"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (240 page)

22.
Confidential information no. 49/551 of October 18, 1941, by the head of the Party Chancellery to the Gauleiter (
Verfügungen, Anordnungen, Bekanntmachungen
, 2:392).

23.
See Party Chancellery directive 15/38 of February 9, 1938 (ibid., 378); also order by the Führer of December 2, 1943 (given in transcript in the State Archive Pozna
,
Landgericht
Posen, 16, Bl. 27 and 28, with confidential note of February 10, 1943, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the higher Reich judicial authorities, ibid.) regarding dealing with Civil Code matters through Party offices, which contains the following:

Direct interference in pending lawsuits is in no case permitted. If it is necessary to influence a lawsuit in a matter of fundamental or political importance, and unless an agreement can be reached between the parties concerned, the head of my Party Chancellery should be informed. He will then take the necessary measures with the Reich minister of justice and obtain my decision as required…. If a Party agency is convinced that a court decision justifies serious misgivings on legal or factual grounds, it can apply to the head of my Party Chancellery or to me by way of the latter. All attempts to counter a court decision by exerting pressure on one of the parties involved are forbidden.

24.
DR
(1934): 19;
JW
(1934): 24.

25.
In “ordinary” cases the Party did what it could to delay or stop legal proceedings against members of the NSDAP, SA, or SS. With regard to serious cases, see Reich Ministry of Justice memorandum, undated, presumably 1940, regarding the prosecution of the
Kreisleiter
of Bromberg (Bydgoszcz), W. Adolf K.: as head of the Compensation Office, K. was entrusted with “compensating the ethnic Germans for the damages they have suffered through Polish atrocities” and in this capacity passed millions to NSDAP cronies and local officials. The charge against K. was prepared, but K. was covered by the Gauleiter of Danzig–West Prussia, Forster. But, stated the note, K. should be removed from his duties (BA R 22/4087). It is not known from the existing documents whether K. was in fact charged.

26.
A Kreisleiter in the Koblenz district, for example, required of a court that his permission be obtained before every dispossession action (Koblenz District Court [
Landgericht
], Akten 313 E 4, quoted in Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 139).

27.
Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 139.

28.
On this subject, see ibid., 126.

29.
See the statement by a
Kreisleiter
before the Koblenz District Court, Akten 313 E 4, quoted in Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 138 f., in a temporary injunction against a Jew: “The Jew must leave the town; a Jew has no rights in Germany.”

30.
Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 139.

31.
See the letter of September 9, 1941, from the NSDAP
Kreisleitung
Hohensalza (Inowrocław) to the
Gauleitung
Wartheland: “re: Situation report for August 1941 … Judiciary—In one case I observed that the Municipal Court [
Amtsgericht
] responded very quickly and actively on behalf of a Pole who had made unjustified demands of a German. By my rapid intervention in this affair, I was able to protect the German comrade, an active participant in the national-racial struggle, from being summoned before the Municipal Court by a Polish woman…. Steps should be taken there to ensure that such a situation cannot recur in the Wartheland. The Kreisleiter” (State Archive Pozna
, NSDAP-
Gauleitung
Wartheland 14, p. 33).

32.
See Kaul,
Geschichte des Reichsgerichts
(1971), 226 (who quotes from DZA Potsdam, Bl. 93-197/7): The Bielefeld District Court sentenced a Pole to one year in a penitentiary on September 23, 1940 (5 KLs 7/40), on account of sexual offenses on two occasions. The
Gauleitung
complained to Party headquarters about the “overly lenient” judgment and demanded a plea of nullity. The competent senior public prosecutor stated on January 9, 1941, that following an order by telephone from the Reich minister of justice on December 6, 1940, the convicted person “was put at the disposal of the state police headquarters in Münster i.W and removed from the penitentiary on December 9, 1940.”

33.
Circular no. 131/42, dated August 27, 1942, from the head of the Party Chancellery, in
Verfügungen, Anordnungen, Bekanntmachungen
, 2:375 ff.

34.
Handwritten draft (undated) by Thierack of a speech before the presiding judges of the courts of appeal and chief public prosecutors at a working meeting in Weimar on February 3–4, 1944 (BA R 22/247).

35.
In
Verfügungen, Anordnungen, Bekanntmachungen
, 2:375 ff.

36.
RGBl. I 535.

37.
Circular no. 131/42, August 27, 1942, from Party Chancellery,
Verfügungen, Anordnungen, Bekanntmachungen
, 2:377.

38.
Collection in BA R 22/4089.

39.
Collection in BA R 22/4002; the material for the
Richterbriefe
came from the individual districts or the various departments of the ministry. In this regard see the internal directive of June 8, 1944, by the Reich minister of justice, in which he requests that material on the
Richterbriefe
and information on major changes in the law and all other such important events “of significance to the administration of justice” should be brought to the attention of the ministry adviser,
Kammergerichtsrat
Schmidt-Leichner (BA R 22/4275). Cf. also the documentation published by Boberach,
Richterbriefe
(1975), which contains the whole collection of
Richterbriefe
.

40.
See
Richterbrief
no. 1 of October 1, 1942 (BA R 22/4002, introduction).

41.
Circular no. 131/42, dated August 27, 1942, from the Party Chancellery (
Verfügungen
, 2:375 ff.).

42.
Letter dated March 6, 1943, from the
Kreisleiter
and head of the
Gau
legislation office of the NSDAP, Dr. Krämer, to the RMJ (BA R 22/vorl. 20301); the writer justified his request by the fact that as the person in charge of the
Gau
, he was responsible for the training of judges. As a handwritten note added to the letter indicates, the letter was not replied to, by order of Thierack.

43.
Richterbrief
no. 1 of October 1, 1942 (BA R 22/4002, introduction).

44.
Circular of August 27, 1942, from the Party Chancellery (
Verfügungen
, 2:377).

45.
RGBl. I 372.

46.
At a meeting of the presiding judges of the courts of appeal and chief public prosecutors in early May 1942 in Berlin (protocol BA R 22/4162), at which the effects of Hitler’s invectives against the judiciary in his Reichstag speech of April 26, 1942, were discussed, State Secretary Freisler spoke of the Party Chancellery’s complaints, stating, however, that the cases deplored were special cases.

Part Two. Section 1. Excursus. 2. The Influence of Hitler, the SS, and the Police Command

1.
Regarding the relations between the police and the judiciary from the viewpoint of the ministry, see the detailed statement by Schlegelberger at the Nuremberg Judiciary Trials (protocol [d], 4315 ff., 4321 f., in BA All Proz. 1, XVII A 58).

2.
Eickhoff, “Die Preußische Geheime Staatspolizei” (1936).

3.
More details in Maunz,
Gestalt und Recht der Polizei
(1943), 48 f., 53; Schäfer, “Die Verhängung von Schutzhaft” (1936); Prussian Supreme Administrative Court, 97, 103; 99, 85; 103, 137. See Prussian Supreme Administrative Court,
RVerwBl.
(1935): 923; OVGE, 97, 103; 99, 85; 103, 137; Reich Supreme Court,
JW
(1934): 767, which (before the Prussian Law of February 10, 1936, GS 21, forbade the courts access to Gestapo archives) had interpreted the concept of “defense against danger to security and order” by the police extremely broadly in an attempt to formally salvage control by the courts. For this they were reproached by Best (
DR
[1938]: 224) on the grounds that such “wildly enlarged interpretation can but falsify the facts,” and he proposed proscribing the authority of the courts in
criminal justice
cases, too. See also Maunz,
Gestalt und Recht der Polizei
; Schäfer, “Die Verhängung von Schutzhaft.”

4.
Führer decree of June 17, 1936 (
RGBl.
I 487).

5.
Prussian statute book, 21. See the references cited in the introduction to this volume, III, 1, “The Führer Principle,” regarding the limitation or exclusion of court control of administrative archives.

6.
Maunz,
Gestalt und Recht der Polizei
, 53.

7.
Picker,
Hitlers Tischgespräche
(1951), 211, 259 f.; see also Hitler in the table talk of August 20, 1942 (quoted in
VjhZ
[1964]: 94 ff.), and the discussion in Gruchmann,
Hitler über die Justiz
(1964), 96 ff.

8.
Maunz,
Gestalt und Recht der Polizei
, 8 ff., 51 ff.

9.
Full details in Spohr,
Das Recht der Schutzhaft
(1937); Schäfer, “Die Verhängung von Schutzhaft”; Tesmer, “Die Schutzhaft und ihre rechtlichen Grundlagen” (1936); Lüdtke, “Die Schutzhaft gemäß der VO vom 28. 3. 1933” (1933); Boehr, “Nochmals: Die Schutzhaft gem. der Verordnung vom 28. 2. 1933” (1933); Geigenmüller,
Die politische Schutzhaft im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland
(1937), 39 ff.; Daluege, “Der nationalsozialistische Kampf gegen das Verbrechertum” (1936); Böhme, “Die Vorbeugungsaufgabe der Polizei” (1936); Best, “Die Polizei” (1937), 338 ff.; H. Frank,
Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung
(1934), introduction, xx. From the postwar literature: M. Broszat,
Anatomie des SS-Staates
(1965), 2:11 ff., 41 ff., 88 ff., 97 ff.; Bracher, Sauer, and Schulz,
Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung
(1962), 541 f.; Echterhölter,
Das öffentliche Recht im NS-Staat
(1970), 166; Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
(1968), 304.

10.
RGBl.
I 35.

11.
RGBl.
I 83. Cf. the basic decrees issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior on April 12, 26, 1934 (quoted in Tesmer, “Die Schutzhaft und ihre rechtlichen Grundlagen”), and January 25, 1938 (general statutes of the RSHA, 2 F VIII a, BA R 19/3), regarding protective custody; and the circular decree of December 14, 1937, by the Reich Ministry of the Interior, regarding preventive detention (quoted in M. Broszat,
VjhZ
[1958]: 390 ff., 395). On the extension of the types of people subject to preventive detention, see the circular decree of October 17, 1939, from the head of the Reich Criminal Police Bureau (quoted in Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 305), and further details in Broszat,
Anatomie des SS-Staates
, 2:78 ff. Before promulgation of the centralized regulations, the
Länder
had applied their own rules on protective custody; see, e.g., Bayer,
GVOBl.
(1933): 85. Further central regulations followed with the advent of the war (decrees of September 3, 1939, from the head of the Security Police and Security Service to all local Gestapo headquarters regarding “Principles of internal State security,” BA, Sammlung Schuhmacher 271; of September 9, 1939, regarding arrest of Polish nationals in the territory of the Reich, ZS, Verschiedenes 82, 134; and of October 24, 1939 [no release of those held in protective custody for the duration of the war], IfZ; circular decree of July 27, 1942, by the RFSSuChddtPol [BA R 22/1144]). The creation of the concentration camps was generally not mentioned in publications; at most they were referred to obliquely or were tacitly taken for granted; although it was recognized that they were not “constitutional installations” (Koellreuter,
Der deutsche Führerstaat
[1934], criticized by Forsthoff, “Besprechung von O. Koellreutler” [1934]), the conclusion that they were unlawful was never expressly stated; see Best, “Die Polizei,” 338 ff., according to whom the authority to order protective custody was vested “exclusively in the nature of the office” of the Gestapo with the aim of inculcating an “attitude of inner commitment to the community” (394); see also Frank,
Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung
, who regards the Reich president’s decree of February 28, 1933 (
RGBl.
I 83), as legal basis for protective custody.