"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (246 page)

43.
ZS, Versch. 26, 86, 127 f., 131; also quoted in the situation report dated November 29, 1943, by the presiding judge of the Königsberg Court of Appeal (BA R 22/3375).

44.
See the situation report by the presiding judge of the Königsberg Court of Appeal (BA R 22/3375).

45.
Situation report dated January 29, 1941, by the chief public prosecutor, Hamm (Nuremberg doc. NG-685), referring to the punishment by the Gestapo of Polish workers who had broken their work contract; information on Polish workers was no longer passed on to the public prosecutor’s office, but went straight to the Gestapo.

46.
Reich Ministry of Justice memorandum of December 13, 1942, by Thierack on a discussion with Himmler (BA R 22/4062): Thierack reported achieving agreement with the
Reichsführer
-SS such that these decrees (issued by the head of the Security Police and RSHA) would serve as the basis for the prosecution of “aliens”; Germans, however, should continue to be dealt with by the judicial system; the
Reichsführer
-SS is said to have made no comment on this.

47.
The situation report of May 23, 1941, by the senior public prosecutor of Mosbach (see note 31) urgently requested communication of the “unpublished” authority of the police.

48.
Quoted from information by Thierack, Reich Ministry of Justice (Bl. 28 ff.), at the meeting of the presiding judges of the courts of appeal and chief public prosecutors in Berlin, February 10–11, 1943 (minutes of meeting, BA R 22/4200).

49.
Reich Ministry of Justice memorandum of December 13, 1942, on a discussion with the
Reichsführer
-SS (BA R 22/4062).

50.
Minutes of meeting (BA R 22/4200).

51.
Ibid., Ziff. 3, Bl. 24 ff.

52.
See Heiber, “Der Fall Eliáš,”
VjhZ
(1955): 257 ff.

53.
Reported by Schäfer in minutes of meeting (BA R 22/4200).

54.
Statements by Thierack and
Ministerialdirektor
E. Schäfer (minutes of meeting, ibid., Ziff. 3, Bl. 24 f.).

55.
Statements by Thierack, minutes of meeting (ibid.).

56.
See Reich Ministry of Justice memorandum on the discussion of September 18, 1942 (BA R 22/4062).

57.
On this question see Broszat, “Zur Perversion der Strafjustiz” (1958), 390 ff.

58.
Letter of October 13, 1942; for this reason the RFSS would take over criminal prosecution “untrammeled by legal constraints” (Nuremberg doc. NG-558; also ZS, Eichmann, no. 454).

59.
Minutes of the meeting of February 10 – 11, 1943, in Berlin (BA R 22/4200, Bl. 30).

60.
Ibid.

61.
“And if some get excited about the hanging of Poles, I personally see nothing special about the fact that the chief of police finds it necessary to hang people as a deterrent” (ibid., Bl. 31).

62.
“If a Pole who is employed by a farmer exhibits refractory behavior and breaks the pitchfork or axe, he must be destroyed” (ibid., Bl. 32).

63.
Ibid., Bl. 23 ff.

64.
Ibid.

65.
Ibid., Bl. 26 ff, 33 ff.

66.
No. XIII, Decree on Penal Law for Poles of December 4, 1941.

67.
Circular decree of June 15, 1942, by the RFSSuChddtPol (
MinbliV
[1942]: 1309).

68.
Minutes of meeting (BA R 22/4200, Bl. 27).

69.
Ibid.

70.
Ibid., Bl. 26 f. (Schäfer).

71.
See situation report of May 23, 1941, by the senior public prosecutor of Mosbach (see note 31).

72.
Minutes of meeting (BA R 22/4200) (Schäfer).

73.
RGBl.
I 352.

Part Two. Section 1. B. I. Main Elements of the Transformation of Civil Law on an Ethnic Basis

1.
Schönke, “Einige Grundlinien der Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts seit 1933” (1943).

2.
The academy’s activity has been sorely underrated in the past (Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
[1968], 110; Johe,
Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz
[1967], 23 ff.). Almost all jurists of repute worked on their committees; they included important names—see, e.g., the list of participants at a meeting of the “Theory and Practice” group held in Cochem on August 1, 1944 (BA R 22/4514), at which virtually all the leading legal authorities of the time participated. The work of the committees, of which there were forty-five active in every province of the law (see the enumeration in K. Lasch, in
Handwörterbuch der Rechtswissenschaft,
ed. Erich Volkmar, Alexander Elster, and Günther Küchenhoff [1937], vol. 8), had a decisive influence on the interpretation of the law by students, junior attorneys, and judges, since their publications were obligatorily to be found on the shelves of the universities and courts. Much of the content of the speeches of the Reich Ministry of Justice representatives was taken directly from articles in these publications.

The function of the academy, in the words of the
Reichsrechtsführer,
H. Frank, was to deal with all the “fundamental problems” of the law “from the higher perspective of a general view and scientific method”; the academy served as “a refuge … for the creation of a truly German law.” For details of the structure, functions, and staff of the academy, see Frank,
Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung
(1934), introduction, xxii, 1572 ff.; Johe,
Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz,
23 ff.;
DR
(1933): 205 f.;
DJ
(1942): 724; see also Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz,
110.

3.
Full details in Kluge and Krüger,
Verfassung und Verwaltung
(1941), “Reform des BGB,” 425 ff.; Lange, “Wesen und Gestalt des Volksgesetzbuches” (1943), 208 ff., 223 ff., also 234 ff., 252 ff.

4.
More details in Lange, “Wesen und Gestalt des Volksgesetzbuches,” 208 ff.; Lange, “Die Arbeiten der Akademie für Deutsches Recht an der Erneuerung des bürgerlichen Rechts” (1939); Lange, “Einzelgesetze oder Gesetzeseinheit” (1939); on the reform status, H. Frank,
ZAKfDtRecht
(1939): 262; Hedemann, “Wert der Entwürfe” (1943); see also the academy’s official material: Hedemann, Lehmann, Siebert, “Volksgesetzbuch, Grundregeln und Buch I,”
Arbeitsberichte der Akademie für deutsches Recht
(1942), no. 22; Hedemann,
Das Volksgesetzbuch der Deutschen,
special issue of
Arbeitsberichte der Akademie für deutsches Recht
(1941). The work was begun in 1936; the Reich Ministry of Justice was also working on a reform of the German Civil Code, but it published only small amendments (see also note 8 below).

5.
Schlegelberger,
Abschied vom BGB
(1937).

6.
See Reich Labor Court,
JW
(1936): 2945; Reich Disciplinary Court,
DVerw
. (1939): 281; Reich Supreme Court,
DJ
(1936): 1941 ff. (1943); RGZ 153, 71; Breslau
Landgericht
(District Court),
DJ
(1935): 413, annotated; Pätzold,
DJ
(1935): (414); Fraenkel,
Der Doppelstaat
(1974), 102 f., 107 ff., with further references; see also H. Frank,
Rechtsgrundlegung des nationalsozialistischen Führerstaats
(Munich, 1938), 21.

7.
For example, the decree dated September 19, 1939 (
RGBl.
I 1956); Simplification Decrees of September 1, 1939 (
RGBl.
I 1658), September 18, 1940 (
RGBl.
I 1253), May 16, 1942 (
RGBl.
I 333), and January 12, 1943 (
RGBl.
I 7); also the War Measures Decrees of May 12, 1943 (
RGBl.
I 290), and September 27, 1944 (
RGBl.
I 229).

8.
Marriage Law of July 6, 1938 (
RGBl.
I 807). Testament Law of July 31, 1938 (
RGBl.
I 973); see especially the preamble. The Law of Entail of September 29, 1933 (
RGBl.
I 685), with the Decree of Entail of December 21, 1936 (
RGBl.
I 1069). Law on the Regulation of National Labor of January 20, 1934 (
RGBl.
I 7); Law on the Regulation of the Forced Labor Service of May 15, 1934 (
RGBl.
I 381); Decree on the German Labor Front of October 24, 1934 (
Dokumente der deutschen Politik,
5:187). Decree of June 25, 1938, on Wage Structure issued by the administrator of the Four Year Plan (Wage Freeze Decree,
RGBl.
I 691); Decree of October 3, 1941, on the Employment of Jews (
RGBl.
I 675), with executive decree of October 31, 1941 (
RGBl.
I 681); Führer Decree of March 21, 1942, on the Appointment of a Plenipotentiary for the Forced Labor Service (
RGBl.
I 179); directives issued by the plenipotentiary for the Forced Labor Service dated July 1, 1940; July 20, August 22, November 27, 1942 (quoted in Melies,
Das Arbeitsrecht des GG
[1943], 13 ff.). More details on labor legislation reform in Siebert,
Die Deutsche Arbeitsverfassung
(1942); Siebert, “Die Entwicklung der staatlichen Arbeitsverwaltung,” in
Reich-Volksordnung-Lebensraum
(1942). Regarding the changes, see also Altstötter, “Die nationalsozialistische Rechtserneuerung” (1943); Volkmar, “Die Arbeiten der Abteilung IV” (1939); Regarding the changes in procedural law, see the ZPO amendment of October 27, 1933 (
RGBl.
I 780), and in more detail Volkmar, “Die Neugestaltung des Zivilrechts,” in Frank,
Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung
(1934); A. Schönke, “Einige Grundlinien der Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts seit 1933”; Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz,
308. Enumerations of all changes up to 1939 in Sauer,
Das Reichsjustizministerium
(1939), 23.

9.
More details in Rüthers,
Die unbegrenzte Auslegung
(1973); Grunsky, “Gesetzesauslegung durch die Zivilgerichte im Dritten Reich” (1969).

10.
Tax Adjustment Law, sec. 1, October 16, 1934 (
RGBl.
I 925).

11.
See Böhmer, “Die ‘Guten Sitten’ im Zeichen nationalsozialistischer Familienpflicht” (1941); and the Reich Supreme Court decisions of September 17, 19, 1940, cited there (84 f.).

12.
Published by the League of National Socialist German Jurists Press and Periodicals Office, Berlin, 1933, Principle 4.

13.
See Rüthers,
Die unbegrenzte Auslegung,
210 ff., 145 ff.; Maus,
Bürgerliche Rechtstheorie und Faschismus
(1976), 146.

14.
H. Lange,
Liberalismus, Nationalsozialismus und bürgerliches Recht
(Tübingen, 1933), 5.

15.
Annotation to the judgment by the Breslau District Court, October 20, 1933,
DJ
(1933): 662.

16.
See note 4 above.

17.
More details in particular in Lange, “Wesen und Gestalt des Volksgesetzbuches” (1943), 232.

18.
More details in B. Rüthers,
Die unbegrenzte Auslegung,
secs. 12 – 17.

19.
K. Michaelis, “Ständische Ehrengerichtsbarkeit,”
DR
(1935): 572. This had nothing to do with the Independent States Law of earlier times; see Maus,
Bürgerliche Rechtstheorie und Faschismus
, 140 f., for more details.

20.
Wieacker, “Der Stand der Rechtserneuerung” (1937). In this connection see also Maus,
Bürgerliche Rechtstheorie und Faschismus
, 136 ff., 140 f.; Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 223 ff; Schorn,
Die Gesetzgebung des Nationalsozialismus als Mittel der Machtpolitik
(1963), 19.

Part Two. Section 1. B. II. The Principle of
Völkisch
Inequality in the Domain of Substantive Law

1.
Naumburg Court of Appeal, April 20, 1937,
ZAKfDRecht
(1937): 539; see also the Reich Supreme Court decision of November 23, 1937, on the question of contestation of paternity, which under the terms of the German Civil Code could only be brought within one year of the child’s birth and ran counter to the family concept of the National Socialists (RGZ 152, 390 ff., 395).

2.
See Adami, “Das Kündigungsrecht wegen eines jüdischen Mieters” (1938); and the declaration by the Reich Ministry of Justice in
DJ
(1939): 175.

3.
JW
(1938): 3242.

4.
Reich Supreme Court, November 2, 1936,
JW
(1937): 99 f.; in a discussion in
ZAKfDRecht
(1937): 119, the expert at the Reich Ministry of Justice, Maßfeller, contended that there was no more to be said, since “no other decision was possible.” A similar instance is the decision of August 12, 1936, by the Berlin
Amtsgericht
(Municipal Court), quoted by Fraenkel,
Der Doppelstaat
(1974), 117.

5.
Land
Labor Court, Düsseldorf, judgment of July 7, 1939,
Deutsches Gemein
-
und Wirtschaftsrecht
(1939), 194, quoted by Rüthers,
Die unbegrenzte Auslegung
, 188.

6.
“Given that point 6 of the screenplay contract … refers to the fact that [a right of withdrawal is agreed if] C. is prevented from undertaking his function as director on account of illness, death, or similar causes, a change in the legal standing of the person based on legally recognized politico-racial considerations should unhesitatingly be given equal weight, provided that it prevents performance of the director’s function in a manner similar to that in which
death
or
illness
would have done” (my emphasis). (Under the contract between the plaintiff, a Swiss film company, and the defendant, the German film company UFA, a screenplay by C., a Jewish film director, was to be made available to UFA, for a film that C. was also to direct.)