"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (132 page)

94.
RGBl
. I 1535; the complaints authority decided on a case-by-case basis whether or not proceedings in the administrative court were admissible. See Fauser, “Verwaltungsverfahren und verwaltungsgerichtliches Verfahren” (1940).

95.
Rößiger,
Führertum und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit
(1936), 22, 35.

96.
Kluge and Krüger,
Verfassung und Verwaltung
, 350; Rößiger,
Führertum und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit
, 35 f.

97.
For more details, see Stolleis,
Gemeinwohlformeln im nationalsozialistischen Recht
(1974), 244, with many examples.

98.
Fraenkel,
Der Doppelstaat
, 69.

99.
Freisler, “Deutscher Osten” (1941); R. Freisler,
DJ
(1936): 50 ff., 90 ff.; 433 ff.

100.
H. Frank, quoted in W. Raeke, “Der national-sozialistische Rechtskampf des BNSDJ,”
JW
(1935): 2857 f.

101.
Wolf, “Das Rechtsideal des nationalsozialistischen Staates” (1934–35), 348 ff., 352.

102.
A good example is given in H. Frank,
Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte
(1930), quoted in Raeke, “Der national-sozialistische Rechtskampf des BNSDJ”; further in Dahm, “Richtermacht und Gerichtsverfassung im Strafrecht” (1941), 287 ff.; Malz, “Richtertum im nationalsozialistischen Staat” (1941), 2217 ff. (2218); Sauer, “Rechtsprechung und Regierung,” lecture delivered by Curt Rothenberger, presiding judge of Hamburg State Superior Court, on August 19, 1941, at a conference in the Reich Ministry of Justice, quoted in Johe,
Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz
(1967), 234: “direct supporting role between the Führer … and the individual judges.” For more about the National Socialist model for the judiciary, see ibid., 202 n. 7, 236 f.; Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 129.

103.
Cf. the devastating critique by R. Freisler in
DJ
(1941): 998 ff. to a district court justice, Rozycki-von Hoewel, who had raised such demands in a document entitled “Justiz am Scheidewege.”

104.
Kriek, “Der Weg zum politisch-völkischen Richter” (1936).

105.
Freisler, “Justiz und Politik” (1938).

106.
Sattelmacher, “Richter und Rechtsfindung” (1942), 93 f.

107.
Rothenberger, “Der Richter im nationalsozialistischen Staat” (1943), 260, with reference to Plato (“The law does not apply to whomsoever is best but to the man who is wise and kingly”); Rothenberger,
Der deutsche Richter
(1943), 20 ff., 40 ff., 60 ff.; on the National Socialist concept of the judiciary, see also the comments of Reich Minister of Justice Thierack on the occasion of the inauguration of Chief Public Prosecutor Steinberg in Posen:

In view of the highly responsible tasks of leadership that the judiciary must assume … particular importance must be attached to the selection of the leading figures: besides professional competence … requirements of mental aptitude and character must also be met. Above all, in the daily duties of a leading judge, his guiding principle must be the soldierly manner of thought and action, in other words the concepts that National Socialism has restored to their rightful place in our nation: the sentiments of loyalty, honor, courage, the readiness to give of oneself at any time for the greater good, and the belief in German values and the future of Germany. (
Ostdeutscher Beobachter
, January 13, 1944)

A detailed account is also given in Freisler, “Die Ausbildung des Juristen” (1933); C. Rothenberger, “Denkschrift zur Justizreform 1943,” BA R 22/4173; Sattelmacher, “Richter und Rechtsfindung”; “Recht und Richter im Führerstaat,” memorandum from the Reich Ministry of Justice office
Richter und Rechtspflege
, dated February 18, 1944, BA R 22/240 (the author of the memorandum was a certain Stegmann, head of the Chamber of the Court of Appeal); draft of a new law on the judiciary, dated June 15, 1944, from the Reich Ministry of Justice, BA R 22/240; in a speech to the Fourth German Lawyers’ Conference, State Secretary R. Freisler clearly differentiated between “National Socialist” and the “Marxist” or “bourgeois” lawyers; of the latter he said a “fundamental change in their mental attitude was not be expected.” National Socialist judges differed from this type in their “heroic” qualities (BA R 22/240).

108.
According to Hitler’s view, judges should in future be selected solely from those who had “proved” themselves in office and in the Party and were at least thirty-five years old (cf. comments by Hitler at the dinner table on May 31, 1942, quoted in Picker,
Hitlers Tischgespräche
[1968], 173).

109.
Memorandum (BA R 22/240); communication from the presiding judge of the People’s Court (Thierack) to the Reich minister and the head of the Reich Chancellery, BA All. Proz. XVII B 2, Bl. 212 to 214; for more details, see Thierack, “Gedanken zum Neuaufbau der deutschen Rechtspflege” (1942); Sattelmacher, “Richter und Rechtsfindung”; Rothenberger, “Die ersten Gedanken” (1942), 365 ff.; and Rothenberger, “Die ersten fachlichen Maßnahmen” (1943) (during his time as state secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice in 1942–43, Rothenberger was the leading advocate of sweeping judicial reform [
Grobe Justizreform
]). By way of preparation for this great transformation, various offices were created in the Reich Ministry of Justice effective January 1, 1943: Judges and Judicial Administators (
Richter und Rechtspfleger
) (for details of its ambit and activities, see the organizational plan, BA R 22/204, Bl. 5, 29 ff., 165 ff.; further in the implementing order of the Reich Ministry of Justice of July 3, 1943,
DJ
[1943]: 339), Administration of Justice by the People (
Rechtsprechung durch das Volk
) (its responsibilities: the creation of the office of Arbitrator [
Friedensrichter
]), and Reform of Procedural Law for the German Courts (
Neuordnung der deutschen Gerichtsverfassung
). In the course of this reorganization, it was planned to abolish the dual leadership of the district judiciary State Superior Court presiding judge–chief public prosecutor. The chief public prosecutor was to take on the functions of the State Superior Court presiding judge; see also the Reich Ministry of Justice draft of a corresponding decree and an ordinance in BA R 22/244; further, a note from the Reich Ministry of Justice dated October 1944 (BA R 22/243). For details of the distribution of tasks of the judicial reform process between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Academy of German Law, see the minutes of a meeting of the
Richter und Rechtspflege
committee of the Academy of German Law on March 23, 1943, in Berlin (BA R 22/3764).

110.
Amlacher, “Über die Richterreform zur Rechtsreform” (1943).

111.
See also a speech by O. Ohlendorf, head of domestic intelligence in the SD, “Über Recht, Sicherheit und richterliche Unabhängigkeit vom Oktober 1942,” Nuremberg doc. NO-4638, quoted in
VjhZ
(1956): 408 ff.; cf. also Weinkauff and Wagner,
Die deutsche Justiz
, 161.

112.
Order from Reich Ministry of Justice dated October 12, 1942, Nuremberg doc. NG-631; further, memorandum from Reich Ministry of Justice, “Recht und Richter im Führerstaat” (BA R 22/240).

113.
BA R 22/240.

Introduction. III. 2. The Primacy of Party over State

1.
Because the term
administration
is applied to the polity and is therefore by its very nature political, the term
politicized administration
has been used here to characterize the monopolist party and the alignment of the administration exclusively behind its political maxims.

2.
RGBl
. I 1016.

3.
For the development and position of the NSDAP generally, see Bayle,
Psychologie et ethique du National-Socialisme
(1953); Horn,
Führerideologie und Parteiorganisation
(1969); Schäfer,
NSDAP
(1956); more recently, Schulz,
Aufstieg des Nationalsozialismus
(1975), in particular pt. 1, chap. 6, and pt. 2.

4.
Nicolai,
Grundlagen der kommenden Verfassung
(1933), 23.

5.
In a speech at the Brown House in Munich at the end of 1930, Hitler said, “In so doing I assert for myself and my successors in the leadership of the NSDAP the claim to political infallibility…. I trust that the world will get used to it as quickly as it got used to the claim of the Holy Father” (quoted in Krebs,
Tendenzen und Gestalten der NSDAP
[1959], 138 f.); cf. also Hitler in Rauschning,
Gespräche mit Hitler
(1950), 184 ff., and in
Mein Kampf
(1939), 571 ff.

6.
See also Hitler in Rauschning,
Gespräche mit Hitler
, 257; further, Nicolai,
Grundlagen der kommenden Verfassung
, 23, who sees the party as a mystical “order” that claims lordship over the souls of the people. For more on the power of monopoly parties in the totalitarian state, see Neumann,
Permanent Revolution
(1942), 126 ff.

7.
More in Broszat,
Der Staat Hitlers
(1971), 328 ff.

8.
For example, the Reich minister for food and agriculture was also the head of the Reich Food Supply Administration (
Reichsnährstand
) as well as chairman of the farming industry’s own Court of Entail (
Reichserbhofgericht
) (cf. C. Schmitt, “Nationalsozialistisches Rechtsdenken,”
DR
[1934]: 225 ff., 228 f.).

9.
The merging in one person of the offices of
Reichsstatthalter
(Reich Governor) and Gauleiter was accomplished only in certain areas of the Altreich, but in the Annexed Eastern Territories it was comprehensive. In the Prussian provinces, Gauleiter also held the office of
Oberpräsident
(the senior administrative official of the province)—cf. Bracher, Sauer, and Schulz,
Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung
(1962), 506.

10.
Mommsen,
Beamtentum im Dritten Reich
(1966), 110 ff.; in 1937 the merging of offices at district level was abandoned because saturation with state functions was threatening to blunt the revolutionary impetus of the Movement. For a fuller account, see Diehl-Thiele,
Partei und Staat im Dritten Reich
(1969), 113 ff., 135 ff., 190 ff.

11.
For more on the recruitment of “Old Campaigners,” see Merkl, “Die alten Kämpfer der NSDAP” (1971), 495. The study is based on an evaluation of 582 autobiographical statements made in 1934 by NSDAP members.

12.
Hitler, proclamation of September 11, 1935, in
Die Reden Hitlers am Parteitag der Freiheit 1935
(1936).

13.
Law against the Reestablishment of Parties of 14 July 1933 (
RGBl
. I 479).

14.
Sec. 1, par. 2, of the law of December 1, 1933 (
RGBl
. I 1016), rescinded by Führer’s decree of December 12, 1933 (
RGBl
. I 733), with the justification that the NSDAP had a sui generis status and should not be subject to the legal oversight of the state. For an account of the legal status of the NSDAP, see Frank,
Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht
(1937); Köttgen, “Der Führer” (1937), 58; Neese, “Die Rechtsnatur der NSDAP” (1935); Neese, “Die Verfassungsrechtliche Stellung der Einheitspartei” (1938), 692; Huber, “Die Rechtsgestalt der NSDAP” (1939), 314 ff.

15.
For more details, see Neumann,
Behemoth
(1963), 73 ff.; Fraenkel,
The Dual State
(1941), 34 ff.; Lingg,
Die Verwaltung der NSDAP
(1940), 113 ff., all with numerous examples, including specific cases; Buch, “Parteigerichtsbarkeit” (1934), 4; for details of the party apparatus, see Bracher, Sauer, and Schulz,
Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung
, 381 ff., with further examples.

16.
The Law Guaranteeing the Unity of Party and State of December 1, 1933, sec. 6 (
RGBl
. I 1016).

17.
Ibid., sec. 2.

18.
Decree issued by the Führer and Reich chancellor on May 29, 1941 (
RGBl
. I 295), in connection with sec. 2 of the implementing order of January 26, 1942 (
RGBl
. I 35).

19.
Schmitt,
Staat, Bewegung, Volk
, with review by Reuß,
JW
(1935): 2254 f.; Reuß, “Partei und Staat,”
DVerw
(1934): 289 ff.; (1937): 321 ff. (speech to the 1937 German Civil Servants’ Conference in Munich); Stuckart, “Partei und Staat” (1936); Köttgen, “Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (1937), 1 ff., 49 ff.

20.
According to sec. 1 of the German Civil Service Code of 1937, the civil servant was the executor of the will of the state embodied by the NSDAP. According to sec. 3, par. 1, subpar. 2, he had a duty of loyalty to the Führer until his dying day. According to sec. 3, par. 2, his entire conduct “had to be guided by the fact that the NSDAP, in indissoluble solidarity with the people, was the bearer of the idea of the German state.”

21.
Reich Supreme Court, dated February 17, 1939, HRR no. 845/1939: “The Party is not a state organization. It exists beside the state; it has grown out of the people and derives its supreme rights from the people, not the state. It is not the state that is the decisive entity, but the people. State and people are not one and the same, no more than the state and the Party are one and the same…. There can be no doubt about the political precedence [of the party] over the ‘state.’ ”

22.
Cf. also the statement of the state secretary in the Reich Ministry of Finance, Fritz Reinhardt, that “the real basis of unity is not the state but the NSDAP” (
Münchener Neueste Nachrichten
, November 1938, no. 319/20, quoted in Neumann,
Behemoth
, 73 f.).