"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (256 page)

6.
Decree of June 6, 1940,
RGBl.
I 844.

7.
In the Reich each court of appeal district originally had one special court (sec. 1 of the decree of March 21, 1933,
RGBl.
I 137), and their number increased only gradually (sec. 10, par. 1, of the Jurisdiction Decree of February 21, 1940,
RGBl.
I 405) (list of all special courts of the Reich in Reich Ministry of Justice administrative instructions of March 11, 1940,
DJ
[1941]: 323), but in the Annexed Eastern Territories several special courts were instituted in each court of appeal district from the start: the court of appeal districts of Danzig and Posen each had five (
Doc. Occ.
5:329 ff.; see also the letter of April 23, 1940, from the presiding judge of the Posen Court of Appeal to the Reich governor of Posen, State Archive Pozna
,
Reichsstatthalter
Posen 896, Bl. 59). In the incorporated territories of Silesia, there was one special court each in Kattowitz and Bielitz (Bielsko-Biała), and in the administrative district of Zichenau, which belonged to the court of appeal district of Königsberg, there was one special court at the Zichenau District Court.

8.
The members of the special courts and the representatives of the prosecuting authorities there were initially appointed directly by the Reich Ministry of Justice (sec. 4 of the decree of September 5, 1939, by the commander in chief of the army,
VOBl. Polen,
p. 2; reproduced in
Doc. Occ.
5:40 ff., 43), later, as in the Altreich, by the competent presiding judges of the courts of appeal or the chief public prosecutors (sec. 2 of the decree of June 13, 1940,
RGBl.
I 907, in conjunction with secs. 11, par. 2, and 17 of the Jurisdiction Decree of February 21, 1940,
RGBl.
I 405; and the Law on Allocation of Business of the Courts of November 24, 1937,
RGBl.
I 1286). Care was taken that only officials with special-court duties were appointed, who exercised the penal procedures against aliens with expedience and severity. In this connection, see the evaluation by the Reich governor of the head of the prosecuting authority at the Posen Special Court, whom he describes as having “deserved particular merit, especially in his energetic action during the events of September 1939” (proposals list for the award of the Wartime Cross of Merit, second class without swords, of October 2, 1941, State Archive Pozna
Reichsstatthalter
936, Bl. 14–15).

9.
Letter to the RMuChdRkzlei of April 17, 1941 (Nuremberg doc. NG-144).

10.
See the decree of February 21, 1940 (
RGBl.
I 405), which put all so-called political offenses, among other things, under the remit of the special courts, with the exception of high treason and major criminality (secs. 5, 13, 14).

11.
VOBl. Polen,
2, quoted in
Doc. Occ.
5:42.

12.
This was the basis of the decree of March 21, 1933 (
RGBl.
I 136), which made the special courts competent to prosecute all punishable activity of any importance having political implications (Reich President’s Decree on the Protection of the People and State of February 28, 1933,
RGBl.
I 83; and on Defense against Malicious Attacks against the Government of the National Revolution of March 21, 1933,
RGBl.
I 135).

13.
An exception was that acts against the German armed forces were prosecuted by military courts (sec. 1 of the decree of September 5, 1939,
VOBl. Polen,
p. 2; reproduced in
Doc. Occ.
5:40 ff., 43).

14.
See the instruction of October 5, 1939, by the Posen military commander (State Archive Pozna
,
Landgericht
Posen 11, Bl. 4).

15.
The Reich Ministry of Justice showed no compunction in exercising the analogy principle in procedural law, too, and wanted to apply the Reich Jurisdiction Decree of February 21, 1940 (
RGBl.
I 405), either directly or analogously (Reich Ministry of Justice decree of April 10, 1940, to the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal and chief public prosecutor of Königsberg, Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
, doc. I-151; also included in the minutes of May 27, 1940, by the presiding judge of the Königsberg Court of Appeal, BA R 22/848); the Reich Ministry of the Interior took the position that the decree of February 21, 1940, “is not or not yet valid” in the Annexed Eastern Territories (letter of May 21, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Wartheland Reich governor, Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
, doc. I-150).

16.
RGBl.
I 844.

17.
RGBl.
I 405.

18.
Letter of August 6, 1940, from the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal and chief public prosecutor of Posen to the presiding judges of the district courts, the senior public prosecutors, the supervisory judges of the municipal courts, and the heads of the district public prosecutor offices (State Archive Pozna
,
Landgericht
Posen 17, Bl. 53).

19.
Secs. 13 and 14, par. 2; sec. 14, par. 1.

20.
RGBl.
I 759.

21.
RGBl.
I 136.

22.
Sec. 3 of the decree of September 5, 1939 (
VOBl. Polen,
2, quoted in
Doc. Occ.
5:42).

23.
Sec. 16, par. 2, of the decree of March 21, 1933 (
RGBl.
I 136).

24.
Drendel, “Aus der Praxis der Strafverfolgung im Warthegau” (1941), 2472.

25.
VOBl. Polen,
24 (reproduced in
Doc. Occ.
5:48).

26.
The retroactive clause already contained many loopholes in the Reich territory, too (see the laws of March 29 1933,
RGBl.
I 151; of June 22, 1935,
RGBl.
I 493; and of June 22, 1938
RGBl.
I 651; the decrees of December 5, 1939,
RGBl.
I 2378; and of October 4, 1939,
RGBl.
I 2000).

27.
Thiemann, “Anwendung und Fortbildung,” 2473.

28.
Drendel, “Aus der Praxis der Strafverfolgung im Warthegau,” 2472. Thiemann, “Anwendung und Fortbildung,” 2473.

29.
From statements by Reich Minister of Justice Thierack before the chief presiding judges and chief public prosecutors on February 10–11, 1943, in Berlin (minutes, BA R 22/4200).

30.
Decree of October 5, 1939, on Implementation of the Pardon Decree of October 4 1939 (ZS, Ordner 57, pp. 0192 f.); regulations on security and reform were not affected by the Pardon Decree; records of acts designated by the decree were removed from the penal register (secs. 3 and 5).

31.
Memorandum by Dr. Kritzinger, Reich Chancellery, April 11, 1940 (BA R 43 II/1549).

32.
Drendel, “Aus der Praxis der Strafverfolgung im Warthegau,” 2472.

33.
Decree of February 21, 1940,
RGBl.
I 405.

34.
RGBl.
I 759.

35.
Situation report of March 2, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (BA R 22/3372).

36.
Situation report of January 3, 1942 (BA R 22/3372), by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (whence “in my opinion the question of appropriateness should be adjusted according to the nationhood and type of offense and offender”).

37.
Letter of February 20, 1942, from the presiding judge of the Posen Court of Appeal to all district court presiding judges (ZS, Polen Film 57, 199 ff.).

38.
Letter of February 20, 1942, from the presiding judge of the Posen Court of Appeal (ibid.), demanding cooperation on the part of all judges in the development of “a procedure worthy of German jurisdiction.”

39.
Sec. 16, par. 1, of the decree of March 21, 1933 (
RGBl.
I 136); sec. 26, par. 1, of the decree of February 21, 1940 (
RGBl.
I 405).

40.
RGBl.
I 844.

41.
In his situation report of July 25, 1942, the chief public prosecutor of Posen stated that the abolition of the oath for Jews and Poles was widely regretted, since on account of the religiousness of the Poles, the oath had been a way to get at the truth; according to the chief public prosecutor, this standpoint was “erroneous”; rather, the incapacity of Poles to take the oath should also be introduced in the Altreich, too (BA R 22/3383).