"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (214 page)

40.
Führer decree of June 3, 1942 (
VBl.GG
[1942]: 321).

41.
Secs. 3, 5, par. 2, of the Decree on the Development of the Administration in the Occupied Polish Territories, October 26, 1939 (
VBl.GG
[1939]: 3).

42.
This applied not only to Poles and Jews but also to Germans, against whom the police were able to proceed without the knowledge or permission of the authorities. Cf. the account of a case in Max Frauendorfer’s report, “Die Arbeitsverwaltung im GG,” July 20, 1951, p. 11, in which police surrounded a branch of the Kraków Labor Office and arrested its manager, Szepessy, for alleged “friendliness to Jews”; he was subsequently sent to a concentration camp; the branch office itself was closed down; Frank vainly pleaded for his release (BA Ostdok. 13 GG IV b/3).

43.
For example: monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
D
bica
, November 1940 (IfZ Ma-158/1, Fasz. 19, Bl. 4).

44.
Although postal and rail services were under the authority of the governor general, they had their own administrative structures (sec. 1, par. 2, of the Third Decree on the Development of the Administration in the General Government, March 16, 1941,
VBl.GG
[1941]: 99). At district level, labor, finances, and forestry were not
incorporated
in the general administration but rather
affiliated
with it (there were finance inspectors, the Labor Office, the Forestry Service, and the
Wehramt
[military office]). (Section C of administrative instruction no. 4 of April 18, 1941, Weh,
Übersicht über das Recht des Generalgouvernements
[1943], A 121 d).

45.
The supervisory authority was the district governor; nor did
Kreishauptleute
have any authority over the special administration; the only provisions were for a reciprocal
duty of notification
on all matters “politically or otherwise significant,” with authority vested in the
Kreishauptmann
“in order to maintain a uniform political line or reconcile conflicting points of view held by various branches of the administration,” clauses that are open to any interpretation (subpar. 1, 3 of administrative instruction no. 2, March 31, 1941, to the Decree on the Unified Administration of December 1, 1940, which contains a list of the authorities to be incorporated or affiliated; in Weh,
Übersicht über das Recht des Generalgouvernements
, A 121 b).

46.
Monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Hrubieszów, November 6, 1940 (IfZ Ma-158/1, Fasz. 17, Bl. 2 ff.). Special authorities operating without knowledge of the
Kreishauptmann
included the SIPO, the
Schutzpolizei
, the Gendarmerie, the Labor Office, the Financial Inspectorate, the Roads Department, the Forestry Service, the district farms inspector, the Water Board, and the Land Registry Office. It was “always galling” for the
Kreishauptmann
to learn from Poles or Ukrainians of measures being implemented in his own district.

47.
Monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Jedrzejow, January 4, 1940 (IfZ Ma-158/1, Fasz. 16, Bl. 4); monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Ilza, August 1940 (Fasz. 6, Bl. 4), in which the
Kreishauptmann
of Ilza complains that the agricultural administration sees itself as a special department. Accordingly, five offices were established to oversee food provision: the district farms inspector, the agricultural expert in the office of the
Kreishauptmann
, the District Agricultural Cooperative, a consumer co-operative, and the
Kreishauptmann
himself.

48.
Cf. meeting of district governors and Governor General Frank on June 7, 1940, in which the district governors complained that the
Kreishauptleute
received directives directly from the central administration and not via the office of the district governor. This altered situation was also apparent in the tone of the department heads (“Diensttagebuch 1940”). At a meeting with the governor general on May 30, 1942, the governors complained, among other things, that the various Central Departments of the government demanded reports directly from the departments of the district administration (“Diensttagebuch 1942,” vol. 3).

49.
One example of this is the duty of notification. Normally, the reports of the specialist departments were produced by the
Kreishauptleute
or the district chiefs as situation reports and forwarded to the government of the General Government. But on occasion Kraków demanded direct reports and the district chief issued instructions countermanding this request (monthly progress reports of the Office of the Warsaw District Chief, School Board, November 4, 1940, IfZ, Ma-158/1, Fasz. 14, Bl. 2 f.).

50.
See F. Siebert, “Der Verwaltungswirrwarr im Generalgouvernement” (BA Ostdok. 13 GG I a/1; ZS, Versch. 104, 695 ff., copy); for the Kraków and Warsaw districts, cf. in particular sheets 700, 702.

51.
One can sense a “distressing loss of authority” on the part of the German leadership. The government is not governing but merely administering, in many cases bypassing the district administration (meeting of the governors, May 30, 1942, “Diensttagebuch 1942,” vol. 3).

52.
Concerning the exclusion of the district chief, cf. complaints voiced at the meeting of the district governors on June 7, 1940 (“Diensttagebuch 1940,” vol. 2).

53.
For full details see F. Siebert, “Der Verwaltungswirrwarr im Generalgouvernement” (BA Ostdok. 13 GG I a/1; ZS, Versch. 104, 695 ff., copy).

54.
According to the Office of the Governor of Galicia at a meeting with police representatives on June 18, 1942 (“Diensttagebuch,” 3:331).

55.
Many measures taken by
Kreishauptleute
were later introduced generally by means of an order. For example, the creation of the first
all-Jewish districts
in May 1940 in a
Kreishauptmannschaft
of the Warsaw District; it was only later that Jewish enclaves were created throughout the General Government (cf. the brochure by Gollert entitled
Warschau unter deutscher Herrschaft
[1942], 87 f.).

56.
Monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Ostrowo (Ostrów Wielkopolski), May 1940 (ZS, Polen 257, 644 f.); monthly reports,
Kreishauptmann
Łowicz, May 1940 (629 f.), and January 1941 (Polen 347 ff.); monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Petrikau (Piotrków Trybunalski), May 1940 (607); monthly reports,
Kreishauptmann
Krakau-Land, May 1940 (553) and August 1940 (155 ff.); monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Tomaschow (Tomaszów Mazowiecki), July 1941 (458); monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Siedlce, January 1942 (Polen 348, 796 ff.).

57.
Report from the General Government, February 1942 (no author, BA Ostdok. 13 GG 19/10); monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Hrubieszów, November 6, 1940 (IfZ, Ma-158/1, Fasz. 17, 1 f.).

58.
A deluge of decrees and directives impossible to carry out flooded over the
Kreishauptleute
(cf. complaints of the
Kreis
- and
Stadthauptleute
of the Lublin District at an official meeting, March 4, 1940, “Diensttagebuch 1940,” March 4, 1940) and district chiefs; as early as mid-1940, only nine months after the setting up of the civil administration, it was demanded that the flow of decrees from the office of the governor general should cease (meeting of department heads, June 1940, “Diensttagebuch 1940,” 2:65).

59.
Monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Hrubieszów, November 6, 1940 (IfZ, Ma-158/1, Fasz. 17, 1 f.); monthly report,
Kreishauptmann
Siedlce, February 1942 (ZS, Polen 348, 813 ff.).

60.
The objections of the
Kreishauptleute
to centralization should not therefore be seen in absolute terms but against the background of the presumption of almost unlimited freedom by National Socialist “administrative heads.” According to a report by the economist Dr. Troschke on his activities in the General Government (Bl. 10), the central authority allowed a certain latitude—“The Czar is far away” (BA Ostdok. 13 GG no. 1 a/10). (See also note 65, below.)

61.
Diary notes, Dr. Troschke: “One can but offer assistance and try to make good the injustices perpetrated by the powers that be” (ibid., Bl. 59, 61).

62.
Proposal by Frank to the cabinet meeting of March 11, 1942 (“Diensttagebuch 1942”): a majority of the younger employees and officials in the Kraków central office should spend three to six months working in a
Landkreis
, “so that these gentlemen get to know from the bottom up what life is really like in this country.”

63.
From late 1941 the administration started shifting responsibility not only for supervision but also for implementation of administrative matters to German officials, further reducing Polish involvement and increasing the workload without any increase in staff levels (cf. complaints voiced by the district chiefs at the meeting of May 30, 1942, with a detailed representation of the arguments, “Diensttagebuch,” May 30, 1942, Bl. 1–23).

64.
At their meeting on May 30, 1942 (ibid.), the governors complained that they were frequently overruled by the specialist departments of the central authorities, whereupon Frank—rejecting the blinkered view of departmental bureaucracy—emphasized the pivotal position of the governors as the central administrative authority in their districts. But in a conversation with State Secretary Ernst Boepple on November 24, 1942, he also complained about the increasing tendency of the governors to assert their independence: Fischer (governor of the Warsaw District) “clearly [wants] to make Warsaw the center, as it were, of the General Government. I’m not standing for it. I will also take action in the case of Globocnik [HSSPF of Lublin].” The general governor said that by January 1, 1943, he wanted to see Kraków taken out of the district administration and made the Federal capital; the district chief of Warsaw should be transferred to Kraków, the district chief of Radom should be transferred to Warsaw, and the district chief of Kraków sent to Radom (“Diensttagebuch 1942,” vol. 3).

65.
Diary entry, Dr. Troschke, dealing with his activity in the General Government, Bl. 44 f. (BA Ostdok. 13 GG No. 1a/10); (the diaries were written
after
1945, based on notes made between 1940 and 1945). Dr. Troschke was head of the Department of Economics in the office of the
Kreishauptmann
in Reichshof (Rzeszów), moving later to Lemberg (L’vov), where he headed the economic administration of Galicia. Troschke was an economist, not a professional civil servant.

Part One. Section 3. Introduction. VI. Actual Development

1.
Speech by the governor general during a visit to the head of the German Labor Front, Dr. R. Ley, on November 7, 1940, quoted from “Diensttagebuch,” ed. Präg and Jacobmeyer, 18 n. 41.

2.
“Report on the Development of the Administration in the General Government,” July 1, 1940 (Bd. I, BA R 51 II/247; also: IfZ, Sign. 1442/54, Bestand ED 6); for the judicial sphere see the summary in a letter from the president of the German Supreme Court Kraków to the head of the Central Department of Justice—personal—December 8, 1944 (Main Commission Warsaw, Archive, Reg. des GG, Hauptabteilung Justiz V, 81, Bl. 898 ff.); also “News from the Reich,” no. 193, June 12, 1941 (IfZ, Ma-441/4, Bl. 4039–42).

3.
Letter sent by Reich Ministry of the Interior to Interior Minister of Württemberg, February 9, 1940, saying there was no need for
Stadthauptleute
(heads of city administration) (quoted from Seeber,
Zwangsarbeiter in der faschistischen Kriegswirtschaft
[1964], 111). According to a statement by Frank, 1,100 applications for administrative posts in the General Government had been received by October 18 1939 (“Diensttagebuch 1939,” 1:5 f.).

4.
In the spring of 1941, the Department of Food and Agriculture of the Warsaw district administration alone had 88 employees; counting the field offices, the staff totaled 848 (138 Germans, 710 Poles); report by the head of Subsection 1 of this department on April 3, 1941 (“Diensttagebuch 1941,” 224 ff.). On July 1, 1941, there were 1,100 Reich German civil servants and three to four times that number of German employees and auxiliary staff (not counting the police); (Gstöttenbauer, in Du Prel,
Das Generalgouvernement
[1942], 200). Moreover, in August 1941 the numbers were further swollen by the personnel of the Galicia District. In early 1943 the government of the General Government felt obliged (in its own words) “to limit the administrative apparatus to a minimum of properly qualified officials” and take on more Poles to fill the gap left by 800 civil servants who had been called up for military service. The personnel of the special authorities, like those of the offices of the RFSS/RKF, increased dramatically (note in the files on a discussion of February 24, 1943, between representatives of the government of the General Government and representatives of the Reich Chancellery, IfZ, Bestand HSSPF [Ost], FB-59, Bl. 44 ff., according to which the State Secretariat for the Security Services alone had 86 new
Referate
[policy desks] in the Bureau for the Strengthening of German Nationhood).