"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (273 page)

84.
Thus, by the penal order of March 27, 1941 (ZS, Poland 342, 889 ff.), the Warsaw Special Court condemned a Jew to one year’s penitentiary for leaving the workplace without permission, notwithstanding that under sec. 8 of the Decree of November 15, 1939, on Special Courts in the General Government (
VBl.GG
1939, 34), the maximum sentence that could be imposed by way of a written penal order was one year’s imprisonment. By way of the penal order of April 15, 1941 (ZS, Poland 342, 889 ff.), the Warsaw Special Court sentenced a Jew to three months’ imprisonment for not wearing the yellow star. The fee for issue of a written penal order was set at 1, 250 RM(!), a sum that, unless a printing error was at fault, can only be regarded as a draconian fine.

85.
Some 80% of the records of the Warsaw Special Court (approx. 10 meters of floor space) have been preserved, as have records of the Kraków Special Court for 1944 (some fifty volumes) and a hundred general files (administration, accounts) (all at the Archives of the Main Commission Warsaw, no registration code). Apart from a few remnants (kept in the Görlitz archives), the records of the special courts of Radom, Lemberg, and Lublin are no longer extant (although indications as to their judgment practice can be gleaned from press notices in the
Krakauer Zeitung;
see the following note). (Information obtained by the author from the responsible official at the Archives of the Main Commission Warsaw, September 29, 1971.)

86.
At a meeting of department heads on May 10, 1940, the governor general expressed his astonishment that according to reports in the press, two Jews were fined only 1,500 złoty for profiteering. In his opinion, the verdict in the case of such minor offenses should not be published: publication was meaningful only when the persons concerned were condemned to death (“Diensttagebuch,” 1940, I, quoted from a copy in the IfZ).

87.
Cf. the statements by Frank at the occasion of the reception of the presiding judge of the German Superior Courts on September 15, 1943, in which he stressed the independence of judges. He, the governor general, and the offices of the General Government could well demand “that we refrain from any interference in the administration of justice by our independent judges.” He would defend any attempt to interfere in the process of justice against anybody. No Party office should interfere. The “Germanic ideal of justice” of the independent judge should remain intact (“Diensttagebuch,” 1943, V, September 15, 1943, BA R 52 II/207). Cf. the discussion between Governor General Frank and the head of the Justice Department, Wille, on April 18, 1940. The question raised by Wille, whether the National Socialist Association of Law Officers (NSRB) should have a say in the General Government regarding the appointment of lawyers, judges, and public prosecutors, was refused by Frank, since no Party organs whatsoever were allowed to be active in the General Government (“Diensttagebuch,” April 18, 1940, vol. 2/1, p. 314, BA R 52 II/217). The relations between Party and Administration in the GG therefore were tense from the beginning (see “Diensttagebuch” 1944 III, 602, BA R 52 II [217]).

88.
Speech on the occasion of the introduction of German jurisdiction in the General Government: “Let no one hold any hope that we will be weak, let no one hope that we will allow resistance under the guise of bureaucratic paragraphs…. So jurisdiction in the General Government will be hard, but it will be human” (“Diensttagebuch,” 1940, II, April 9, 1940,; excerpts in
Doc. Occ
. 6:108 n. 15).

89.
The author studied a total of eighty judgments from 1940 to 1944 in the archives of the Warsaw Special Court referred to in note 85 above, a random selection of some 10% of the material, and established statistics on circumstances, charges, and penalties. The decisions of the Kraków Special Court for the year 1944 in the Main Commission archives were also studied. Details of a number of decisions by the special courts of Radom, Kielce, Czenstochau (Cz
stochowa), Zamo
, and Reichshof were gleaned from notices in the official German-language newspaper,
Krakauer Zeitung
(IfZ, also University Library, Warsaw, Sign. 05764); see also note 85 above.

90.
The figures were as follows: no death sentences in 1939, 26 in 1940, 16 in 1941, 30 in 1942, 1 in 1943, and none in 1944.

91.
Notification by the director of the Brehm District Court at a meeting with representatives of the governor general’s office on March 1, 1940: he had only two public prosecutors at his disposal for German jurisdiction but needed at least twenty (“Diensttagebuch,” 1940, I, IfZ).

92.
Krakauer Zeitung
, April 25, 1940.

93.
Report dated June 15, 1942, by the governor of the Warsaw district (Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
, doc. 1–10).

94.
Information in the report of June 15, 1942, by the governor of the Warsaw district for May 1942 (Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
, doc. 1–10). The 187 death sentences against Jews are probably included in the figure of 192 death sentences.

95.
Data from author’s statistics and notices in the
Krakauer Zeitung
(see note 89 above).

96.
Ibid. Worthy of note is the decision of July 25, 1942, by the Warsaw Special Court, sentencing a Pole who had harbored a Russian prisoner of war to the minimum of one month’s imprisonment(!), in spite of the fact that sec. 3 of the Decree on Prisoners of War in the General Government of October 23, 1941 (
VBl.GG
1941, 601), provided for confinement in a prison or penitentiary.

97.
Data from author’s statistics (note 89 above).

98.
Bericht über den Aufbau im Generalgouvernement,
vol. I, 49 f. (BA R 52 II/247).

99.
As stated by the head of the Justice Department at the governor general’s office at a meeting on January 26, 1940 (“Diensttagebuch,” 1940, I, IfZ).

100.
Tautphaeus, “Der Richter im Reichsgau Wartheland” (1941), 2466 ff. (2477).

101.
Gollert,
Warschau unter deutscher Herrschaft
(1942), 122 ff.

102.
VBl.GG
1940 I, 64; also sec. 3 of the Decree of February 19, 1940, on Transfer of Judicial Matters in German and Polish Jurisdiction (
VBl.GG
1940 I, 57).

Part Two. Section 3. Excursus: The Criminal Jurisdiction of the Police

1.
VBl.GG
1939, 10.

2.
See, for example, the proclamation of November 13, 1939, by the
Land
commissar for the Chełm district on the execution of eight Poles by the “Lublin Court-Martial” for “murder of an ethnic German” (Main Commission Warsaw, poster collection XIII, 97 t/2).

3.
In the spring of 1943, these differences reached their peak with complete rupture of relations. More details in Broszat,
Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik
(1961), 77 ff.

4.
VBl.GG
1939, 5.

5.
“Diensttagebuch,” III/2, September 23, 1941, Bl. 880 (BA R 52 II/185).

6.
Draft and explanation of this text, dated February 1, 1942, in ZS, Poland 342, Bl. 911 ff.; it was proposed that the court-martial could also be composed of the
Kreishauptmann
as president and two members of the administration of his district, since the
Kreishauptmann
was the “representative of the German government and the primary representative of the interest of the state in his district.”

7.
Statement by Governor Zörner, who had incorporated the negative standpoint of the head of the Justice Department of his district,
Kammergerichtsrat
Dr. Zippel, into the draft (position statement of March 1, 1940, in ibid., Bl. 909 f.).

8.
Note of March 1940 (no precise date) from the Justice Department at the office of the governor general and letter of March 1940 (presumably March 28) from the Justice Department to the legislation department (ibid., Bl. 913).

9.
Letter of November 8, 1941, from the legislation department to the Central Department of Justice (ibid., Bl. 936).

10.
Sec. 5, par. 2, of the decree of November 26, 1941 (
VBl.GG
1941, 662).

11.
VBl.GG
1939, 10.

12.
The courts-martial applied the later Polish penal code in matters of substantive law in this sense. In this connection, see full details in the situation report of July 25, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor, Posen, and the letter of August 4, 1943, from the Reich minister of justice to the
Reichsführer
-SS/SS court (BA R 22/850, Bl. 347 ff.).

13.
Cf. the proclamation of the execution by court-martial of two Poles who had looted the homes of Jews who had emigrated, dated August 30, 1942, published by the
Kreishauptmann
of Neumarkt (Nowy Targ) in the Kraków district. The competence of the court-martial was based on the premise that all houses and equipment of Jewish quarters were regarded or defined as “serving German interests,” so that all offenses involving these objects were punishable under the decree on violent criminality (Main Commission Warsaw, poster collection V, 34 t/2).