Paris (Jan. 25)
Anti-Jewish leaflets strongly similar to the propaganda distributed here formerly by the organizations established to protect the acquirers of Jewish property and the Vichy-appointed administrators of Jewish concerns continue to be widely circulated.
One of these, which declares that the “Jews aren’t the only martyrs,” complains that the Jews now direct the political parties, the press, the radio, the ministries, the cinemas and the expurgation committees. It urges the French people not to permit unfortunate refugees to be thrown out on the streets to vacate apartments which “the Jewish tenants had bravely deserted during the occupation.”
The leaflet uses the same figures in support of its allegations that Jews controlled trade and commerce in Paris before the war as appeared in the publications of the “defense” organizations. It warns that unless they are checked, the Jews will completely evict the French from the political and commercial life of the country. “The French have nothing to choose between the Hitlerian pest and the Jewish cholera,” the leaflet declares. It concludes with a demand that the Jews leave France and go to Palestine.
DISPOSSESSED JEWS CANNOT REGAIN THEIR APARTMENTS
Legislation enabling Jews and others who had to flee their homes or were dispossessed during the German occupation of France to regain possession of their apartments is either ineffective or is being sabotaged by the authorities, the newspaper Resistance charged in a demand to “end this scandal.”
The ordinance of November 14, 1944, according to the paper, requires the restoration of premises to the original tenant who left Paris to join the French or Allied forces, only if he left Paris after June 16, 1940.
“To have the right to re-enter their homes,” the paper ironically comments, “it was necessary that they not leave Paris until three days after the Germans had arrived. In this case, they would without doubt today be dead in some camp in Poland and would not embarrass anybody.
“If this law was badly prepared.” the paper concluded, “let it be revised. But if the law does not mean this, then do not permit the courts to sabotage it. And if the law is so equivocal as to permit this sabotage, then let another law state it precisely and interpret it. But let this scandal be ended.”