"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (268 page)

14.
Third-party motor insurance: decree of March 2, 1940 (
RGBl.
I, 495); foreign exchange and checks: decree of December 9, 1940 (
RGBl.
I, 1585); commercial law: decree of June 14, 1941 (
RGBl.
I, 319). The German labor code was not introduced (see Altmann, “Die Entwicklung des Arbeitsrechts im Reichsgau Wartheland” [1941], 2503 ff.), “in order to ensure that they [the Poles] cannot participate in the social advances of the new Germany” (von Rosen–von Hoevel, “Das Polenstatut” [1942], 109 ff., 111). With regard to social security law, see the decrees of November 6, 1940, and March 17, 1941 (
RGBl.
1940 I, 1511; and 1941 I, 147). Full details of Reich legislation as introduced in the Annexed Eastern Territories in Klee,
Die bürgerliche Rechtspflege
, 18 ff., summary).

15.
The corresponding rules on pay were published in the
Reichsarbeitsblatt
4, no. 2 (1940): 38, 211, 727, 1338, laying down lower wages and a special procedure in the event of labor disputes for Poles.
Deutscher Rechtsanzeiger
, October 5, 1941, no. 235.

16.
More details in Buchholz and Wolany, “Zum Grundstücksverkehrsrecht in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten” (1941).

17.
Decree of January 15, 1940, on the Protection of the Assets of the Former Polish State (
RGBl.
I, 174); decree of February 12, 1940, on the Public Management of Agricultural and Forestry Operations and Land (
RGBl.
I 355); first and second executive decrees of January 24 and February 1, 1941 (
RGBl.
I 67); decree of September 17, 1940, on the Treatment of the Assets of the Citizens of the Former Polish State, the so-called Polish Assets Decree (
RGBl.
I 1270) (more details in part 1, section 2; see also Klee,
Die bürgerliche Rechtspflege
, 38 f., 55 ff.; Buchholz and Wolany, “Zum Grundstücksverkehrsrecht in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten,” 682); decree of August 3, 1941, on the Settlement of Outstanding Claims and Debts of Polish Capital (
RGBl.
I 516).

18.
Decree of March 30, 1942 (
RGBl.
I 166) (adoption of the anti-Jewish legislation of the Altreich). The need for “development of the German economic order,” “to ensure food supplies to the people,” etc., quoted in Klee,
Die bürgerliche Rechtspflege
, 55 ff.

19.
Letter of February 8, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Reich Ministry of the Interior (BA R 43 II/1520); also
Meldungen aus dem Reich
(Security service), June 27, 1940 (BA R 58/151).

20.
Fechner, “Das bürgerliche Recht in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten,” 2482. In this connection, see also Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung
, 7.

21.
See
Meldungen aus dem Reich
, April 3, 1940 (BA R 58/150) (“the desire to introduce German law is becoming increasingly stronger in judicial circles”). Letter of February 8, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Reich Ministry of the Interior (BA R 43 II/1520), to which various draft laws were appended.

22.
Decree of June 6, 1940, on the Implementation of German Penal Law (
RGBl.
I 844); the Decree of December 4, 1941, on Penal Law for Poles (
RGBl.
I 759); more details in Broszat,
Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik
(1961), 130 ff.

23.
Letter of July 12, 1940, from the deputy of the Führer (Bormann) to the Reich Ministry of Justice (BA R 22/1520).

24.
Letter of September 18, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the RMuChdRkzlei (ibid.).

25.
Letter of August 14, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the deputy of the Führer (ibid.). “If necessary,” the Civil Code should be applicable only to Germans.

26.
Letter of July 12, 1940, from the deputy of the Führer to the Reich Ministry of Justice (ibid.).

27.
Letter of August 21, 1940, from the deputy of the Führer to the Reich Ministry of Justice (ibid.).

28.
Note dated September 11, 1940, from the Reich Chancellery on the point of view of the deputy of the Führer (ibid.).

29.
Letter of September 2, 1940, from the deputy of the Führer to the Reich minister and head of the Reich Chancellery (ibid.).

30.
Letter of November 1, 1940, from the Reich governor of the Wartheland to the deputy of the Führer (ibid.).

31.
Letter of August 21, 1940, from the deputy of the Führer to the Reich Ministry of Justice (ibid.).

32.
Note by an official of the Office of the Reich Governor of Posen on a meeting with the deputy of the Führer (apparently without the participation of the Reich Ministry of Justice) on July 19–20, 1940, in Berlin (State Archive Pozna
, Reichstatthalter 857, Bl. 9–10).

33.
Note on the discussion (see note 12 above); see also von Rosen–von Hoevel, “Das Polenstatut,” 113: “The aim of all the special regulations is to make the distinction between Poles and Germans that the circumstances require. Accordingly, care is taken in the regulations that the Poles should not acquire any legal rights and that they remain limited in their recourse to the law.”

34.
Letter of November 1, 1940, from the Wartheland Gauleiter to the deputy of the Führer; letter of October 21, 1940, from the Reich minister and head of the Reich Chancellery (BA R 43 II/1520).

35.
According to the letter of October 21, 1940, from Bormann (ibid.), the clause in question was worded as follows: “If a claim against a German by an ethnic Pole comes to court, the court shall submit the plea to the
Kreisleiter
of the NSDAP to investigate whether allowing the appeal does not conflict with state or
völkisch
interests. The result of the investigation shall be announced within a week. If the decision is in the negative or the findings are not communicated within the required time limit, the court shall allow the plea; otherwise it shall notify the plaintiff that it is not allowable in that court. If the court finds that a positive or negative answer to the submission is clearly incorrect, it shall submit the proceedings through the official channels to the Gauleiter for a final decision.”

36.
Notes dated September 23 and December 19, 1940, from the Reich Chancellery (
Ministerialdirektor
Kritzinger) (ibid.).

37.
Letter of September 18, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the RMuChdRkzlei (ibid.).

38.
See the letter of October 21, 1940, from the deputy of the Führer to the RMuChdRkzlei (ibid.).

39.
Letters of November 26, 1940, from the head of the Security Police and the Security Service to the deputy of the Führer; and of December 14, 1940, to the RMuChdRkzlei; Reich Chancellery note of December 19, 1940 (ibid.).

40.
Letter of December 14, 1940, from the RFSSuChddtPol to the RMuChdRkzlei (ibid.).

41.
RGBl.
I 597 f., 599 ff. (also BA R 43 II/1520); excerpts in
Doc. Occ.
5:323 f.).

42.
More details in Gebert, “Das Handelsrecht in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten” (1942).

43.
See Buchholz, “Zur Ostrechtspflege VO” (1941), 2476 ff, 2481; Fechner, “Das bürgerliche Recht in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten,” 2481 ff. (2485).

44.
Klee,
Die bügerliche Rechtspflege,
48.

45.
Ibid.

46.
Buchholz, “Zur Ostrechtspflege VO,” 2481. (Buchholz was
OLG-Rat
[councillor of the State Superior Court] at the Posen Court of Appeal.)

47.
Enke, “Die Rechtspflege im Volkstumskampf,” 2490.

48.
Klee,
Die bürgerliche Rechtspflege,
67.

49.
Ibid., 48 f.

50.
Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung,
34.

51.
Fechner, “Das bürgerliche Recht in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten,” 2485 (Fechner was an official in Abt. IV/civil code, of the Reich Ministry of the Interior); cf. letter of February 8, 1940, from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Reich Ministry of the Interior (BA R 43 II/1520).

52.
Klinge, “Bemerkungen zur Begriffsbildung im Polenstrafrecht”; although his comments refer to criminal law, they also correspond to the line taken in the field of the civil code. See also Tautphaeus, “Der Richter im Reichsgau Wartheland” (1941), 2466.

53.
See Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung,
34.

54.
Ibid.

55.
Ibid.; Klee,
Die bürgerliche Rechtspflege;
Schütze,
Das Recht der Ostgebiete
(1942), with appendix 1 (1942) and appendix 2 (1943). Decisions by courts in the Annexed Eastern Territories were only occasionally reported in the legal press, and generally they were related to “normal” Civil Code cases (Posen District Court, November 28, 1940,
DR
[1941] [A]: 2523; Posen Court of Appeal, February 26, 1941 [2519]; April 23, 1941 [2525]; July 30, 1941 [2519]; and January 30, 1942,
DR
[1942] [A]: 938 f.); further examples and material in the State Archive Pozna
,
Landgericht
Posen 10 ff.

56.
DJ
(1942): 928.

57.
For specific cases, see Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung,
35, Ziff. III. According to them, this interpretation was designed “to combat a possible effort, by
adhering to the letter of the term
‘in the individual case,’ to limit the judge’s freedom of decision granted to him in the legislation. Everything else should be left to the administration of justice, which already shows gratifying signs that it is worthy of the trust placed in it by its broad but also, in the best sense of the term, moderate use of the provision under sec. 4.”

58.
This included the exclusion of Poles from relief from the Settlement of Debts Law in its version of September 3, 1940 (
RGBl.
I 1209) (sec. 7, first executive decree), and their exclusion from exemption from the obligation of advance payment of costs in labor court proceedings (sec. 35, first executive decree, in conjunction with sec. 12, par. 3, 2, Labor Court Law) (for more details, see Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung,
Ziff. IV, on sec. 35), and the fundamental nonapplication to Poles of the legal distraint limit (sec. 48, first executive decree). Furthermore, the understanding of practice under sec. 4, Decree on the Administration of Justice in the Eastern Territories, was such that Poles were not permitted to be reinstated in the previous situation if exclusion deadlines were missed (sec. 2, first executive decree); the adaptation regulations of the Marriage Law (secs. 19 and 29, first executive decree), the regulations on the coming into effect of Polish decisions after August 26, 1939 (sec. 45, first executive decree), and the regulations on the technical investigation of an order to carry out a Polish sentence (sec. 47, par. 4, no. 3, first executive decree) were to be so interpreted that under no circumstances could “non-Germans” enjoy privileged legal status (see also Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung,
and Ziff. IV 2 regarding sec. 48; I 3, II regarding secs. 19, 20; V 1 regarding sec. 45; II 1 regarding sec. 47 of the first executive decree).

59.
See Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung
, 161, for more details.

60.
Klee,
Die bürgerliche Rechtspflege.

61.
Ibid.

62.
Pungs, Buchholz, and Wolany,
Ostrechtspflegeverordnung
, 36.

63.
Cf. the report by the Wartheland judicial administration (undated, around May 1942) (State Archive Pozna
,
Reichsstatthalter
896, Blatt 126): “Matrimonial procedures played a special role in some localities, where it was generally a matter of disputing the validity of racially mixed marriages. The annulment of such mixed marriages, which are to be regarded as highly undesirable from the standpoint of racial policy, should be particularly encouraged in the interest of the state.”