"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (248 page)

77.
For example, the plan of the so-called
Heuaktion
(hay action). In this connection, see the memorandum of April 12, 1944, from the head of the RFSS Political Staff headquarters—personnel policy adviser—(secret Reich business), whereby the
Heeresgruppe Mitte
intended to bring 40,000 to 50,000 adolescents from the Occupied Eastern Territories into the Reich, since they presented too much of a burden and strengthened the military potential of the enemy. A similar operation was reported as being undertaken at the time in the area of the
Heeresgruppe Ukraine-Nord,
in the course of which all youths over 17 years of age were to be detailed to the SS-
Division
and those under 17 years to the SS-
Hilfsaktion
(SS Relief Campaign) (Nuremberg doc. PS-031; also as appendix 22 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
392 f.). See also the RFSS order of May 20, 1944 to SS-
Obergruppenführer
Phleps, to round up “alien” orphans throughout the Balkans and to send them into the Reich territory, so that “the Croatian State … gets back decent people and valuable citizens” (as is noted at the bottom, the letter originally contained the following addition: “While the Reich has in them loyal followers of the Führer and future soldiers of the old defense border of the Reich”) (Nuremberg doc. NO-2218, 4000).

78.
RGBl.
I 118.

79.
Based on RFSS/RFK directive 67/I of February 19, 1942, under which Polish children living in Polish orphanages in the Warthegau who were judged “capable of Germanization” (even if the parents did not wish to be included in the German Ethnic Classification List), were to be brought into the Altreich and there to be put into “German state boarding schools” (
Deutsche Heimschulen
) (6–12 years), or if aged 2–6 years to be taken care of by SS families designated by the “
Lebensborn e. V.
” with a view to subsequent adoption (Nuremberg doc. NO-1615; also as an appendix in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
375 ff.); see also the affidavit by Dr. E. Schulz, undated (Nuremberg doc. NO-5235). A note dated February 12, 1944, from the head of the Central Settlement Office to the head of the SS Race Bureau to the effect that the RFSS “hopes for a special educative effect” when taking children away from Poles who were reluctant to have their names in the German Ethnic Classification List (Nuremberg doc. NO-1404)—more details in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
49 ff.

80.
Communication dated June 18, 1941, from the RFSS/RFK to the Reich governor of the Wartheland, in which Himmler pressed for the campaign to be started (reproduced as appendix 7 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
372 f.).

81.
Communications dated May 14, 1940, from the Reich Commissar for the Strengthening of German Nationhood to the head of the Security Police (Nuremberg doc. NO-1680); and October 9, 1942, to the Gauleiter and Reich governor of Upper Danube (Nuremberg doc. NO-5007). Communication dated September 17, 1942, from the head of the Central Settlement Office to all higher SS and police leaders, quoted by Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
50.

82.
Directive no. 67/I of February 19, 1942, by the Reich Commissar for the Strengthening of German Nationhood (Nuremberg doc. NO-1615); their status under the law was the same as that of German Reich children; the affidavit by M. Sollmann is in the same vein (Nuremberg doc. NO-4706, undated; also as appendix in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
401).

83.
See the letter of April 15, 1944, from the higher SS and police leader, Nuremberg, to the NSDAP
Gauleitung,
Mainfranken (Nuremberg doc. NO-4370; more details in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
50 ff.). Letter of August 11, 1943, from the Reich leadership—Head Welfare Office—to the RFSS (Nuremberg doc. NO-4665, also as appendix 44 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
433). Regarding the high mortality among the children of Eastern workers, see also the affidavit by L. Schneider, undated (ibid., 433): under SIPO policy the birth of “racially inferior offspring” of Eastern workers and Poles should be prevented as far as possible. Although abortions were only to be performed on a voluntary basis, they were “nevertheless to be forced in all cases” (Nuremberg Doc. L-8; also as appendix 43 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
432).

84.
Communication of October 9, 1942, from the RFSS to the Gauleiter and Reich governor of Upper Danube (“In exceptional cases … when the foreigner … is particularly inferior … I had the child removed during pregnancy”) (Nuremberg doc. NO-5007, also as appendix 14 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
383).

85.
See also the report of October 6, 1942, from the head of the Race Bureau at the Central Settlement Office (Nuremberg doc. NO-1600; also as appendix 13 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
380 ff.). Confidential report by the NSDAP
Gauleitung
Wartheland—Office for Nationhood Affairs—“Überblick über die Rückdeutschungsarbeit. Erfahrungen und Anregungen,” 1944 (
Doc. Occ.
4:132; also as appendix 18 in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
389); K. Zlukowski, “Zbrodnie niemieckie w Zamojszczyz
ie,”
Bulletin der Hauptkommission Warschau
2:44 ff.; see also Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
62 f. and appendix 29 there (401 ff.).

86.
More details in Sosnowski,
The Tragedy of Children under Nazi Rule,
52 n. 48, with references (212 ff.); R. D. Koehl,
RKFDV. German Resettlement and Population Policy
1939–1943 (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), 220. According to these, the number of “alien” children must have run into the tens of thousands.

87.
Directive of February 19, 1942 (no. 67/I), by the Reich Commissar for the Strengthening of German Nationhood (Nuremberg doc. NO-1615), regarding the Germanization action in the
Reichsgau
Wartheland, according to which the RKF made a final decision with the Reich governor of the Wartheland on Germanization, before bringing the child into the Altreich.

88.
Such a prohibition was already called for by the memorandum of November 25, 1939, from the NSDAP Office of Racial Affairs (Nuremberg doc. NO-3732), and was probably also applied, since adoption of racially “undesirable” Polish children by Poles would obviously have publicly contradicted the Germanization policy.

89.
It may be presumed that the competent guardianship courts were not involved in the appointment of the guardian, since they would have been obliged to undertake research on the origin of the child and the whereabouts of the parents. This would certainly have been conflicted with the purposes of the SS agencies responsible for Germanization.

90.
RGBl.
I 722.

91.
Richterbrief
of June 1, 1943, Ziff. 9. Cf. also the case described in
Richterbrief
no. 5 of February 1, 1943, Ziff. 26 (BA R 22/4002), in which a Jewish testatrix had provided for her husband and his family and had disinherited her children living abroad to the extent that if they were “capable of inheriting” again after ten years, they should inherit as the legal heirs. Although in the first instance the court had not opposed the will, the Reich Supreme Court reversed the original judgment at the demand of the senior public prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court. In the
Richterbriefe
the will was described as being “in contradiction to the healthy sense of justice of the people” and “truly Jewish” and so declared null and void, because its intention was to preserve the estate for the testatrix’s children; their succession, it was stated, was excluded under the terms of the Eleventh Decree of November 25, 1941, implementing the Reich Citizenship Law, since Jews living abroad could no longer inherit German nationality. The point of view of conditional reversionary succession taken by the court of first instance was not upheld.

92.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, November 2, 1941,
DJ
(1941): 433 ff. In this case the second, Jewish wife was sole heir. The grandchild from the first marriage successfully contested the will.

93.
Leipzig Municipal Court, September 29, 1936,
DJ
(1936): 1579 f.

94.
Reich Supreme Court, April 5, 1939, HRR 1939, 826.

95.
Reich Supreme Court, November 16, 1937,
DJ
(1939): 309 ff.

96.
Reich Supreme Court, January 14, 1937,
DJ
(1937): 402 ff.

97.
Reich Supreme Court, September 22, 1938,
JW
(1938): 2972 f.

98.
See Adami, “Das Kündigungsrecht wegen eines jüdischen Mieters.”

99.
Protection of Tenants Law of February 17, 1928 (
RGBl.
I 25), in the version of the law dated April 27 1933 (
RGBl.
I 235); Decree on Protection of Leaseholders of August 28, 1937 (
RGBl.
I 917), with first and second implementing regulations of December 4, 1937 (
RGBl.
I 1325), and August 31, 1938 (
RGBl.
I 1070), respectively.

100.
Adami, “Das Kündigungsrecht wegen eines jüdischen Mieters,” 3217 f., 3218 f.

101.
For eviction by private landlords, see Halle Municipal Court, August 18, 1938,
DJ
(1938): 512; Schönberg Municipal Court, September 16, 1938,
JW
(1938): 3045 f.; and October 18, 1938,
DR
(1938): 512; Berlin District Court, November 7, 1938,
JW
(1938): 3242 f.; Nuremberg Municipal Court, November 26 1938,
JW
(1938): 3243 f.; further judgments in Köhler, “Wohngemeinschaft mit Juden?” (1938). For eviction by public landlords, see Charlottenburg Municipal Court, September 3, 1938,
JW
(1938): 3172 f.

102.
Cologne District Court, May 11, 1938,
DJ
(1938): 907 ff.

103.
For more details see Köhler, “Wohngemeinschaft mit Juden?” with judicial references.

104.
Adami, “Das Kündigungsrecht wegen eines jüdischen Mieters.”

105.
Decision of August 18, 1938,
DR
(1938): 512. Similarly, Schöneberg Municipal Court, September 16, 1938,
JW
(1938): 3045 f.

106.
JW
(1938): 3242 f.

107.
Ibid., 3243 f.

108.
Decision of October 18, 1939,
DR
(1938): 512: “No legal provision exists that permits Aryan landlords to give notice to Jewish tenants on account of their racial appartenance.”

109.
Adami, “Das Kündigungsrecht wegen eines jüdischen Mieters,” 3218.

110.
Ibid., 3219.

111.
Decision of October 1, 1938, quoted in ibid. n. 91.

112.
Decision of September 12, 1938, quoted in ibid.

113.
Decision of May 6, 1938, quoted in ibid.

114.
RGBl.
I 864; in this connection see Buchwald, “Neugestaltung des Mietrechts” (1938).

115.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, June 20, 1940,
DR
(1940) (A): 1577 f. The certificate had “to clearly indicate the assurance (of the accommodation).”

116.
Prussian Supreme Court, Berlin, November 9, 1940,
DR
(1940) (A): 2111 f.

117.
Decision of November 8, 1939, HRR 1940, 430.

118.
Rohlfing, “Rechtsfragen aus der Zugehörigkeit zur jüdischen Rasse” (1933): 2098 ff., with references.

119.
Wiesbaden Municipal Court, March 4, 1935,
DJ
(1935): 1038 f.

120.
Reich Labor Court, November 25, 1933,
DJ
(1934): 229 f.

121.
RGBl
. I 1580.

122.
Leipzig Labor Court, March 3, 1939,
DJ
(1939): 970; Reich Labor Court, January 9, 1940,
DR
(1940) (B): Rechtsprechung p. 62, no. 207.

123.
Wuppertal Labor Court, German Labor Front compendium of decisions 1939, 134;
Land
Labor Court, Düsseldorf, ibid., 194, quoted in R. Freisler, “Ein arbeitsrechtlicher Einzelfall,”
Deutsches Gemein- und Wirtschaftsrecht
(1940): 265 ff, 268;
Land
Labor Court, Koblenz,
JW
(1940): 87. Reich Labor Court, decision of July 24, 1940,
DJ
(1940): 1035 f.

124.
Malz, “Richtertum im nationalsozialistischen Staat” (1941), 2220.

125.
Reich Labor Court,
DJ
(1940): 1035 f.

126.
RGBl.
I 681.