"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (247 page)

7.
Cologne Municipal Court, December 21, 1936, and Halberstadt Municipal Court, June 16, 1937,
DJ
(1937): 1192 f.

8.
Wanne-Eickel Municipal Court, May 5, 1936,
DJ
(1936): 936 f.

9.
Mainz Municipal Court, May 27, 1936,
DJ
(1936): 1017 f.

10.
Jena Municipal Court, September 14, 1937,
DJ
(1937): 3306.

11.
Nürnberg-Fürth District Court, March 21, 1938 (Az. 4013/38),
DJ
(1938): 905 ff.

12.
Worms Municipal Court, November 16, 1939,
DR
(1940) (A): 295.

13.
Reich Labor Court, September 22, 1937,
DJ
(1937): 1989 ff.

14.
Reich Supreme Court, February 16, 1934,
JW
(1934): 1963 f.; guiding principle: for the important grounds to be accepted, the evolution of the government’s standpoint as regards the treatment of non-Aryan firms with respect to the granting of contracts, the fact that the non-Aryan party was not active in the war, and, finally, that the party giving notice is also a non-Aryan, is of legal significance.

15.
German Court of Appeal, Prague, September 2, 1941,
DR
(1942) (A): 394 f.

16.
Breslau (Wrocław) District Court, October 20, 1933,
DJ
(1933): 662 f.; the statutes of the association prevented it from appointing another director; the Breslau Municipal Court had refused the commissar nominated on the grounds of “not being a member”; the court of appeal allowed the claim.

17.
Annotation to the judgment of October 20, 1933, by the Breslau District Court, ibid. (anon.) (see part 2, section 1, B, I. “Main Elements of the Transformation of Civil Law on an Ethnic Basis,” note 15 above).

18.
Reich Supreme Court, April 16, 1942, HRR 1942, 529.

19.
Bad-Sübre Municipal Court, July 8, 1935,
JW
(1935): 2309 (under sec. 11of the Civil Status Law, old version, the registrar was
obliged
to receive the application if there was no obstacle to the intended marriage).

20.
Sec. 45 of the Civil Status Law of November 3, 1937 (
RGBl.
I 1146), in conjunction with the first implementing regulation of May 19, 1938 (
RGBl.
I 533); an immediate appeal by the supervisory authority (lower administrative authority, higher administrative authority, Reich Ministry of the Interior) against such an instruction by the Municipal Court was permitted under sec. 49.

21.
Königsberg District Court, East Prussia, August 26, 1935 (Az. 3 T 687/35),
DJ
(1935): 1387 f.

22.
Decision of November 2, 1936,
JW
(1937): 98 f.

23.
Reich Supreme Court, November 2, 1936, RGZ 152, 301,

24.
RGBl.
I 1146.

25.
Regarding the term
Jew
, see sec. 1, par. 3, of the Implementing Regulation of November 14, 1935, to the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (
RGBl.
I 1334) and sec. 5 of the First Decree of November 14, 1935, to the Reich Citizenship Law (
RGBl.
I 1333); further details in Palandt,
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch
(1942), appendixes 1 and 2 on Marriage Law 4, note 1 on sec. 3 of the implementing regulation, 2009 f., and note 1 on sec. 4 of the implementing regulation. See sec. 6 of the implementing regulation; this referred to undesirable “blood mixtures,” such as marriage with “Gypsies, Negroes, and their
Mischlinge
”; previously contracted marriages remained valid, however; petitions to annul marriages were possible under secs. 37 and 38 of the Marriage Law (ibid., note 1 on sec. 6 of the implementing regulation, 2012).

26.
Reich Supreme Court, February 18, 1937,
DJ
(1937): 589 f.

27.
RGBl.
I 807.

28.
See Mössmer, “Neugestaltung des deutschen Ehescheidungsrechts” (1936).

29.
See full details in Fauck, “Behandlung von deutsch-jüdischen Mischehen.”

30.
In the departments of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and other agencies responsible for race matters, there certainly was a later intention to dissolve all “
mixed marriages
” by new legislation, a plan whose execution was probably prevented only by the advent of the war (minutes of a discussion on March 6, 1942, at the RSHA, Nuremberg Doc. ND-2586; excerpts in Poliakov and Wulf,
Das Dritte Reich und die Juden
[1961], 383 f.).

31.
Cf. Mössmer, “Rassenmischehe und geltendes Recht” (1934), which reports numerous court decisions; Maßfeller, “Grundsätze der Erb- und Rassenpflege” (1935); Olczewski, “Rassengebundene Rechtsprechung” (1941).

32.
Sec. 37 of the Marriage Law stated: “(1) One of the marriage partners can apply for annulment of the marriage if he had been mistaken about such
circumstances
relating to the person of the other partner … [sec. 1333, German Civil Code: ‘such
characteristics
relating to the person of the other partner’ (my emphasis)] that, given a knowledge of the facts and in the event of correct (sec. 1333, German Civil Code: ‘reasonable’) appreciation of the nature of the marriage, would have prevented him from contracting the marriage. (2) Annulment is excluded if, after discovery of the mistake, the partner has given to understand that he wishes to maintain the marriage, or if his request to annul the marriage is not morally justified in the light of the previous nature of the married life of the partners.”

33.
DJ
(1938): 1107. Palandt,
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch
(see note 25 above), notes 4 and 5 on sec. 37 of the Marriage Law, with reference to RGZ 1958, 275; in contrast to the interpretation of sec. 1333 of the German Civil Code, relating to the individuals affected, the emphasis was now placed more “on generally valid moral and
völkisch
standpoints rather than on rational considerations relating to the interests of the individual case.” The “circumstances relating to the person of the other partner” included race.

34.
Wiesbaden District Court, March 27, 1935,
JW
(1935): 3127.

35.
Reich Supreme Court, decision of November 2, 1933,
DJ
(1933): 818 f.; Reich Supreme Court, July 12, 1934, RGZ 145, 1 (or
JW
[1934]: 2613 f.).

36.
Reich Supreme Court, April 29, 1937,
JW
(1937): 901; see also Reich Supreme Court, April 20, 1936,
JW
(1936): 1958, Ziff. 17, Karlsruhe Court of Appeal, March 2, 1934,
JW
(1934): 1371; Cologne District Court, quoted in Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin,
DJ
(1933): 818 f.; Celle Court of Appeal,
DJ
(1935): 573.

37.
See, for example, the judgment of the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal,
JW
(1934): 1371; Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, December 2, 1933,
DJ
(1934): 134; see also Wöhrmann, “Die Auflösung der Ehe zwischen Juden und Ariern” (1933); Palandt,
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch
(1942), notes 5 and 8 on sec. 37 of the Marriage Law, catchword “Rasse,” with further references.

38.
Palandt,
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch,
note 8 on sec. 37 of the Marriage Law; Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, December 2, 1933,
DJ
(1934): 134.

39.
Reich Supreme Court, April 17, 1939, RGZ 160, 146.

40.
Reich Supreme Court, March 23, 1939, RGZ 160, 41.

41.
Reich Supreme Court, July 12, 1934, RGZ 145, 1 (“Therefore, so long as the provision under sec. 1333 BGB is not amended—retroactively—there can be no objection to mixed marriages”).

42.
RGBl.
I 175.

43.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, July 12, 1934, 134; for this reason nullification was no longer possible after April 7, 1934.

44.
Nuremberg Court of Appeal,
DR
(1940): 33.

45.
Sec. 1337, par. 2, German Civil Code. A forfeiture was not taken for granted and an application for divorce was permitted if married life had taken place in a period “when a petition for divorce … still had no likelihood of success” (i.e., the Weimar period) (Celle Court of Appeal, November 5, 1934,
DJ
[1935]: 573 f.), whereas continuation of a “mixed marriage” after January 30, 1933 with knowledge of the racial characteristic served as a reason for forfeiture (RGZ 145, 8 f.; Maßfeller, note on Prussian Supreme Court, February 8, 1934,
DJ
[1934]: 395 f.).

46.
Breslau Court of Appeal, September 8, 1942,
DR
(1943) (A): 84.

47.
Decision of June 5, 1935, quoted in Fraenkel,
Der Doppelstaat,
82.

48.
Decision of May 4, 1937,
DR
(1937): 466; see also Breslau Special Court,
DRiZ
(1935): no. 554, which sentenced a Catholic priest who warned a mother not to send her child to the year in the country, since the children lost their faith there, to six months’ imprisonment for malicious attacks against the government.

49.
Decision of April 15, 1935,
Das Recht
(1935): no. 8016.

50.
Decision of February 26, 1938,
JW
(1938): 1264.

51.
Decision of April 15, 1935,
Das Recht
(1935): no. 8016.

52.
Berlin District Court, May 14, 1934,
JW
(1934): 1516 f.

53.
Dresden Court of Appeal, January 29, 1936,
DJ
(1936): 692.

54.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, decision of May 22, 1936,
JW
(1936): 2562.

55.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, decision of August 7, 1936,
JW
(1936): 3065 f.; Prussian Supreme Court, decision of April 17, 1936,
JW
(1936): 1998.

56.
Dresden District Court, decision of December 19, 1935,
JW
(1936): 286 f.

57.
Torgau District Court, November 27, 1935,
DJ
(1936): 1092.

58.
Berlin Municipal Court, August 12, 1936,
Zentralblatt für Jugendrecht und Jugendwohlfahrt
(1936): 283, quoted in Fraenkel,
Der Doppelstaat,
177.

59.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, August 7, 1936,
JW
(1936): 3065 f.

60.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, January 31, 1936,
DJ
(1936): 522.

61.
Decision of July 16, 1935,
JW
(1935): 2762 f.

62.
Breslau Court of Appeal, September 27, 1940, HRR 1941, 320.

63.
Reich Supreme Court, November 23, 1936, RGZ 152, 390.

64.
Reich Supreme Court—Fourth Civil Senate—judgment of July 13, 1940,
DR
(1940) (A): 1960 ff.

65.
Administrative instructions issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice, May 24, 1941,
DJ
(1941): 629; and July 15, 1942,
DJ
(1942): 489.

66.
Berlin District Court, May 20, 1936,
JW
(1936): 2010.

67.
Zwickau District Court, February 25, 1938,
DJ
(1938): 909 f.

68.
Reich Supreme Court—Fourth Senate—February 11, 1935, 824 (also RGZ 147, 65).

69.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, November 23, 1934,
DJ
(1935): 786 f. In the case in point, an assistant judge was designated as guardian of the children of a pharmacist living with their mother. The father’s application for dismissal of the guardian was successful, since the latter was non-Aryan.

70.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, August 29, 1941, HRR 1942, no. 99 (also
DR
[1942] [A]: 2564 f.).

71.
Hamburg District Court, decision of November 9, 1936,
JW
(1937): 338.

72.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin (see note 70).

73.
Reich Supreme Court,
JW
(1936): 100; the Reich Ministry of the Interior decree of August 6, 1937, instructed the competent authorities to refuse to confirm adoption contracts if one of the parties was of non-Aryan descent (
MinbliV
[1937]: 1345). Dresden District Court, December 19, 1935,
JW
(1936): 286 f.

74.
Cf. Himmler’s memorandum, “Some Thoughts on the Treatment of Aliens in Eastern Europe,” of May 15, 1940 (reproduced in
VjhZ
[1957]: 194 ff.): plans included an annual racial investigation of Polish children in the General Government aged between 6 and 10 years, importation of children “selected as valuable” into the Reich, and attendance at German primary school, with the decision after four years whether the child should continue at primary school or be transferred to a national political education establishment. The memorandum apparently takes up ideas that had been presented in the memorandum of November 25, 1939, by the NSDAP Race Policy Office on the question of the treatment of the populations of the former Polish territories (Nuremberg doc. NO-3734).

75.
Himmler’s speech of October 14, 1943 (Nuremberg doc. PS-1919).

76.
There is proof of Germanization actions in the occupied territories of Croatia, Slovenia, Russia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, and Norway (Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule
[1952], 50; similarly, the affidavits of August 9, 1947, by M. M. Heinze-Wisswede in Nuremberg, Nuremberg doc. NO-4822; G. Küster, undated, Nuremberg doc. NO-4820; and K. Schafhauser, undated, Nuremberg docs. NO-5003 and 5004 [reproduced as appendixes 23-25 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
394 ff.]); regarding the Germanization of children of Czechs executed following a drumhead court-martial, see the secret communication of June 13, 1944, from the German state minister for Bohemia and Moravia (personal) to the RFSS/Personal Staff (Nuremberg doc. PS-435).