propaganda, and Informa-
tion Control Regulations No. 2 and 3 issued thereunder.
British Military Government Law No. 76 (Amended 1) Posts,
Telephones, Telegraphs and Radio, except paragraphs 8 and 10
thereof,
SHAEF Censorship for the civilian population of Germany
under the jurisdiction of Military Government,
British Military Government Law No. 191 (Amended 1) Con-
trol of Publications, Radio Broadcasting News Services, Films,
Theaters, and Music, and Prohibition of Activities of Reichsmini-
sterium fuer Volksaufklaerung und Propaganda,
British Military Government Ordinance No. 22 Postal Censor-
ship (Prevention of Evasion),
British Military Government Information Control Regulations
No. 1 and 2,
British Military Government Ordinance No. 113, Import of
Literature and Regulation No. 1 issued pursuant thereto,
British Military Government Instructions for Printers,
SHAEF Law No. 191 dealing with the suspension of press,
radio, the closing of theaters and places of entertainment, the
prohibition of the activities of the Reichsministerium fuer Volks-
aufklaerung und Propaganda,
O
French Military Government Ordinance No. 34 regarding the
registration of all cine cameras, cine sound apparatus or cine pro-
Jectors,
French Military Government Ordinance No. 35 regarding the
possession and the surrendering to the French Authorities of pos-
itive films or unused or printed negative films and of all copies of
films of all types.
APPENDICES
115
Article 13
This Law shall become effective on September 21, 1949.
Done at
BONN, Petersberg, on September 21, 1949.
A. FRANÇOIS-PONCET
French High Commissioner
for Germany
John J. McCLOY
U. S. High Commissioner
for Germany
B. H. ROBERTSON
U. K. High Commissioner
for Germany
Appendix 3
ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION LAW NO. 32
DISPOSITION OF FORMER REICH-OWNED
MOTION PICTURE PROPERTY256
Whereas it is necessary to provide for the disposition of motion
picture property formerly owned or controlled by the German
Reich and
Whereas it is expedient to dispose of such property in a manner
best calculated to foster a sound, privately-owned motion picture
industry in Germany, organized so as to preclude excessive con-
centrations of economic power;
The Council of the Allied High Commission enacts as follows:
Article 1
(1) A UFA Deconcentration Committee (hereinafter called
"the Deconcentration Committee”) is hereby established as a ju-
ristic person to be composed of three or more German nationals to
be appointed by the Allied High Commission.
(2) The Deconcentration Committee shall be subject to the
direction of the Allied High Commission. Its members may be
removed or replaced at any time by the Allied High Commission.
Article 2
The title to all property of any kind which on May 8, 1945
was owned or controlled by the German Reich and used for or in
connection with the production, distribution or exhibition of mo-
tion picture films by the enterprises owning such property (herein-
after referred to as "property subject to this Law") is hereby
vested in the Deconcentration Committee for the purposes of this
Law.
256 Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission for Germany, No. 28, pp. 498-505,
August 1, 1950.
APPENDICES
117
Article 3
(1) Pending the appointment of the members of the Decon-
centration Committee, the Comittee for the Liquidation of Reich-
owned Motion Picture Property appointed, pursuant to the provi-
sions of United States and British Military Government Law
No. 24 and French Military Government Ordinance No. 236 shall
exercise the powers of the Deconcentration Committee under this
Law.
(2) Upon the appointment of the members of the Deconcentra-
tion Committee, the Committee for the Liquidation of Reich-owned
Motion Picture Property shall be dissolved.
Article 4
The Deconcentration Committee is hereby directed to dispose,
before January 1, 1952, of all property subject to this Law. In
the event that any such property has not been disposed of before
January 1, 1952, the Allied High Commission shall direct in
what manner the property so remaining shall be dealt with.
Article 5
(1) Operating enterprises, including their liquid assets, shall
be sold as going concerns, except as otherwise provided in this
article or in any order of the Allied High Commission.
(2) While title remains vested in the Deconcentration Com-
mittee each studio shall, unless otherwise directed by the Allied
High Commission, be operated independently of any other studio.
(3) Stories, negatives and prints which constitute Nazi or
militaristic propaganda shall be disposed of as may be directed
by the Allied High Commission.
(4) Patent rights shall be disposed of as may be directed by
the Allied High Commission.
(5) Insofar as any disposition hereunder may involve patent
rights and literary and artistic property rights in any country out-
side Germany, such disposition shall be subject, where applicable,
to the laws of such country and any governmental action with
respect to such patent rights, literary and artistic property rights,
including the seizure or confiscation thereof.
118
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Article 6
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this article, any person
is eligible to buy any property to be sold hereunder.
(2) Every prospective buyer shall certify in writing that his
offer is submitted on his own account, and that he intends to buy
for himself and not on behalf of or for the benefit of any other
person.
(3) Subject to such exceptions as may be authorized by the
Allied High Commission as consistent with the objectives of this
Law, offers will not be accepted from the following persons or
agencies:
(a) Any government, whether central or local, including any
division, sub-division or agency thereof, a political party,
and any governmental official or employee.
(b) A person on whom sanctions or disabilities have been im-
posed under the provisions of any denazification enactment.
(c) In respect of the sale of a studio, any person who, at any
time during the period of ten years preceding May 8,
1945, was a member of the Vorstand or Aufsichtsrat or
Prokurist of any Reich-owned or controlled motion picture
enterprise.
(d) A juristic person shall be ineligible within the provisions
of this paragraph when more than twenty-five per centum
of its capital or the voting rights is owned or controlled by
such persons.
(4) The Allied High Commission may reject the offer of any
other person where the acceptance of the offer would, in its opin-
ion, defeat the objectives of this Law.
Article 7
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the Allied High Commission,
property shall be sold at public sales to the highest qualified bid-
der and prior notice of sales shall be given wide publicity. The
Allied High Commission shall issue regulations to ensure that so
far as possible, consistently with the objectives of this Law, fair
compensation is obtained for property disposed of under this Law.
(2) No person may acquire, directly or indirectly, more than
one studio or more than three theaters disposed of under this Law.
APPENDICES
119
(3) Non-German nationals, whether individually or in the ag-
gregate, shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, more than twenty-
five per centum of the ownership or control of any studio disposed
of under this Law.
(4) Any person who acquires, directly or indirectly, any in-
terest in the studio heretofore owned by Bavaria Filmkunst
G.m.b.H. shall dispose of any interest he may have in any other
studio in Germany within sixty days after the date of the acquisi-
tion unless the Allied High Commission prescribes a longer period.
Upon any failure to comply with this provision, the Allied High
Commission shall revoke the disposition.
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Order No. 1
issued under United States Military Government Law No. 56 and
British Military Government Ordinance No. 78 or in Order
No. 134, issued under French Military Government Ordinance No. 96,
a buyer may, for a period of four months immediately following
the purchase, engage in any two of the following fields in the mo-
tion picture industry:
(a) production;
(b) distribution;
(c) exhibition; and
(d) manufacture, distribution or repair
of motion picture equipment.
After the expiration of such period of four months, he shall
comply with the provisions of the aforementioned orders.
Article 8
(1) No person shall at any time acquire any interest, direct
or indirect, in any property which is or was subject to the provi-
sions of this Law if at that time he would not have met the tests
for eligibility to purchase such property in sub-paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), or (d) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of this Law. Any such ac-
quisition shall be unlawful and void.
(2) Unless authorized by the Allied High Commission, any use
of the names "UFI" and "UFA” and of any combination of letters
or symbols designed to simulate those names is prohibited.
120
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
Article 9
The Allied High Commission may direct that property shall be
sold hereunder free and clear of encumbrances, charges or other
obligations. The Allied High Commission will make provision to
ensure the equitable treatment of persons adversely affected by
this action.
Article 10
(1) Any transfer of assets made by or pursuant to this Law
shall operate to vest in the transferee legally valid title to such
assets in accordance with the terms of the transfer.
(2) The appropriate German authorities shall register without
attestation any transfer of assets made by or pursuant to this Law
upon the presentation to such authorities by or on behalf of the
Allied High Commission of a certified statement of the assets to
be transferred.
Article 11
The Allied High Commission may conduct any inspection or
investigation pertaining to any of the purposes of this Law and
may set aside and annul any transaction which it considers to be
in violation or in fraud of the purposes or provisions of this Law.
Article 12
(1) When the disposal of all of the property subject to this
law is completed, or at such earlier time or times as the Allied
High Commission may designate, the Allied High Commission
shall take the necessary steps to ensure the winding up under
German law of any of the remaining enterprises subject to this
Law.
(2) The net proceeds of the liquidation proceedings, after pro-
vision for satisfaction of all claims and obligations, including the
interests of minority stockholders, shall be handed to the Federal
Republic, subject to such special provisions as may be made by
the Allied High Commission in respect of the proceeds from pro-
perty outside the territory of the Federal Republic.
(3) That part of such net proceeds which is attributable to the
liquidation of Ufatreu Gefolgschaftshilfe G.m.b.H. shall be used
for charitable purposes, including relief of needy employees or
former employees of enterprises liquidated pursuant to this Law.
APPENDICES
121
Article 13
All custodians, curators, officials or other persons having pos-
sessions, custody or control of property subject to this Law are
required:
(a) (i) to hold and administer the same subject to the direc-
tions of the Allied High Commission and, pending
such directions, not to transfer, deliver or otherwise
dispose of the same;
(ii) to preserve, maintain and safeguard, and not to cause
or permit any action which will impair the value or
utility of such property;
(iii) to maintain accurate records and accounts with re-
spect thereto and the income thereof;
(b) when and as directed by the Allied High Commission:
(i) to file reports furnishing such data as may be re-
quired with respect to such property and all receipts
and expenditures received or made in connection
therewith;
(ii) to transfer and deliver custody, possession or control
of such property and all books, records and accounts
relating thereto; and
(iii) to account for the property and all income and pro-
ducts thereof.
Article 14
No taxes or duties shall be imposed upon any transfer or other
disposition made by or pursuant to the provisions of this Law.
Article 15
(1) The term "Allied High Commission," as used in any provi-
sion of this Law, means such agency or agencies as the Council of
the Allied High Commission may designate by regulation or order
to carry out such provisions. Any such agency shall act in accord-
ance with such regulations or orders as may be issued by the
Council of the Allied High Commission.
(2) Subject to the regulations or orders of the Council, the
agency to administer the provisions of this Law shall be the De-
122
PRESS, RADIO AND FILM
cartelization and Industrial Deconcentration Group of the Allied
High Commission, which may delegate any of its functions.
Article 16
(1) The provisions of SHAEF and U.S. Military Government
Laws No. 52 (amended) shall cease to apply to property subject to
this Law.
(2) Except as the Allied High Commission may otherwise
direct, nothing in this Law shall affect the application to property
subject to this Law of legislation on the restitution of identifiable
property to victims of Nazi oppression.
Article 17
The Allied High Commission may issue regulations for the
implementation of this Law.
Article 18
Any person violating any provision of this Law or any Regula-
tion or Order issued under this Law shall, upon conviction, be
liable to a fine not exceeding DM 200,000 or to imprisonment for
not more than five years, or both.
Article 19
Within the meaning of this Law
(a) "Person" means any natural or juristic person, corporation,
association, partnership or governmental agency.
(b) "Non-German National" includes any juristic person whose
capital or voting rights are owned or controlled by non-
German natural persons to the extent of more than twenty-
five per centum.
(c) "Enterprise" includes every kind of economic, business or
financial instrumentality.
(d) "Studio” means every place used or intended to be used for
the production or synchronization of motion pictures, in-
cluding related laboratories, libraries, copying and other
facilities.
APPENDICES
123
Article 20
In the case of any inconsistency between this Law or any Re-
gulation or Order made thereunder, and any German Law, the
former shall prevail.
Article 21
United States and British Military Government Law No. 24
and Ordinance No. 236 of the French Military Government are
hereby repealed.
Done at
BONN, Petersberg on July 20, 1950.
On behalf of the Council of the
Allied High Commission
IVONE KIRKPATRICK
U. K. High Commissioner
for Germany
Chairman
ally
地
​7

|
A
;
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 00229 6203

:
www.c
NENALE

1
;
O 11 May 53 006053 2 M
4) with ar an the