The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy 1933-1945 (28 page)

This case also illustrates another aspect of political denunciations. By the standards of evaluating motives outlined by the Minister of Justice Thierack mentioned above, the woman had acted for 'all the wrong reasons'. For the police, however, a serious 'crime' had been alleged, and for their investigation of the charge the accuser's motives necessarily became secondary. Whether or not a serious crime had been committed was a matter separate from the question of the source of the information. No doubt it would have been comforting to someone like Thierack if the woman had acted out of 'proper' National Socialist motives, if she had felt duty-bound as a good citizen or convinced Nazi to report a 'serious' crime, even though the accused person happened to be her husband. The police in their daily practice, however, had little choice but to follow up all and any allegations, especially ones pertaining to an 'important' crime such as providing abortions. In fact there were extremely few charges that were laid clearly for the 'right' reasons-and to deal only with these would have left the police virtually unable to function. In any event even a mischievous charge might have some valid basis or lead to the detection of a 'serious' crime-which was, with hindsight at least, sufficient justification to have proceed with the investigation. This was a logic that could not be escaped. In spite of Thierack's wishes, motives were not important to the functioning of the Gestapo. To understand how the Nazi police system operated, as opposed to how Thierack and some top Nazis might have wished that it would operate, the historian has to resist undue preoccupation with the motives of informers, and deny them the prominence they have often been given. The Gestapo knew how to do this.

4. ANONYMOUS DENUNCIATIONS

Reinhard Mann concluded that about 3 per cent of all denunciations from the population were from anonymous sources. It is not certain that the figure was really that low, since the files do not always make clear whether the tip-off came from a known individual or was from a source unknown or anonymous. Such tips were particularly used in charges against Nazi functionaries. For understandable reasons, even if there were firm grounds for suspecting that a 'crime' had been committed by such persons, it was hardly wise to come forward because, among other things, counter-charges could be laid for defamation of the Party name, uniform, symbols, leaders, and so on. Such complaints seem by and large to have been sent directly to Gestapo headquarters, more or less out of reach of the Party figure involved. The latter might be charged with taking too large a meat ration (such a case occurred in 1942) or benefiting materially from the confiscation of Jewish businesses."
An actual name could be introduced in a charge laid against a disliked functionary by suggesting that a third party had said that so-and-so had said something.s9
Even more threatening to Party members, especially if they had any social, or even business, contacts with Jews, was the charge that they were 'soft' on the 'Jewish question'.`"'
If Communists were suspected of being at work, the police took infinite pains to investigate. In tiny Miltenberg, near Wurzburg, an anonymous letter arrived at the local SA headquarters early in 1937, denouncing five specified individuals on suspicion of Communist activities. All were questioned at great length by the Gestapo. There was nothing to the story save the personal hatred of the SA leader-who wrote the note himself-and at the conclusion of the case the Gestapo eventually
charged him. The SA man contradicted himself from the beginning: the case should have been seen for what it was much sooner."

Given the increasingly radical measures taken by the regime in the war years, anonymous denunciations, even of senior Party functionaries, were taken seriously. In August 1943 a charge was made by letter that Kreisleiter Ingebrand of Bad Neustadt had taken advantage of his position to obtain a safe place during the fighting in France. He managed subsequently, it was claimed, to get himself recalled to Germany, where he was enjoying too much food and leisure activity-including hunting expeditions. Though the police felt that the letter was probably an attempt to get revenge and that it originated from someone near the Kreisleiter, the charges were investigated.`''

An anonymous charge could arise out of economic motives, as suggested in a letter by a 'German competitor' (in the wine business) to the Wurzburg Gestapo in May 1938. While it indeed turned out that the denounced business had been purchased from its former Jewish owner, the transaction had in fact been conducted according to the letter of the law.";
Nevertheless, much worry was expressed that Nazi Party members had managed personal payoffs or 'spoils' of one kind or another.
94

A final case of an anonymous accusation suggests that people had come to be quite scrupulous in their view of what constituted 'criminality'. In January 1942 the Catholic village priest in Laufach received a note defaming the Nazi leadership, but instead of destroying it the priest turned it over to local police, and at least one man was subsequently brought in for interrogation and to check whether his handwriting matched that of the note. Perhaps the priest considered the letter a provocation by enemies unknown. Even an unwilling recipient of such a 'criminal' document felt compelled to pass it on once it was in his possession. A case like this indicates how widespread the sense of fear and distrust was at this time, even in the idyllic countryside of northern Bavaria.`''

5. 'SOCIAL MISFITS' AND THE USE OF DENUNCIATIONS

A common assumption about denouncers is that for the most part they are social misfits whose character weaknesses come to light under certain social conditions. Richard Cobb's statement is representative. In his book on the police in Revolutionary France he claims that such people 'are, unfortunately, an international phenomenon; any period of war or civil disturbance or acute
shortage is likely to stimulate that vocation'."
Such an interpretation offers a timeless, ahistorical view. It would be a mistake to think that in Nazi Germany denouncers were only or even primarily drawn from the margins of society.

It also needs to be said that, just as almost all aspects of social life in the Third Reich were politicized, so too were the tales told by the chronic complainers, the grumblers, and the petty gossipers. The Wurzburg authorities no longer dismissed their charges as trivial or obvious nonsense. These people, with a degree of social power they never had before, now saw how they might win arguments, settle scores, pay off debts, get rid of bothersome people, all with the help of the Gestapo. It was expeditious to come up with a politically relevant charge, but even the suggestion to the police that something 'suspicious' was in the air would work for a time. Even when the police were confronted with unsavoury characters they generally proceeded as though there might be something in the allegations. From Wurzburg in early 1935 comes a case where a family reported their neighbour, Hans Fichtel, for allegedly having said 'to hell with' the Swastika flag! The charge was taken up by the Gestapo even though the family who made it were known to the police-to the whole city, for that matter-for their false accusations. 'The entire family, because of its many previous convictions, had been ostracized in Wurzburg and must now be supported by the welfare office.' This reputation did not prevent their charges against Fichtel from being followed up.`"

Reinhard Mann's quantitative analysis of Gestapo cases shows up the alarming consequences that such denunciations could have for the victim. He found that of all those people reported to the police out of personal motives, one quarter were provisionally arrested and spent an average of three days in custody until the baselessness of the charges could be established. Even in those instances where nothing quite so drastic took place, Mann correctly points out that merely being cross-examined by the Gestapo, especially if it took place at headquarters, was already a dreadful experience. One need only reflect on the sinister reputation of the police, the uncertainty of the outcome, the incalculability of the procedure, and the admissibility of evidence about statements made before 1933.9'

Werner Best said at Nuremberg that the Gestapo was deluged by petty denunciations, especially involving the loosely defined crime of malicious gossip. These 'came to the police from outside, and were not sought for, for go per cent of these cases were not worth dealing with'."
Though they grew
so great as nearly to overload the system, care should be taken in considering them dysfunctional, for, like all tips, they reinforced the social controls of the Gestapo and other authorities. Ironically, on occasion official campaigns against those who laid personally motivated charges had the consequence of increasing them. According to Martin Broszat, the attempt in early 1934 to stop the 'grumblers' (Norgler) and 'alarmists' (Miesmacher) only added to their number, since asking for public co-operation to enforce the ban opened the door to a further wave."""

Social misfits of all kinds continued to hound their neighbours. In numerous cases some citizens repeatedly denounced others, and these were taken seriously though the police noted in the files that the informant was somewhat limited mentally.""
A woman known to be suffering from venereal disease whose husband left her for another dropped a hint to the Labour Front (the DAF) that the new woman might be Jewish. This charge, clearly made from dubious motives, was checked and found to be without any foundation.'"'

Under the influence of alcohol, or armed with the most far-fetched reasons, a person could feel, none the less, confident that the Gestapo or one of the many other authorities would listen. In October 1933 SA man (and barber) Heinrich Sachs turned in a man he met in the street who was drunk, 'because possibly the man might know something'. The drunk had a photograph with him, and said that one of the people in it owned a printing-press. There was nothing to the case.1
" In December 1937 allegations were made about the behaviour of Mayor Hofmann of Leidersbach, near Wurzburg. Not for the first time, the accuser was a disenchanted Party member, a drunk with a police record, and rarely in regular employment. The problem probably started, according to the dossier, when some years earlier Hofmann had disciplined the denouncer for appearing drunk in SA uniform; since then the man had sought revenge, and pursued the mayor with a series of denunciations. Hofmann, himself a Party member, decided to take his Party comrade before the Party court.104
Writing from Wurzburg's city gaol in mid-1940, Thomas Kuchenmeister, an unskilled worker with a reputation as a drunk, and himself charged with theft (later also with being a vagrant), alleged that in the cafe Werner in Trappstadt 'treasonous' behaviour was afoot. After placing the establishment under surveillance 'in an appropriate manner'and Kuchenmeister under observation by a psychiatrist-the authorities found the charge to be baseless."'

In the war years the range of activities which could be denounced increased dramatically. Failing to darken the windows at night, forgetting to change the radio dial away from the 'enemy' channels after listening to forbidden broadcasts, and infringement of the numerous regulations on food, clothing, and shelter-all could have dramatic consequences if noticed. All these charges, and many similar ones, from the dubious sources mentioned above were not merely registered by the police but actively investigated, with numerous interrogations and so on. The examples chosen here pertain to one group of citizens informing on one another, and they show that denunciations were not employed only by certain 'in-groups', such as Party members, against 'out-groups', such as Jews and others.

Another instance when a denunciation appears to have been launched 'for all the wrong reasons' began when the SD in Wurzburg was informed in early 1941 by Nurse Maria Markler of the NSV that Paster Bach, who lived in Zeil, near Wurzburg, had offered criminal advice to the mechanic apprentice Karl Hof (born 1923), also living in that village. In its short note to the Gestapo the SD said that Bach (born 1882) had been a 'venomous and dangerous enemy of National Socialism', a judgement confirmed by Nurse Markler. Hof had, to be sure, been known to police before as a 'show-off, who had left school in 19 3 7 at the age of 13 and who had been reported for sexually assaulting a 6- or 7-year-old girl. Even his own father and grandfather, who were brought in for questioning, described Hof as 'rude', 'lying', and 'insolent'. Hof reported that when he told Bach that he wanted to join the pioneers-the army's under-age organization-the priest had said that it 'would be suicidal for such a young person now, in wartime, to report voluntarily to the pioneers'.

Had this charge been sustained, the priest would almost certainly have paid with his life. It turned out that Hof had fabricated the story as an act of revenge for the hatred he had developed as a schoolboy. Hof said that long ago

I planned that I would take revenge on this man at the first and best opportunity ... Several weeks ago I was speaking with the NSV nurse Markler, who is the wife of my boss, about Pastor Bach. Markler mentioned to me that she had already had arguments with Pastor Bach over matters concerned with the BDM [Bund deutscher Madel: Hitler Youth girls' organization]. Further, she said to me that she would be making a report about the activities of the BDM and mentioned also in this regard Pastor Bach. I considered that the time had come for me to avenge myself on Pastor Bach, which is why I made the statements already known to you. In answer to why I put things together in this way, I can only say that it just popped into my head, that is, I had not thought it over beforehand.

Curiously nothing further happened to Hof; he had enlisted on 5 May 1940, and this might have helped. It seems also that the regime did not really want to be hard on even admitted false denouncers when the person denounced was declared an 'opponent'. Beyond that, the case also shows that charges
of even such a reprehensible type as Hors would be dutifully investigated.""
Hof was not the only frustrated person to seek revenge on former teachers in this way. Students were among the first to bring information to the Wurzburg Gestapo. In April 1933 a group of high-school students charged that their teacher, Dr Georg Kepner, who was then living in Nuremberg, had forbidden them to wear their Nazi emblems in school. Kepner admitted having said-before Hitler's appointment-that wearing the emblems might be taken as insulting to the Jewish students in class."''
In fact, the propensity of schoolchildren to denounce teachers who had disciplined them threatened to get out of hand on some occasions, if the complaints in Bavaria can be taken as representative. A circular from the Ministry of Education of 16 June 1936 noted with alarm that 'students, without the knowledge of their parents, are reporting to the police, or at another convenient place known to them, that their teachers have displayed political unreliability or even a treasonous attitude. The reporters are often students who have had to be disciplined during instruction
.'"'H Though many of the charges turned out to be without foundation, they were damaging to the schools' reputation. The ministry wanted such complaints to be handled internally, in the first instance at least, by the local school administration. Needless to say, enforcing such a policy was difficult, if not impossible-not least because of the many ways a determined student could find to lodge a complaint. Not only unruly students reported on their teachers; some diligent pupils also informed. According to many accounts, members of the various branches of the Hitler Youth, down to the lowest levels, were particularly keen to denounce teachers, religious instructors, and, on occasions, even their parents.'
('9