"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (239 page)

10.
For the detailed structure of the League of National Socialist German Jurists (NSRB), see BA R 22/4462; statistics in Becker, “Gaurechtsamt und NS-Rechtswahrerbund” (1939); see also Bracher, Sauer, and Schulz,
Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung
(1962), 518 (1,614 members in April 1933, 80,000 by the end of that year); Schraut, “Ein Jahr Reichsjustizkommissariat” (1943), 269 ff. Regarding the smashing of the law student organizations, their incorporation in the League of National Socialist German Jurists, and their structure and development, see Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 105 ff.; Ostler,
Die deutschen Rechtsanwälte
(1971), 233 ff., 240; Bracher, Sauer, and Schulz,
Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung
; for the contemporary literature, see Nicolai, “Die Aufgabe des Verwaltungsbeamten” (1934), with further references. Regarding the studies from the viewpoint of the NSRB, see details in “Thesen des NSRB, Reichsgruppenwalter Junge Rechtwahrer” (undated) (studies to be as short as possible, reduction of course to four semesters, etc.) (BA R 22/4446, Bl. 34–36). On training courses, cf. the report of October 18, 1937, from the justice senator of Hamburg (Rothenberger) to State Secretary Freisler, on a weekend meeting of Greater Hamburg judges at the Gauführer School, Barsbüttel (Nuremberg doc. NG-2249), according to which the weekend meetings were an innovation by Rothenberger. More details on training camps in Johe,
Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz
, 210 ff.; an enthusiastic report by Hedemann, “Juristen im Schulungslager” (1934).

11.
The most important training camp was the one for junior lawyers in Jüterbog (Hans-Kerrl Camp); a training camp was set up for junior government lawyers at Bad Tölz. The Hans-Kerrl Camp was established in 1934, after camps for junior lawyers had been set up in the individual
Länder
(see “Das ‘Hans-Frank-Lager’ in Rastatt,”
DR
[1934]: 184). In the first phase, 1934–38, in the two months immediately before the assistant judge examinations, the training was almost exclusively military. From about 1938 on, numerous complaints by participants gave rise to a change of policy whereby in addition to “defense drill,” political and technical training was incorporated for an equal amount of time. Politically, tension reigned between the camp directors and the junior lawyers, who found the political drill irksome. Spying and consequent reprimands were common, and students were occasionally expelled for “political unreliability.” For (positive) reports on the communal camps during the period, see H. Vogatzky, in Rothenberger,
Das Hanseatische Oberlandesgericht
(1939), 15 f., 100 f.: Schwister, “Gemeinschaftsdienst und Große Staatsprüfung” (1933); Friedrich, “Das Gemeinschaftslager Hans Kerrl” (1935), 24; Freisler, “Hans-Kerrl-Lager” (1936); Palandt, “Die sachliche Auswirkung der Gemeinschaftserziehung” (1936); Hildebrandt, “Grundsätzliches zum Dienst im Gemeinschaftslager Hans Kerrl” (1936).(Hildebrandt was the commander of the
Gemeinschaftslager
Hans Kerrl.) More details in Johe,
Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz
, 219 f.; Ostler,
Die deutschen Rechtsanwälte
, 239 f.; Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 238; report by M. Hirsch to the author, July 22, 1974; he stressed the improved conditions in 1939 from the technical point of view and the critical attitude of the junior lawyers to the political training (MS).

For legal training, see the Lawyer Training Code of July 22, 1934 (RGBl. I 727 in the new version of January 4, 1939, RGBl. I 5); see Ostler,
Die deutschen Rechtsanwälte
, 239 ff., with further references; Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 237 f.; Jescheck, “Die juristische Ausbildung” (1939); Reich Ministry of Justice, ed., “Die Ausbildung des deutschen Rechtswahrers,” Stand 1.9.38, BA R 22/4430, Bl. 87 f.

The legal foundation for “
Volk
studies” was sec. 5 of the Lawyer Training Code of July 22, 1934 (RGBl. I 727), and sec. 5 of the new version of the Lawyer Training Code of January 4, 1939 (RGBl. I 5). Judges, ministerial officials, Party functionaries, municipal officials, professors from other disciplines, school inspectors, and assistant teachers acted as “
Volk
studies examiners” (internally known as “brown examiners”; see letter from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of Justice of September 27, 1941 [BA R 22/4532]): see the list of members of the Law Examination Board, Stuttgart, of March 22, 1944 (BA R 22/10954). For details of the structure, scope, and content of the examination in the subject “
Volk
studies,” see the communication of September 17, 1941, from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of Justice (BA R 22/4532). Examples of examination subjects in history taken from the Reich Ministry of the Interior guidelines of March 2, 1936, issued to the Reich Ministry of Justice are “Attacks on Germany by France since the Thirty Years War,” “What Germany Had to Suffer” (BA R 22/4533, Bl. 147 f.); see also the list of examination subjects for the examinations in July and August 1936, compiled by the president of the Reich Law Examination Board (Bl. 214 f.). Individual examples of examinations in
Volk
studies for the year 1936, ibid., 162 f., and in “Material für die Besprechung mit den Prüfern der Prüfungsstelle Berlin am 4.3.1936” (undated, BA R 22/4533), with detailed explanations and many complaints on the ignorance of the examinees in ideological subjects (“trite phrases learned by rote,” “appalling helplessness,” lack of “inner integration” of National Socialism) (ibid., Bl. 167 f., 172). For the subject under discussion, there were some forty questions, ranging from Theoderich the Great to basic geographical (e.g., What is the course of the Gulf Stream?) and historical questions (What were Napoleon’s intentions in Egypt?).

12.
For example, the majority of participants of the Hans Kerrl Communal Camp were in principle not opposed to the regime, but they were probably not interested in politics. Jokes about leading National Socialists and demonstrations of dissatisfaction during lectures by Party officials were common (many examples will be found in Ostler,
Die deutschen Rechtsanwälte
); report of July 22, 1974, by M. Hirsch (see note 11 above).

13.
Tegtmayer, “Die Rechtsarbeit der Partei” (1939); see also Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
.

14.
Exchange of correspondence and material for training judges in criminology, procedural law, race law, marital health law, etc., in BA R 22/4486; Vorl. 20683; Nuremberg doc. NG-346; Reich Ministry of Justice circular instruction of January 18, 1937 (Erlaßsammlung, BA Koblenz). On materials for the training courses organized by Reich Minister of Justice Thierack on Burg Cochem, see Nuremberg doc. NG-393. Regarding further plans for centralized, more extensive training, see the speech of the Reich minister of justice to the presiding judges of the courts of appeal on February 3, 1944, in Weimar (BA R 22/4405).

15.
For general information on the new training functions of the NSRB (“Leadership of men in the field of law”), see the speech of September 30, 1942, by Reich Minister of Justice Thierack to the officials of the Reich NSRB office (
DR
[1942]: 1404); and Reich Ministry of Justice memorandum (undated) regarding the employment of judges and public prosecutors for the training of Party officials (BA R 22/247). In addition, work communities were set up in the universities (Reich Ministry of Justice memorandum [Klemm, undated], 1944, BA R 22/247); see also the communication dated November 17, 1943, from the
Senatspräsident
(head of the Chamber of the Court of Appeal), Dr. Friedrich, to
Kammergerichtsrat
Schmidt-Leichner (Reich Ministry of Justice) regarding preparation of the courses for leaders of student work parties (BA R 22/4513) and training courses in a very wide variety of subjects. In addition, regular NSRB weekend training courses were maintained in the curriculum or added to it (Reich Ministry of Justice circular instruction of May 19, 1944, BA R 22/4215; progress report on weekend camps with study schedule, BA R 22/4214). Regarding technical training by the NSDAP, see the Reich Ministry of Justice memoranda of June 10, 1943, to
Oberlandesgerichtsrat
Meinhof regarding seven-day courses in racial politics for law students by the NSDAP Race Policy Office, with a report on one such course (Nuremberg doc. NG-410), and of March 22, 1943, regarding planning of so-called “
volk
-biological courses” for judges and public prosecutors with a view to the “Aryanization processes and the coming Law on Enemies of the Community” (BA R 22/4488). Regarding further plans for coordination of the training activities of the Party and the ministry, see the instruction by the head of Department 6 of the Reich Ministry of Justice dated May 31, 1944, to his leading officials (BA R 22/4215). On the cooperation between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the NSRB in the
Gaue
, see the note by
Ministerialrat
Dageförde (head of the NSRB training office) of March 18, 1943 (BA R 22/4214). The technical-ideological training of the NSRB was particularly energetic in the Annexed Eastern Territories: see, e.g., the reports in the
Ostdeutscher Beobachter
of August 9, 1940, p. 3; and December 1, 1943, p. 4, on such courses.

16.
An Office for Recruitment and Training was established in the Reich Ministry of Justice as late as the spring of 1944 in its temporary office at Leitmeritz (Litom
ice), which held its first work session in June 1944 (internal instruction, Reich Ministry of Justice, March 22, 1933, BA R 22/4449; reports on later sessions, transcripts of papers, etc., in BA R 22/4450) but was soon to cease its activity on August 11, 1944 (Reich Ministry of Justice administrative instructions of August 11, 1944,
DJ
[1944]: 228); see also memorandum by
Ministerialrat
Dr. Haag, Reich Ministry of Justice, on “training objectives in the senior judiciary service” (BA R 22/4449).

17.
Thus, as early as October 18, 1937, the justice senator of Hamburg, Rothenberger, wrote to State Secretary Freisler with suggestions for training dependable judges (Nuremberg doc. NG-2249); see also Rothenberger’s memorandum of March 31, 1942 (at this time he was state secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice), on judiciary reform (Nuremberg doc. NH-075) and the schedule of a meeting of the
Referenten
(personnel policy advisers) for the senior service at Cochem, May 5–8, 1944 (BA R 22/20675), on the question of personnel policy in the “new judiciary.”

18.
Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 113, 117.

19.
Many references will be found in the Reich Ministry of Justice
Diensttagebuch
for the period November 5, 1934, to December 30, 1935 (Nuremberg doc. PS-3751). See the list from the Bavarian Justice Ministry (director of which at that time was Hans Frank), reproduced in Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 113 ff., on interference by the Party in judiciary matters, classified under (a) interference in personnel affairs, (b) interference in the administration of criminal justice (with the note that cases connected with Dachau were not taken into consideration), and (c) interference in civil justice. Attacks by the Party on individual judges and interference in pending trials were reported especially from the court of appeal districts of Bamberg (117) and Hamm (report of December 4, 1950, by the presiding judge of the Hamm Court of Appeal [118]). Other examples of such pressure tactics in trials involving Party members were the requisitioning of archives without returning them, nonappearance of the accused, intimidation of witnesses, false statements under oath, etc. (more details in 128 f.).

20.
More examples in Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 117.

21.
Circular of May 22, 1935, by the deputy of the Führer (BA R 99/35). Cf. also the notification of September 3, 1935, by the deputy of the Führer in
Verfügungen, Anordnungen, Bekanntmachungen
, 2:394 f., requesting to be briefly informed of all known attacks against the Party and its institutions under the terms of the Treachery Law of December 20, 1943, “notwithstanding the required notification to the public prosecutor’s office.”