"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (266 page)

92.
Situation report of October 1, 1941, by the chief public prosecutor of Posen (BA R 22/3383).

93.
See note 98 below, for example.

94.
Letters of September 11, 1942, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich, and of October 6, 1942, to Reich Governor Greiser; answer of October 6, 1942, from the Reich Ministry of Justice, in which he expresses thanks for a corresponding instruction on the part of Greiser to the presiding judges of the courts of appeal and chief public prosecutors in Posen, to hand over the condemned prisoners to the Gestapo (Nuremberg doc. NG-241). The work of execution “could not be expected” of the justice officers on account of their advanced age.

95.
Cf., for example, the situation report of October 1, 1941, by the Posen chief public prosecutor (BA R 22/3383): the special court had pronounced and executed a death sentence against a Pole in the space of two days, whereas the court-martial (of the Gestapo) had needed a week for the same purpose; situation report of February 19, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Königsberg (BA R 22/3375) (stating that six weeks had elapsed between the death sentence by the court-martial on a Polish worker who had murdered the widow of a German soldier and the execution of the sentence; a court would have needed much less time).

96.
Cf. the situation report of August 2, 1941, by the chief public prosecutor of Königsberg (BA R 22/3375).

97.
Situation report of September 3, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (BA R 22/3372). Also see, for example, the secret report of December 3, 1941, by the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal and chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (Nuremberg doc. PS-674), containing the suggestion to establish a “lightning special court” at which no more than three days should elapse between passing on the procedure to the public prosecutor and the execution (it was apparently the rule that the special courts pronounced virtually only death sentences). The Reich Ministry of Justice’s answer is not known.

98.
Thus, for example, the situation reports of January 3, 1942, and of May 3, 1942 (BA R 22/3372), by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz, requesting clarification of the competence of the police and courts-martial “by Reich standards” (!). See also the situation report of August 6, 1942, and especially that of September 3, 1942 (ibid.): “The great activity of the State Police leaves no room for doubt that a large part of the proceedings that the State Police courts-martial have appropriated for themselves have either never been submitted to the
Oberpräsident
for a decision on the competence of the court-martial to deal with them, or despite a refusal have nevertheless remained in the hands of the State Police—not for adjudication by court-martial.” In this context see also the situation report of June 8, 1944, 13 f. (ibid.): “The judiciary has for years fought to keep its powers. Again and again its competence is curtailed, particularly the cases of Poles and Eastern workers.”

99.
Situation report of September 3, 1942, and June 8, 1944 (BA R 22/3372). The former is one of the most impressive testimonies to the reversal of the relations between judiciary and police. See, for example, the situation report of September 10, 1940, by the presiding judge of the Danzig Court of Appeal, with vivid examples (BA R 22/3360).

100.
See notes 78 and 90 above.

101.
See, for example, the commentary by the Reich Ministry of Justice appended to the situation report of September 3, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (BA R 22/3372): “In answer to a request on the telephone, the chief public prosecutor of Katowice stated that he could not produce documents [which the Reich Ministry of Justice had invited him to do] on the subjection of
Germans
to the State Police procedures and on the failure to pass them on to the prosecuting authorities, because they involved confidential information from other offices. These offices have further requested that their communications be not dealt with officially.” (The chief public prosecutor also mentioned several concrete cases of the treatment of Germans by the Gestapo.) Below the commentary there is a handwritten note by the head of the Criminal Justice Department at the Reich Ministry of Justice (Dr. Crohne), dated October 7, 1942: “The above information confirms my … supposition that it is apparently here a matter of general [next word illegible] without a [next word illegible] basis. The competent expert at the Kattowitz chief public prosecutor’s office is known to be a prolific writer.” There follows a handwritten remark dated October 13, 1942, by Reich Ministry of Justice Thierack: “Today, October 12, I passed on the content of the memorandum Ref. 2 to the chief public prosecutor in Kattowitz.” See also note 133 below.

102.
See the controversy in this connection between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), initiated as a result of a complaint by the chief public prosecutor of Posen about the interference of “third parties” in investigation proceedings against so-called prominent individuals; letter of June 6, 1941, from the RSHA (Heydrich) to the Reich Ministry of Justice, proposing for such cases a “police investigation procedure,” which “for tactical reasons” should be exercised by the competent authority of the Security Police, and requesting the issue of an appropriate directive to the chief public prosecutors; answer of July 18, 1941, by the Reich Ministry of Justice that such a directive was not necessary, since the basic situation was that public prosecutor’s office charged the police with investigations in pursuance of the legal requirements (BA R 22/1463).

103.
For example, the letter of March 25, 1941, from the senior public prosecutor of Kalisch to the Kalisch Gestapo (AZ Sd 7 Js 187/41), with which a Polish priest who was not demonstrably guilty of illegal possession of weapons was handed over to the Gestapo (reproduced in Herterich,
Die Nazi-Justiz
[1963], 57). See also the letter of June 5, 1942, from the senior public prosecutor of Kalisch to the Kalisch Gestapo (AZ Sd 7 Js 390/41), with which a Polish woman arrested for anti-German remarks, but against whom nothing could be proved, was handed over to the Gestapo together with her files (“The accused is at your disposal”) and “State Police measures” were proposed (reproduced in Herterich,
Die Nazi-Justiz
, 54 f.).

104.
See the secret report dated December 3, 1941, from the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal and chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz to the Reich Ministry of Justice (Nuremberg doc. PS-674), which closes with the words: “These considerations do not represent a stand on the competence of a court-martial functioning for Poles and Jews.”

105.
See the situation reports of September 25, 1943, and January 26, 1944, from the chief public prosecutor of Posen (BA R 22/3383); situation report of June 8, 1944, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (BA R 22/3372).

106.
Situation reports of January 3 and September 3, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (BA R 22/3372).

107.
See the situation report of September 3, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (ibid.).

108.
Circular of January 28, 1943, from the Posen Gestapo to the
Landräte
of the district (State Archive Pozna
, Polizeipräsidium Posen 15, Bl. 10–11).

109.
Sec. 5 of the Second Implementing Order of November 2, 1939, by the Reich Ministry of Justice (
RGBl.
I 2133) to the Führer Decree on the Structure and Administration of the Eastern Territories of October 8, 1939 (
RGBl.
I 2042).

110.
Cf. the report of April 16, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Königsberg (BA R 22/3375) and that of September 3, 1942, by the chief public prosecutor of Kattowitz (BA R 22/3372): “It is difficult to obtain an overview on account of the great interference in criminal prosecution by bodies external to the judiciary. Since the decision as to which cases … are to be adjudicated by the courts-martial or the police devolves on the police alone, the judiciary … deals only with those that for some reason are not of interest to the police.” It further stated that it was not possible to obtain even information on printed forms as prescribed by sec. 163, par. 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

111.
Sec. 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, old version.

112.
Secs. 413, par. 3, and 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, old version, in conjunction with sec. 16 of the decree of September 1, 1939 (
RGBl.
I 39), on measures in the field of the constitution of the courts and administration of justice.

113.
MinbliV
(1942): 1309 (reproduced in
Doc. Occ.
5:341).

114.
In the Warthegau, compulsory fines and compulsory imprisonment, which for more than a year had been permissible without an upper limit (instruction of August 23, 1941, by the Reich governor in the Warthegau, ZS, Film Posen 14, 772 ff.), were thus limited to the maximum penalties provided for in the decree of June 15, 1942.

115.
Letter of May 29, 1942, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Reich Security Main Office (BA R 22/850).

116.
Drews,
Preuβisches Polizeirecht
(1936), 113.

117.
For the handling of this decree, see the decree of December 21, 1942, by the RFSSuChddtPol (Az. O-Vu R II 3991/42, Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
).

118.
Cf. the situation reports of July 25 and August 14, 1942, by the Posen chief public prosecutor (“another blow against justice”) (BA R 22/3383); in the same context, see also the situation report of September 3, 1942, by the Kattowitz chief public prosecutor (BA R 22/3372). See the minutes of a meeting between representatives of the Reich Ministry of Justice and the top officials of the Annexed Eastern Territories on July 28, 1942, in Berlin (BA R 22/850, p. 5), according to which the Reich Ministry of Justice should study whether a further approach to the Reich Ministry of the Interior as the formally superior authority of the police administration was “expedient.” (There are no documents testifying to such an approach.)

119.
Memorandum by the Reich Ministry of Justice added at the bottom of a letter dated May 29, 1942, from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of Justice (BA R 22/850).

120.
Ministerialrat
Grau (Reich Ministry of Justice) at the meeting of presiding judges of the courts of appeal and chief public prosecutors, Berlin, February 10–11, 1943 (minutes, p. 51, BA R 22/4200).

121.
State Archive Pozna
,
Reichsstatthalter
487, Bl. 14.

122.
See the instruction of August 23, 1941, by the Reich governor in the Warthegau to the subordinate authorities (ZS, Posen Film 14, 772 f.).

123.
MinbliV
(1943): 1507 (reproduced in
Doc. Occ.
5:345).

124.
The decree contained the laconic instruction to delete the words “and Jews” “throughout” the First Decree of June 15, 1942, on Police Penal Measures (see note 113).