"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (196 page)

50.
Because there was a broad German-Polish middle class, the procedure was applied relatively generously in Danzig–West Prussia and Upper Silesia and was based primarily on political considerations, so that often all “undesirable” persons were included in the German Ethnic Classification List virtually en bloc. In Danzig–West Prussia, where in any case great tensions existed between the Reich governor, the SS, and the RKF, racial investigation was either refused or not considered binding (Broszat,
Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik
, 121 ff., with references). In Upper Silesia the additional racial investigations demanded by Himmler had been completely suspended since 1943. The idea held by the RFSS/RKF that every single person included under group 3 of the German Ethnic Classification List—for whom “German descent” was not fully demonstrable—should be subjected to strict politico-racial investigation, was put into effect with any degree of completeness only in the Warthegau (123 f., with examples), where the rules of the German Ethnic Classification List had always been strictly applied. Only people who were of 50% German descent were included (report of the Wartheland Gauleiter dated June 16, 1942, to the
Reichsführer
-SS/RK, Nuremberg doc. NO-3993). Greiser’s “great concern” was that the original Germanization policy would be watered down in the General Government, where 12.5% German descent was sufficient; a total of 3–4 million Germanizations were to be expected (reports from the Wartheland Gauleiter to the
Reichsführer
-SS/RKF of June 16, 1943 [Nuremberg doc. NO-3992], and April 15, 1943 [Nuremberg doc. NO-2418]). The extremely extensive Germanization policy pursued (in areas other than the Warthegau) had thus had a considerable impact. By January 1944 a total of some 2.75 million people had been included in the German Ethnic Classification List in the Annexed Eastern Territories, including 1.7 million alone under group 3 and only 83,000 under group 1. In addition 370,000 Reich Germans, 353,000 ethnic German settlers possessing full German nationality, and approx. 6.01 million “protected” “aliens” lived in the Annexed Eastern Territories (figures from data from the RFK/staff headquarters, January 1944, Nuremberg doc. NO-3568, reproduced in Broszat,
Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik
, 125).

51.
More details in Adler,
Der verwaltete Mensch
(1974), 310 ff., esp. the moving description (313 ff.) of the tragic case of the “half Jew” Ernst Brüll from Nickelsdorf near Bielitz (Bielsko-Biała) (Upper Silesia); Brüll, the co-owner of a textile factory, was married to a “full Aryan” woman, with whom he had two children. In spite of a credible connection with Germandom, Brüll was refused registration in the German Ethnic Classification List and continued to fight for inclusion in it. Finally the
Reichsführer
-SS/RKF decided on December 10, 1942, that one daughter should be included under group 2 in the list and that a decision on the acceptance or classification of the parents should be held in abeyance until either the marriage was annulled or proof of Brüll’s sterilization had been provided. The wife would then be admitted under group 2, whereas Brüll had first to be investigated with respect to a purported espionage business. Brüll was sent to Auschwitz on July 22, 1943, on the grounds that he had circulated atrocity stories and was strongly suspected of having obtained passports from Switzerland. He was transferred to Buchenwald on January 3, 1944. He and his wife refused a divorce, and he also refused sterilization. The last document is dated January 21, 1945, and contains the following: “Since Brüll is in the concentration camp and will probably not be released before the end of the war, no further undesirable offspring are to be expected. I therefore do not consider it necessary at the present time to pursue the question of divorce or sterilization and suggest that no further action be taken with regard to this family.” The further fate of the Brüll family remains unknown.

52.
Status report of April 8, 1942 (p.3). On account of the lack of this information and coordination, the motivation of all the officials dealing with the German Ethnic Classification List had considerably declined (Posen University Library).

53.
Letter dated July 10, 1942, from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of Justice (BA R 22/851). The delimitation was particularly difficult in areas with a large mixed German-Polish population such as Danzig–West Prussia (status report of March 10, 1942, by the State Superior Court president of Bromberg [Bydgoszcz] to the State Superior Court president of Danzig [BA R 22/3360] or Upper Silesia). See, for example, the report of July 18, 1944, from the State Superior Court president of Bromberg to the State Superior Court president of Danzig, in which the author complains of the “unwise” attitude of the police toward people on the German Ethnic Classification List, which was likely to alienate them with regard to Germandom. When DVL-3 Poles made civil charges against Reich Germans for the return of gardens that had been confiscated before Germanization, the Gestapo representative had wanted to undertake “police measures” in order to make these “Poles” think twice about pursuing their claims, and the police president wanted to prevent this “Polish action.” The State Court of Appeals president pointed out that these people were Germans with full rights. The response was that though this objection was “formally correct,” they still had to prove themselves and until then should be treated as Poles (BA R 22/3360).

54.
Reich Ministry of the Interior circular dated November 14, 1940 (
MinbliV
2111;
DJ
[1940]: 1433), according to which the “members of other foreign peoples” living in the Annexed Eastern Territories, “in particular Lithuanians, Great Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Czechs” were not regarded as Poles, nor the members of the mixed German-Polish population in the administrative districts of Oppeln (Opole) and Kattowitz (Katowice) or the “Kashubs” or Masurs living in the
Gau
of Danzig–West Prussia; members of these “other non-Polish foreign peoples and stock” were to be given a certificate on request testifying to their “nonmembership in the Polish nation.” If they claimed to be Poles, however, they were treated as Poles.

55.
The question was whether such people were subject to the Polish penal code—as was the opinion of the RFSS/RFK—or were to be dealt with on the basis of German law—as thought the judicial administration. In Upper Silesia the police and the judiciary agreed to treat as Germans all those who had applied for inclusion in the German Ethnic Classification List or were already included in it but against whom the RFK had instituted an objection procedure on account of an alleged criminal offense (cf. the Reich Ministry of the Interior general instruction of June 5, 1943,
DJ
[1943]:320), since their inclusion was proof of their “biological German descent” (status report of September 3, 1942, BA R 22/850, 10), as a means of circumventing the unpredictable difficulties of the “political concept” of “the Pole” (pro-Polish activity) until the German Ethnic Classification List was complete (status report by the chief public prosecutor Kattowitz of March 2, 1942, BA R 22/850).

56.
Von Rosen—von Hoevel, “Das Polenstatut” (1942).

57.
Quotation in Huber,
Idee und Ordnung des Reiches
, 21. The Twelfth Decree of April 25, 1943, to the Reich Citizenship Law (
RGBl
. I 268) circumvented the definition by the following provision (sec. 3): “Protected citizens of the German Reich are such inhabitants of the German Reich as do not belong to the German nation, whose protected status is or will … be recognized by virtue of a general instruction or decision in the individual case.” The Decree on Protective Citizenship of the same date (
RGBl
. I 271) contained no definition whatsoever of protected citizenship.

58.
Klee,
Die Bürgerliches Recht
(1942).

59.
General instruction of February 9, 1942 (BA R 22/20994), and circular of February 16, 1942 (ZS, Versch. 29, 236 ff.).

60.
Status reports of May 21, 1941, and April 8, 1942 (p. 2), by the district president of Hohensalza (Inowrocław) (University Library of Posen).

61.
Cf. the circular of January 1, 1942, by the Reich governor of Posen (Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
, doc. I-166).

62.
Report of February 28, 1943, from the district director of Lentschütz, Wartheland (Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
).

63.
See the report of October 8, 1939, by a
Landrat
of the Wartheland to the head of the civil administration, Posen (State Archive Pozna
, CdZ 20, Bl. 20): “It has been reported on numerous occasions that they [the ethnic Germans] have repeatedly been involved in pilfering and looting and that even important landowners have helped themselves not only to livestock but also to items of furniture. There is a noticeable tendency to use the unclear situation to the greatest possible personal advantage. In addition they are often reluctant to manage their property correctly and especially to take care of the harvest. These facts force me to act rigorously against ethnic Germans too.”

64.
Report of August 31, 1943, by the Security Police, Schroda (Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
), with details of individual cases (e.g., denunciation of family members).

65.
Report of September 1943 (unsigned) with examples (ibid.).

66.
Situation report of August 18, 1940, by the district president of Hohensalza (p. 4), “Wongrawitz [W
growiec] district … When it was recently pointed out to someone that his application came very late, he answered quite naively: ‘But we couldn’t know which way the war was going until now.’ ”