From the riding stables you have a beautiful view over the village of Moosach in the district. However, when the local historian Peter Maicher researched this farm in the state archives, he came across a less pleasant, albeit exciting, human fate from the National Socialist era.
SZ: Mr. Maicher, farmer Daniel Wurth’s farm burned down shortly after he acquired it in 1929, his son died at the age of 16, he had to have his property foreclosed on and after the war he did not experience justice – which solves the problem this destiny in you?
Peter Maicher: Well, Wurth was undoubtedly unlucky. However, he was also someone who always got back up and didn’t give in so easily, which is quite remarkable in view of his CV. At the same time, I was also shocked to learn of this fate. Wurt wasn’t just bad luck, but above all by the Nazis.
He had to foreclose on his farm.
Right. He had bought the property from the Grafing loan office when he was 44 years old. Originally he only wanted to buy part, but the bank pushed him to take all, they wanted to make a profit. So Wurth was heavily in debt, the bank was charging 13 percent interest, and the contract contained an immediate eviction clause—a gag contract. However, the director of the bank, Benedikt Müller, had promised him support.
The riding school on a photo from 1920. The building itself was built around 1600 and fell victim to the flames in 1929.
(Photo: private)
What did this support look like?
It should never take shape. After the yard burned down, Wurth was able to rebuild it with the help of insurance and managed it well. Within two years he almost doubled the value of the business. This is where bank director Müller saw his opportunity: in March 1932, he applied for a foreclosure sale, although the in-house experts praised Wurth’s business management.
Why did Müller want the foreclosure?
Well, for one thing, it would bring new money to the bank. The idea was to allow Wurth’s farm, which was initially idle, to be farmed and then snatch it back from him. At the same time, something else also plays an important role: Wurth was not a member of the NSDAP, on the contrary. He had positioned himself clearly against Hitler early on. Müller, on the other hand, was a party member, an “old fighter” and Wurth said after the war that Müller wanted to help Gertrud van Calker take over the farm. Then she bought it at auction.
The neighbor from Deinhofen.
Yes, and Wurth’s great adversary., she had had her eye on the riding school for a long time. While Wurth came from a humble peasant background, van Calker was the daughter of a then famous law professor and large landowner. The van Calker family was very close to the ideology of the Nazi regime.
Daniel Wurth (left) and his adversary, Gertrud von Calker (right). The two remained enemies for most of their lives.
(Photo: private)
How did Wurth react to the foreclosure?
He defended himself with hands and feet! He had expert opinions drawn up, went to court and appealed. After all, it was about his existence. However, he had powerful enemies.
Next to Müller and van Calker?
However. Wurth had referred to being “capable of farming and inheriting farms”, which, according to the law of the time, would have meant that his farm should not have been allowed to be auctioned. The head of the legal department of the Landesbauernschaft, Dr. Karl Mühlbauer, however, did everything in his power to deny him the pawn ability. Mühlbauer was well acquainted with the van Calkers, frequenting their estate in Deinhofen and presumably wanting to help them take over the Wurth farm. To do this, he put witnesses under pressure, created one-sided reports and even betrayed his boss, who was on Wurth’s side. In the end, Wurth was denied pawn ability, which is a blatant injustice.
What happened to the Wurths then?
They were able to run the farm for a while, but were already being harassed by the Nazis, for example by Fritz Ortmann, a senior civil servant in the Ebersberg district office. He set the police on him because Wurth allegedly wasn’t working. Wurth was also accused of allowing Polish workers on his estate to listen to foreign radio stations. This was a serious accusation, so-called “broadcast criminals” were considered traitors to the people and could be punished with death. But Wurth got away with a black eye. It is not known who placed the ad, in all probability it was van Calker – but nothing can be proven against her.
Someone had denounced Wurth as a “broadcast criminal” – that could be punished with death.
(Photo: private)
Eventually, Wurth became a farmer without a farm.
After the eviction, the Wurths were quartered in a tiny apartment in Moosach, and Daniel Wurth himself found work as an accountant in a military hospital. After the war he was unemployed for two years, which was a time of great hardship for him and his family. He did find work for a few years with the arbitration boards set up by the US occupying power, but that only brought him problems in the long run.
In what way?
Well, the Spruchkammern were responsible for the denazification of the population and were therefore extremely unpopular with the population – as was everyone who worked for them. For several years after his employment there, Wurth then tried to get compensation because he couldn’t find work – everywhere the door was slammed in his face as an alleged traitor. But as a simple courier he received nothing that must have been bitter.
What about the yard? Couldn’t he ask for it back?
Wurth also tried that in 1948, citing a law passed by the military government. However, Wurth’s request for compensation was rejected – due to a legal formality. His application was not in accordance with a new law, but that had not existed at the time of his application! After that, Wurth gave up and died four years later, in 1958, at the age of 73. Gertrud von Calker survived him by only one year, both are buried in Moosach.
What happened to the farm?
Shortly before her death, van Calker married her estate manager, who finally sold him at the instigation of his new wife.
How do you rate Mrs van Calker’s behavior?
It is difficult to prove her wrongdoing directly. She was very close to the Nazi ideology, even if party membership cannot be proven with certainty. She must have colluded with party comrades to her advantage. She likely cheated and manipulated, but it’s not clear if she crossed the line of breaking the law. In any case, she seems anything but sympathetic in this bad story. At the same time, of course, there is another memory in Moosach, a street is even named after her: After the war, she sold the community a plot of land very cheaply, on which expellees eventually settled.
Even if historians object, is there a moral to the story?
Friedrich Schiller comes to mind, “The most pious cannot live in peace…”. Of course, we should be vigilant that no political movement will ever again flout justice and humanity in such a way. But I also find it simply fascinating, albeit frightening, how Wurth was ground down in the mills of the judiciary and bureaucracy after the war, that’s tragic. And finally, there is also an aesthetic point: when you stand on the riding stables, you have a wonderful view over Moosach and the surrounding nature. It seems strange that such bad things have happened in such an idyllic landscape.
On Wednesday, October 19, starting at 7 p.m., Peter Maicher will give a lecture on the life of Daniel Wurth and the living conditions under National Socialism in the Moosach rectory, Glonnerstraße 3. Registration is not required.