LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wachsmann, Nikolaus (1999)
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: hca
One of the most distinctive features of Nazi society was the increasingly radical division of its members into “national comrades” and “community aliens.” The former were to be protected by the state and encouraged to procreate, while the latter were seen as political, social, racial, or eugenic threats and were to be ruthlessly eliminated from society. With the start of the Second World War, various nonlethal forms of discrimination against these “community\ud aliens” were gradually replaced by policies geared to physical annihilation, culminating above all in the extermination of the European Jews. In view of a crime of this previously unimaginable magnitude, it is hardly surprising that when historians started in earnest to examine the genocidal policies of the Nazi dictatorship in the 1960s they focused on the development and administration\ud of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question,” as the Nazis called it.\ud But in the last two decades, the fate of other “community aliens” in the Third\ud Reich, such as the Roma and Sinti (“Gypsies”), slave laborers, and the disabled, has been investigated too.\ud Some historians have also begun to examine those who deviated in various\ud other ways from the norms of society, people who were often classified in the\ud Third Reich, and indeed before, as “asocials.” There was never an agreed definition as to who these people were, and the term was used to stigmatize a vast variety of nonnormative behavior. According to a 1938 directive by the head of the German security police, Reinhard Heydrich, any person could be classified\ud as “asocial” who “demonstrates through conduct opposed to the community\ud . . . that he does not want to adapt to the community.” During the Third\ud Reich, such vague statements served as the basis for the persecution of juvenile delinquents, criminal offenders, vagrants, prostitutes, and homosexuals, among many others. Certain groups were simultaneously classified as racial and social outsiders and thus suffered “dual racism.” This was true in particular for the Sinti and Roma, who had been persecuted for their way of life long before the Nazi “seizure of power” in 1933. Historical research into the fate of the “asocials” has produced some valuable insights into the treatment of members of these marginal groups in the Third Reich, many of whom died in SS concentration or extermination camps. Yet despite this growing interest, the most comprehensive of all the extermination programs directed against “asocials” in the Third Reich has never been investigated. From late 1942 onward, over twenty thousand offenders classified as “asocial” were taken out of the state penal system and transferred to the police for “annihilation through labor.” At least two-thirds of them perished in concentration camps. But in the historical literature this program has either been dealt with in passing or completely ignored.\ud Why have historians neglected the murder of state prisoners? There appears\ud to be a reluctance to focus on offenders against the law in the Third Reich, unless their offences can be seen in some way as forms of political or social protest. In contrast to the racially or politically persecuted, not all common criminals can be described merely as innocent victims, and the often brutal behavior of criminal Kapos in concentration camps probably further alienated historians from dealing with the criminals. Another factor that explains the poor state of research is the inaccessibility of source material. Leading officials in the Ministry of Justice made sure that most files relating to the “annihilation\ud through labor” of state prisoners were pulped before the end of the war.8 Yet\ud individual documents have survived, scattered around various archives in Germany. They can be complemented by information gained from individual prisoner files, as well as from unpublished documents and testimonies collected in numerous postwar legal investigations. None of these criminal investigations ever led to the conviction of the prison officials involved—another reason for the lack of historical interest. Finally, German legal history after the war spread\ud the myth that the legal administration had rejected or even resisted the Nazi\ud regime. State penal institutions, if dealt with at all, were described as safe havens that had “nothing to do with the concentration camps.” Thus, until today, historians have largely ignored the state prison system and its inmates. This article will first describe the origins of the decision in 1942 for the extermination of certain state prisoners. Then the actual process of transfer will be investigated in detail, examining issues such as the background of the\ud transferred inmates and the participation of prison officials. The article will also deal with the fate of the state prisoners after their transport to the Nazi concentration camps and the radicalization of policy against the prisoners remaining\ud in the state penal institutions. Exploring these issues contributes to\ud our knowledge of the treatment of deviants in the Third Reich.\ud But this article will also address some wider issues concerning the nature of the Nazi dictatorship, such as the origins of extermination policies in the Third Reich. In recent years, a number of historians have argued that it was time to move beyond the “sterile debates” between so-called intentionalist historians, who focused on the murderous will and ideology of the Nazi leaders, above all Hitler, and so-called structuralist historians, who pointed to the dynamic and uncoordinated interactions between different agencies of the Nazi dictatorship that led to a “cumulative radicalization” (Hans Mommsen). Various historians have now put forward a synthesis of both positions, while ground-breaking empirical research into the “final solution” has posed new questions and provided new answers. Still, many of the more recent studies of Nazi genocide continue to explore central issues first raised in the debates between intentionalists\ud and structuralists such as Hitler’s role in extermination policy, the interaction between regional officials and the decision makers in Berlin, and the role of racial ideology versus more material motives in Nazi mass murder. This study of the “annihilation through labor” of state prisoners addresses some of these general issues.\ud It will also shed new light on the relation between the judiciary and the\ud police in the Third Reich. The postwar portrait of a passive or even anti-Nazi\ud judiciary has not gone unchallenged. Still, many historians continue to describe the judicial authorities and the police as having been in a constant state of conflict. They describe the Third Reich as a “dual state,” split between the “prerogative state” and the “normative state.” The latter was the traditional state apparatus, ensuring that normal life was ruled by legal norms. However, in matters that were thought to touch on the interest of the state, the “prerogative state” could override these legal norms, above all through the agency of the police, locking up all political, racial, and social suspects in SS concentration\ud camps without trial. Thus, state attorneys and the police are seen as competing institutions of prosecution, while state penal institutions and concentration camps are described as competing institutions of confinement. A detailed investigation of the transfer of state prisoners can help to establish how far this picture of the “dual state” stands up to critical scrutiny.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 3 Erlaß des Chefs der Sicherheitspolizei und des Sicherheitsdienstes Reinhard Heydrich, 4.4.1938, reprinted in W. Ayass, ed., “Gemeinschaftsfremde”: Quellen zur Verfolgung von “Asozialen,” 1933-1945, Materialien aus dem Bundesarchiv series, no. 5 (Koblenz, 1998), pp. 124-26.
    • 4 For the term “dual racism,” see W. Wippermann, Wie die Zigeuner: Antisemitismus und Antiziganismus im Vergleich (Berlin, 1997), p. 142.
    • 5 W. Ayass, “Asoziale” im Nationalsozialismus (Stuttgart, 1995), and Das Arbeitshaus Breitenau (Kassel, 1992); G. Grau, ed., Hidden Holocaust? Gay and Lesbian Persecution in Germany, 1933-1945 (London and New York, 1995); D. Peukert, “Arbeitslager und Jugend-KZ: die 'Behandlung Gemeinschaftsfremder' im Dritten Reich,” in Die Reihen fast geschlossen, ed. D. Peukert and J. Reulecke (Wuppertal, 1981), pp. 413-34. For a general introduction to this topic, see J. Noakes, “Social Outcasts in the Third Reich,” in Life in the Third Reich, ed. R. Bessel (Oxford and New York, 1987), pp. 83-96.
    • 6 The German penal system consisted of different institutions of confinement: Zuchtha¨user (penitentiaries) for what were considered to be particularly serious offenses, ¨ ¨ Gefangnisse (prisons), and Gerichtsgefangnisse ( jails) for very short periods of confinement. The treatment of inmates in penitentiaries was generally harsher than in prisons (e.g., longer working hours). Jails are of no interest for the present study. The general term in this article used for both penitentiaries and prisons is state penal institutions. However, terms like “prison governors” refer to governors not just of prisons but of penitentiaries as well.
    • 7 Ayass, “Asoziale” im Nationalsozialismus, pp. 175-76; M. Burleigh and W. Wippermann, The Racial State: Germany, 1933-1945 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 180-81; ¨ Projektgruppe fur die vergessenen Opfer des NS-Regimes in Hamburg, ed., VerachtetVerfolgt-Vernichtet (Hamburg, 1988). There is only one useful more detailed account. However, it also fails to address vital questions concerning the transfer of “asocial” in¨ mates to the police and is not always accurate; R. Mohler, “Strafvollzug im 'Dritten
    • 12 The term “sterile debates” is used in U. Herbert, “Vernichtungspolitik: Neue Antworten und Fragen zur Geschichte des 'Holocaust,' ” in Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungspolitik: Neue Forschungen und Kontroversen, ed. U. Herbert (Frankfurt am Main, 1998), pp. 9-66, here p. 22. For a very clear introduction to the intentionaliststructuralist debate, see I. Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship (London, 1989), pp. 62-70.
    • 13 C. Browning, “Beyond 'Intentionalism' and 'Functionalism': The Decision for the Final Solution Reconsidered,” in his The Path to Genocide (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 86- ¨ 124; S. Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, vol. 1 (London, 1997). For an overview of new research, see the volume edited by Herbert.
    • 14 See the various essays in Herbert, ed.; see also C. Gerlach, Krieg, Erna¨hrung, Vo¨lkermord: Forschungen zur deutschen Vernichtungspolitik im Zweiten Weltkrieg (Hamburg, 1998), pp. 263, 287-88.
    • 15 R. Angermund, Deutsche Richterschaft, 1919-1945 (Frankfurt am Main, 1990); I.
    • ¨ Muller, Hitler's Justice (London, 1991); Redaktion Kritische Justiz, ed., Der UnrechtsStaat, vol. 1 (Frankfurt am Main, 1979), and Der Unrechts-Staat, vol. 2 (Baden-Baden, 1984); B. Diestelkamp and M. Stolleis, eds., Justizalltag im Dritten Reich (Frankfurt am Main, 1988).
    • 16 The main representative of this line of interpretation is the historian Lothar Gruchmann. See L. Gruchmann, “Rechtssystem und nationalsozialistische Justizpolitik,” in ¨ Das Dritte Reich, ed. M. Broszat and H. Moller (Munich, 1986), pp. 83-103, and “Die 'rechtsprechende Gewalt' im nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem,” in Der Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur Ideologie und Herrschaft, ed. W. Benz, H. Buchheim, and H. Mommsen (Frankfurt am Main, 1¨993), pp. 78-103, and Justiz im Dritten Reich: An¨ passung und Unterwerfung in der Ara Gurtner, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeit-
    • 20 Table talk of May 10, 1942, reprinted in H. Picker, ed., Hitlers Tischgespra¨che im Fu¨hrerhauptquartier, 3d ed. (Stuttgart, 1976), p. 280. For the wider context, see T. Mason, “The Legacy of 1918 for National Socialism,” in German Democracy and the Triumph of Hitler, ed. A. Nicholls and E. Matthias (London, 1971), pp. 215-39. Mason, however, only focuses on the lessons the Nazis drew from the revolution in 1918 in regard to the working class.
    • 21 Table talk of April 7, 1942; May 22, 1942; and July 7, 1942; reprinted in Picker, ed., pp. 200, 331-32, 430.
    • 22 Table talk of July 7, 1942, reprinted in ibid., p. 430.
    • 23 Table talk of April 7, 1942, reprinted in ibid., p. 201.
    • 24 R. J. Evans, Szenen aus der deutschen Unterwelt (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1997), pp. 119, 123. This theme was apparently not central in Hitler's mind in earlier periods. For instance, in his speeches in the early 1920s, he used the term “November-criminal” to at¨ tack Jews and “Bolsheviks,” not common criminals; see E. Jackel and A. Kuhn, eds., ¨ Hitler: Samtliche Aufzeichungen, 1905-1924 (Stuttgart, 1980).
    • 25 See, e.g., M. M. Weber, Ernst Rudin: Eine kritische Biographie (Berlin, 1993), pp. 89-90. ¨
    • 26 BA Berl¨in, R 22/4199, Bl. 8-137: Besprechung mit den Chefprasidenten und Generalstaatsanwalten im RJM, 29.9.1942, here Bl. 39.
    • 27 Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen zur Aufklarung nationalsozialistischer Gewaltverbrechen in Ludwigsburg (hereafter cited as ZStL), II 416 AR 2643/65, Bl. 117-21: interrogation Eugen E., 25.1.1949. See also the judgment of the Landgericht ¨ Wiesbaden¨of 24.3.1952 (2 Ks 2/51), reprinted in A. L. Ruter-Ehlermann, H. H. Fuchs, and C. F. Ruter, eds., Justiz und NS-Verbrechen: Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen ¨ nationalsozialistischer Totungsverbrechen, 1945-1966, vol. 6 (Amsterdam, 1971), pp. 267-367, here p. 274.
    • 28 On September 30, 1942, there were 190,250 state prisoners in Nazi Germany; BA Berlin, R 22/897, Bl. 82: Gesamtbelegung am 30. September 1942. ¨ ¨29 F. von Liszt, “Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht,” in Strafrechtliche Aufsatze und Vortrage, ed. F. von Liszt, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1905), pp. 127-78, here pp. 167-70.
    • 30 See, e.g., R. Christians, “Ziele des Strafvollzugs,” Blatter fur Gefangniskunde (hereafter cited as BlGefK) 68 (1937-38): 339-50.
    • 31 Goebbels diary entry of September 15, 1942, reprinted in Die Tagebu¨cher von Jo¨ seph Goebbels, ed. E. Frohlich, vol. 2/5 (Munich, 1995), p. 504; BA Berlin, R 22/4062, Bl. 52: Aussprache zwischen Thierack und Lammers, 16.9.1942; K. H. Roth, “ 'Abgabe asozialer Justizgefangener an die Polizei'-eine unbekannte Vernichtungsaktion der ¨ Justiz: Eine Dokumentation,” in Heilen und Vernichten im Mustergau Hamburg: Bevolkerungs- und Gesundheitspolitik im Dritten Reich, ed. A. Ebbinghaus, H. Kaupen-Hass, and K. H. Roth (Hamburg, 1984), pp. 21-25, here p. 21.
    • 32 BA Berlin, R 22/4062, Bl. 35a-37: Besprechung mit Reichsfu¨hrer SS Himmler am 18.9.1942 in seinem Feldquartier. At first, this program was only aimed at male prisoners, as well as female Jewish, Polish, and Sinti and Roma inmates. However, “asocial” women in security confinement and penitentiaries were later (possibly from December 1942 onward) also included in the program.
    • 33 “Gesetz gegen gefahrliche Gewohnheitsverbrecher und u¨ber Maßregeln der Siche¨ rung und Besserung vom 24.11.1933,” Monatsschrift fur Kriminalpsychologie und Strafrechtsreform (hereafter cited as MSchriftKrim) 25 (1934): 261-68; Gruchmann, Justiz im Dritten Reich (n. 16 above), pp. 838-40. For the background and the application ¨ of this law, see C. Muller, Das Gewohnheitsverbrechergesetz vom 24. November 1933: Kriminalpolitik als Rassenpolitik, Juristische Zeitgeschichte series, no. 3/2 (BadenBaden, 1997). By February 1941 there were fourteen individual institutions or special wards for the security confined.
    • 34 Between 1934 and 1938, 7,862 inmates were sentenced to security confinement. By April 30, 1938, 701 inmates had been released, only for at least seventy-nine of them to be immediately arrested again. From May 1940 onward, no more inmates were released ¨ at all; F. Exner, “Wie erkennt man den gefahrlichen Gewohnheitsverbrecher?” Deutsche ¨ Justiz 11 (1943): 377-79; A. Wingler, “1. Tagung der Gesellschaft fur Deutsches Strafrecht, Mu¨nchen 27./29. Oktober 1938,” BlGefK 69 (1938): 305-12, here p. 310; BA ¨ Berlin, R 22/1337, Bl. 416: Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwalte, 4.5.1940. with “the problem asocials.” On October 1, 1942, Thierack informed Lammers that Hitler had endorsed the plans for the “treatment of the associals (sic)”; BA Berlin, R 22/4062, Bl. 52-53: Fortsetzung der Aussprache am 16.9.1942; ibid., Bl. 50: Besprechung mit Reichsminister Dr. Lammers am 1. Oktober 1942. ¨
    • 38 L. Gruchmann, “Hitler u¨ ber die Justiz: Das Tischgesprach vom 20. August 1942,” ¨ Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 12 (1964¨): 86-101, here pp. 86, 91. ¨
    • 39 Evans (n. 18 above), pp. 696-700; A. L. Ruter-Ehlermann and C. F. Ruter, eds., Justiz ¨ und NS-Verbrechen: Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischer Totungsverbrechen, 1945-1966, vol. 4 (Amsterdam, 1970), pp. 149-55.
    • 40 W. Johe, Die gleichgeschaltete Justiz (Frankfurt am Main, 1967), p. 175.
    • 41 See BA Berlin, R 22/1437, Bl. 60-61: Vermerk, 15.2.1937; BA Berlin, R 22/1429, Bl. 133: Reichsfu¨ hrer SS to Reichsminister der Justiz, 26.8.1939.
    • 42 Friedlander (n. 2 above), pp. 88, 117; G. Aly, “Medizin gegen Unbrauchbare,” in Aussonderung und Tod: Die klinische Hinrichtung der Unbrauchbaren, Beitra¨ge zur Nationalsozialistischen Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1985), pp. 9-74, here pp. 42-44; Gruchmann, Justiz im Dritten Reich (n. 16 above), p. 516.
    • 43 BA Berlin, R 22/1238, Bl. 286: Reichsminister der Justiz to Oberreichsanwalt beim ¨ ¨ Volksgerichtshof, Oberlandesgerichtsprasidenten, and Generalstaatsanwalte, 16.4.1942.
    • 44 BA Berlin, 99 US 2 FC 585, microfilm 22933, Bl. 287: Reichsminister der Justiz to Reichsleiter Bormann, 13.10.1942. It was already agreed in the meeting between Himmler and Thierack on September 18, 1942, that “in future criminal law cases involving Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Russians and Ukrainians should no longer be dealt with by ordinary courts, but by the Reichsfu¨hrer SS”; BA Berlin, R 22/4062, Bl. 35a-37: Besprechung mit Reichsfu¨hrer SS Himmler am 18.9.1942 in seinem Feldquartier. This agreement excluded Poles in the German Volksliste.
    • 45 See, e.g., Besprechung zwischen dem Reichsfu¨hrer-SS Heinrich Himmler und Reichsjustizminister Thierack, 21.12.1942; reprinted in Ayass (n. 3 above), pp. 319-20. For the wider context,¨ P. Wagner, “Das Gesetz u¨ber die Behandlung Gemeinschaftsfremder,” in Feinderklarung und Pra¨vention: Kriminalbiologie, Zigeunerforschung und Asozialenpolitik, Beitra¨ge zur Nationalsozialistischen Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik, vol. 6 (Berlin, 1988), pp. 75-100. See also Angermund, p. 186; Werle, pp. 619-80.
    • 46 BA Berlin, film¨44325, interrogation Albert Hupperschwiller, 24.1.1947; Ru¨terEhlermann, Fuchs, Ruter, eds. (n. 27 above), p. 317.
    • 47 ZStL, VI 415 AR-Nr 1310/63, Staatsanwaltschaft beim Kammergericht Berlin, Einleitungsvermerk vom 30.4.1965. The transfer apparently also included a small number of Jews, Sinti and Roma, Russians, and Ukranians in state workhouses; BA Berlin, 99 US 2 ¨ FC 588, microfilm 22941, Bl. 56-61: Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwalte, 22.10.1942.
    • 48 BA Berlin, R 22/Pers. 67687; ibid., R 2/Pers. SG (ex. BDC), Rudolf Marx.
    • 54 At the end of March 1943, after large numbers of Polish prisoners had already been handed over to the police, there were still 36,148 Poles in German penal institutions¨ almost 19 percent of all state prisoners; Institut fur Zeitgeschichte, Munich (hereafter cited as IfZ), MA 624, Bl. 3664437-38: Vermerk, Reichsjustizministerium, no date.
    • 55 Thuringisches Staatsarchiv Meiningen (hereafter cited as ThStA Mgn.), Zuchthaus Untermaßfeld, Nr. 456.
    • 56 The figure consists of 4,296 inmates in security confinement (including 223 women) and 4,517 inmates in penitentiaries with subsequent security confinement (including 267 women); BA Berlin, R 22/1417, Bl. 141: Abgabe an die Polizei, Stand: 24. April 1943.
    • 57 BA Berlin, film 44184, interrogation Karl Engert, 5.12.1946; E. Kogon, Der SSStaat (Munich, 1995), pp. 68-69; H. Eiden, “Das war Buchenwald: Tatsachenbericht,” in ¨ H. Gobrecht, ed., Eh' die Sonne lacht: Hans Eiden-Kommunist und Lageraltester im KZ Buchenwald (Bonn, 1995), pp. 207-64, here p. 221.
    • 58 E. Schmidt, “Sicherungsverwahrung in Zahlen,” in Dringende Fragen der Sicherungsverwahrung, ed. R. Freisler and F. Schlegelberger (Berlin, 1938), pp. 105-13; J. Hellmer, Der Gewohnheitsverbrecher und die Sicherungsverwahrung, 1934-1945, Kriminologische Forschungen series, no. 2 (Berlin, 1961), pp. 41-50, 209-47, 261-66, 300; F. Weber, “Erfahrungen in der Sicherungsanstalt,” BlGefK 68 (1938): 429-48, here ¨ p. 432; L. Lotz, Der gefahrliche Gewohnheitsverbrecher, Kriminalistische Abhandlungen series, no. 41 (Leipzig, 1939), p. 46.
    • 59 Th¨StA Mgn., Zuchthaus Untermaßfeld, Nr. 311, Bl. 19-45: Urteil des Sondergerichts fur den Oberlandesgerichtsbezirk Jena, 11.7.1940; ibid., Bl. 47: Selbstverfasster Lebenslauf des Gefangenen F., 30.7.1940; ibid., Bl. 76: Strafanstaltsdirektor Gericke to Oberstaatsanwalt bei dem Landgericht in Weimar, 28.1.1943.
    • 60 The meeting for south German governors took place on¨October 19, 1942; the meetin¨g for north and west German governors one day later; Ruter-Ehlermann, Fuchs, and Ruter, eds. (n. 27 above), p. 283.
    • 61 IfZ, MB-1, interrog¨ation Otto Gu¨ ndner, 12.3.1¨948, 13.3.1948, 15.3.1948, 16.3.1948, 17.3.1948; Ruter-Ehlermann, Fuchs, and Ruter, eds. (n. 27 above), pp. 313-14.
    • 62 This passage is based on two preserved questionnaires filled in by the governor of the penal institution in Kassel-Wehlheiden on March 29, 1944. It seems likely that the same forms were used in 1942/3; ZStL, VI 416 AR-Nr 1127/66, Bl. 280-81.
    • 63 BA Berlin, film 44564, interrogation Joseph P., 17.12.1946; BA Berlin, 99 US 2 FC ¨ 38577/47455 P, testimony Benedikt W., Militargerichtshof Nr. 3, Nuremberg, 28.4.1947.
    • 64 BA Berlin, R 22/Pers 55261; BA Berlin, R 22/4349, ¨Bl. 51-53; BA Berlin, R 2/Pers. SG (ex. BDC), Karl Engert; BA Berlin, R 22/58, Geschaftsverteilungsplan; BA Berlin, film 4¨4184, interrogation Karl Engert, 6.12.1946, 6.2.1947; Ifz, F 37/2, 1942/II, Telefongesprache des Reichsfu¨ hrers SS am 18.9.1942. The members of section XV were later
    • 70 IfZ, MB-1, Staatsanwaltschaft Wiesbaden, interrogation Kurt Giese, 3.6.1948; BA Berlin, R 2/Pers. SG (ex. BDC), Kurt Giese. Giese later introduced Herbert Peter, a more ¨ junior member of the Chancellery of the Fuhrer, to the murderous project. For the workings of the chancellery, see J. Noakes, “Philipp Bouhler und die Kanzlei des Fu¨ hrers der ¨ NSDAP,” in Verwaltung contra Menschenfu¨ hrung, ed. D. Rebentisch and K. Teppe (Gottingen, 1986), pp. 208-36.
    • 71 BA Berlin, film 44184, interrogation Karl Engert, 5.12.1946; BA Berlin, film 44325, interrogation Albert Hupperschwiller, 24.1.1947.
    • 72 IfZ, MB-1, Ernst Niekisch to Deutsche Justizverwaltung, 8.12.1948.
    • 73 BA Berlin, film 44184, interrogation Karl Engert, 5.12.1946.
    • 74 IfZ, MB-1, interrogation Herbert Peter, 13.7.1948.
    • 75 IfZ, MA 624, Bl. 3664611-12: Anzeigen der Anstaltsvorsta¨nde u¨ber die durch Abteilung XV zu u¨berprufenden Gefangenen, 7.12.1942. Political opponents of the regime ¨ were routinely sentenced to very lengthy spells in penitentiaries. Only very few political prisoners had been sentenced to security confinement (see n. 89). And following a secret decree of October 22, 1942, all of these inmates were to be individually examined by Engert's commission as well; BA Berlin, 99 US 2 FC 588, microfilm 22941, Bl. 56-61: ¨ Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwalte, 22.10.1942.
    • 76 IfZ, MB-1, Vermerk u¨ber die Ru¨cksprache mit Dr. Brill, 3.9.1949; IfZ, ED 106, Bd. 86, Bl. 131-35: Eduard W. (et al.) to Oberstaatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht Hannover, ¨ 15.5.1948. For Brill, see M. Overesch, Hermann Brill: Ein Kampfer gegen Hitler und Ulbricht (Bonn, 1992).
    • 77 For instance, according to the prison ledger of the Ebrach penitentiary, nineteen of the thirty-six inmates transported to Mauthausen between June 1943 and March 1944 after “individual” examinations had been sentenced for murder; BA Berlin, 99 US 2 FC 588, Microfilm 22941, Bl. 89-102: Ebrach Prisoner Ledger.
    • 78 Staatsarchiv Mu¨nchen (hereafter cited as StAMu¨), Justizvollzugsanstalten Nr. 13672, Direktor Reitzenstein on Ernestine S., 11.2.1943.
    • 79 Ibid., Direktor der Anstalt Aichach to Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht Wien II, 2.12.1943.
    • 82 BA Berlin, R 22/4049: Vorstand des Zuchthauses Kaisheim to Reichsminister der Justiz, 29.10.1942.
    • 83 Of the 684 prisoners in Ebrach, 129 were sentenced to subsequent security confinement and were deemed “incorrigibly asocial”; sixty-seven prisoners had received sentences of more than eight years for political crimes; fifty-seven inmates had been sentenced to more than eight years for nonpolitical crimes and were seen as “asocial”; four inmates were Jews and three inmates were Sinti and Roma; BA Berlin, R 22/4045, Bl. 55: Vorstand des Zuchthauses Ebrach to Reichsminister der Justiz, 29.10.1942. ¨
    • 84 ZStL, Sammelakte Nr. 27a, Antrag des Oberstaatsanwalts in Wiesbaden auf Eroffnung des Hauptverfahrens vor dem Schwurgericht Wiesbaden, 24.11.1949; here reference to the testimony of S. Noerr.
    • 85 Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwa¨lte, 2.11.1942; reprinted in ZStL, VI 416 AR-Nr 1127/66, Bl. 259.
    • 86 BA Berlin, R 22/1417, Bl. 141: Abgabe an die Polizei, Stand: 24. April 1943.
    • ¨87 This exception was Dr. Karl-Friedrich Engelhardt, the governor of the RemscheidLuttringhausen penitentiary; for Engelhardt, see ZStL, VI 416 AR-Nr 1127/66, Bl.
    • ¨ 174-80: Vorstand der Strafanstalt Remscheid-Luttringhausen to Generalstaatsanwalt in ¨ Dusseldorf, 27.8.1947; A. Breidenbach, Antifaschistischer Widerstand im Zuchthaus Remscheid-Lu¨ttringhausen (Remscheid, 1992), pp. 13-14; Justizakademie des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (n. 81 above), sources 29d, 29g.
    • 93 StAM¨ u¨, Oberlandesgericht Mu¨nchen Nr. 527, Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwalte, 18.8.1942.
    • 94 BA Berlin, R 3001/5982, Bl. 89-99: Reichsministerium der Justiz¨, Kommissarische Beratung vom 11.10.1933 u¨ber den Entwurf eines Gesetzes gegen gefahrliche Gewohnheitsverbrecher und u¨ber Maßregeln der Sicherung und Besser¨ung, 19.10.33; ibid., R 22/ 1337, Bl. 319: Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwalte, 2.7.1937; ibid., R 22/ 1338, Bl. 11: Ministerialrat Schmidt to Stolzenburg, 17.6.1935; ibid., R 22/1337, Bl. 330: ¨ Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaatsanwalte, 8.3.1938; D. Majer, “Fremdvo¨lkische” im Dritten Reich: Ein Beitrag zur nationalsozialistischen Rechtssetzung und Rechtspraxis in Verwaltung und Justiz unter besonderer Beru¨cksichtigung der eingegliederten Ostgebiete und des Generalgouvernement, Schriften des Bundesarchivs series, no. 28 (Boppard 1981), p. 649.
    • 95 Scharf¨(n. 52 above), pp. 834-35.
    • 96 StAMu, Generalstaatsanwalt beim Oberlandesgericht Mu¨nchen, Nr. 52, Frauenstraf- und Verwahrungsanstalt Aichach to Generalstaatsanwalt in Mu¨nchen, 18.2.1943;
    • 102 BA Berlin, R 22/1429, Bl. 106-21: Niederschrift u¨ber die Besprechung mit den Vorsta¨nden der Sicherungsanstalten der Reichsjustizverwaltung, 14.8.1939.
    • 103 O. Seibert, “Invaliden-Sicherungsanstalten,” BlGefK 69 (1938): 286-90, here p. 286.
    • 104 BA Berlin, R 22/1261, Reichsminister der Justiz to Generalstaa¨tsanwa¨lte, 28.10. 1939; ibid., R 22/1442, Bl. 125: Verordung des Reichsministers fu¨r Ernahrung und Landwirtschaft, 16.1.1940.
    • 105 StAMu¨, Justizvollzugsanstalten, Nr. 10756; ibid., JVA 12340, Krankenakte Elisabeth S.; ibid., Justizvollzugsanstalten, Nr. 7112; ibid., JVA 12340, Krankenakte Luise M.
    • 106 More than 17,300 state prisoners were part of the “general transfer.” By February 23, 1944, 2,464 inmates had already been transferred to the police as part of the “individual transfer.” By the end of the war, this figure had probably increased to approximately three thousand; ZStL, VI 415 AR-Nr 1310/63, Staatsanwaltschaft beim Kammergericht Berlin, Einleitungsvermerk vom 30.4.1965.
    • 107 The Wiesbaden State Prosecution after the war conducted an investigation into the transfer of state prisoners. Of 3,696 prisoners who were individually identified as having been handed over, it was established that 1,712 had died and 580 had survived the war. In all other cases, the fate of the prisoners was unknown. Undoubtedly, at least half of those prisoners also died in the camps. After all, the prosecution authorities had put all the Jewish prisoners into this “unknown” category. Thus, at least 2,414 prisoners in the sample can be assumed to have died; ZStL, VI 415 AR-Nr 1310/63, Staatsanwaltschaft beim Kammergericht Berlin, Einleitungsvermerk vom 30.4.1965.
    • 108 Geheimerlaß des Chefs der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, 2.1.1941, reprinted in ZStL, VI 415 AR-Nr 1310/63, Staatsanwaltschaft beim Kammergericht Berlin, Einleitungsvermerk vom 30.4.1965.
    • 109 Overall, approximately 11,200 state prisoners were taken to Mauthausen. At least ˇ´ 7,500 of them were German prisoners, another three thousand were Polish; H. Marsalek, Die Geschichte des Konzentrationslagers Mauthausen: Dokumentation (Vienna, 1974), p. 119.
    • 110 ZStL, Sammelakte Nr. 27a, Antrag des Oberstaatsanwalts in Wiesbaden auf Eroffˇ´ nung des Hauptverfahrens vor dem Schwurgericht Wiesbaden, 24.11.1949; Marsalek, p. 30; IfZ, MB-1, testimony Franz S., 4.10.1948.
    • 111 M. Fabreguet, “Entwicklung und Veranderung der Funktionen des Konzentrationslagers Mauthausen,” in Die nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager, ed. U.
    • ¨ Herbert, K. Orth, and C. Dieckmann, 2 vols. (Gottingen, 1998), 1:193-214, here p. 199.
    • 120 BA Berlin, R 22/895, Karl Engert, Ta¨tigkeitsbericht der Abteilung XV, Stand vom 23.2.1944; ThHStAW, Generalstaatsanwalt bei dem Oberlandesgericht Jena, Nr. 431, Bl. 172-87: Tagung der Oberlandesgerichtspra¨sidenten und Generalstaatsanwa¨lte im Reichsjustizministerium in Berlin am 10. und 11.2.1943; IfZ, MB-1, interrogation Friedrich W. Meyer, n.d.
    • 121 BA Berlin, R 22/895, Karl Engert, Ta¨tigkeitsbericht der Abteilung XV, Stand vom 23.2.1944; IfZ, MB-1, Bl. 129-40: interrogation Albert Hupperschwiller, 17.2.1948.
    • 122 BA Berlin, R 22/5103, Reisebericht des Staatsanwalts Dr. Gundner u¨ ber die im Auf¨ trag von Ministerialdirektor Engert vorgenommene Besichtigung von Arbeitsbetrieben bei den Vollzugsanstalten in Siegburg, Enisheim, und Rottenburg (Neckar), 26.1.1944.
    • 123 BA Berlin, R 22/895, Karl Engert, Tatigkeitsbericht der Abteilung ¨XV, Stand vom 23.2.1944; BA Berlin, R 22/5103, Reisebericht des Staatsanwalts Dr. Gundner u¨ ber die im Auftrag von Ministerialdirektor Engert vorgenommene Besichtigung von Arbeits-
    • 135 ZStL, Sammelakte Nr. 27a, Antrag des Oberstaatsanwalts in Wiesbaden auf Ero¨ffnung des Hauptverfahrens vor dem Schwurgericht Wiesbaden, 24.11.1949.
    • 136 Cited in Ruter-Ehlermann, Fuchs, and Ruter, eds. (n. 27 above), p. 278; Der Leuchtturm, vol. 18 (18.10.1942).
    • 137 BA Berlin, 99 US 2 FC 585, microfilm 22933, Bl. 142-68: Rede des Reichsministers der Justiz Dr. Thierack in der Grosskundgebung der NSDAP am 5. Januar 1943 in der ¨ Jahrhunderthalle in Breslau; ibid., Bl. 169-76: Rede des Staatssekretars Dr. Rothenberger am 17. Februar 1943 in Lu¨neburg; V. Klemperer, Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum
    • 142 See, e.g., H. Heer and K. Naumann, eds., Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944 (Hamburg, 1995); Burleigh; G. Aly and S. Heim, Vordenker der Vernichtung (Frankfurt am Main, 1993); Herbert (n. 2 above).
    • 143 For these organizational similarities, see K. Drobisch,¨“Konzentrationslager und Justizhaft: Versuch einer Zusammenschau,” in Die Normalitat des Verbrechens: Bilanz und Perspektiven der Forschung zu den nationalsozialistischen Gewaltverbrechen, ed. H.
    • ¨ Grabitz, K. Bastlein, and J. Tuchel, Deutsche Vergangenheit series, no. 112 (Berlin, 1994), pp. 280-97.
    • 144 For instance, Gruchmann, Justiz im Dritten Reich (n. 16 above).
    • 145 The administrative apparatus of the Gestapo was not as large as has been suggested in many postwar historical studies. Recent research has shown that the enforcement of Nazi policy relied to a large extent on information passed on from sources outside the police; K.-M. Mallmann and G. Paul, “Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent? Gestapo, Society, and Resistance,” in Nazism and German Society, ed. D. F. Crew (London and New York, 1994), pp. 166-96; R. Gellately, The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy, 1933-1945 (Oxford, 1990).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article