Chapter 26

Phone: Dept Z, I, II, V, VIII 11 00 27, IV, VI, VII (Unter den Linden 70—72) 12 00 34

Cable address: ReichsinnenministerNr I 176/38, 1014 gUrgentTo:

a.The Reich- and Prussian Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, attention: Government Councillor [Regierungsrat] URLAUCH or his deputy in office.b.The Foreign Office, attention: Councillor [AMTS- and HOFRAT] SCHIMPKE or his deputy in office.c.The Reich Minister of Justice, attention: Ministerial Office Director STADERMANN or his deputy in office.d.The Reich Minister for Education, attention: Government Councillor [Regierungsrat] JAEHNERT or his deputy in office.e.The Deputy of the Fuehrer, attention: SS-Inspector KNOBLAUCH or his deputy in office.f.The Reichsfuehrer SS and chief of the German Police attention: SS 2nd Lt, Government Councillor Dr. TANZMANN or his deputy in office.

a.The Reich- and Prussian Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, attention: Government Councillor [Regierungsrat] URLAUCH or his deputy in office.

b.The Foreign Office, attention: Councillor [AMTS- and HOFRAT] SCHIMPKE or his deputy in office.

c.The Reich Minister of Justice, attention: Ministerial Office Director STADERMANN or his deputy in office.

d.The Reich Minister for Education, attention: Government Councillor [Regierungsrat] JAEHNERT or his deputy in office.

e.The Deputy of the Fuehrer, attention: SS-Inspector KNOBLAUCH or his deputy in office.

f.The Reichsfuehrer SS and chief of the German Police attention: SS 2nd Lt, Government Councillor Dr. TANZMANN or his deputy in office.

SUBJECT: Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria.

The question of further validity of the Austrian Concordat (Konkordat) which has already been brought up by the Reich- and Prussian Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs in his letters to the Foreign Office of 22 March 1938—II 1563/38—and of 26 March 1938—G II 1596/38—, is one of fundamental importance for a number of matters to be worked out by the central office for the execution of the reunion of Austria with the German Reich as well as other offices of the Reich and Austria concerned with it. This question has to be brought to a conclusive clarification immediately.

I deem the following conceptions possible:

The Concordat will not be considered as binding already for the reason that it has not at all been reachedwithin the framework of the constitution.

The more detailed reasons for that are evident from the following:

1. The negotiations for conclusion of the Concordat had come to an end already on 5 June 1933, on which day the Concordat had been initialed in Vatican City.

Regardless of that, the Concordat was not submitted for further constitutional processing by the federal government of Austria for almost a whole year, because the National Council of Austria was considered suspended in accordance with the so-called "self-elimination" thesis represented by the federal government due to the resignation of all its three presidents, and beyond that, the acceptance of the Concordat could not be expected because of the majority relationships as they existed at that time within the National Council.

The constitutional processing, in accordance with article 50 of the federal constitutional law as provided for in the version of 1929 (RGBl Nr 1/1930), would have had to consist of the fact that the Concordat, being a political and law-changing treaty of the State, would have to be presented to the National Council for approval in order to attain its validity, in which connection the respective decision regarding the character of this State treaty, which simultaneously changes the constitution, can only be made in the presence of at least half of the members of the National Council with a majority of two thirds of the votes cast; besides, the decision of the National Council would have had to be submitted to further prescribed procedure (presentation to the Federal Council).

The Concordat was processed further only in conjunction with the development which led to the constitution of 1934, and that in the following manner:

While, up to that date, the repeatedly uttered request for another session of the National Council had always been opposed on the ground that it was impossible to convoke it because of the so-called "self-elimination program" and whilst, on the basis of this claim, one had governed by means of the enabling act for war economy which had originally been passed for certain exclusively economic purposes (RGBl. No. 307/1917), now all of a sudden, also based on this act, by a decree dated 24 April 1934 (RGBl. I No. 238/1934), the federal act concerning the rules of procedure of the National Council was amended to the effect that, although a president did not exist, the National Council was in a position to reassemble.

This procedure was absolutely unconstitutional. The Federal Government prevented through police power the attempt of the last-retired president of the National Council to revive this body by summoning the National Council anew in his capacity as the last president. On the other hand, the Federal Government had also constantly refused to use the possibility given by article 18, paragraph 3-5 of the Federal constitutional Law of 1929, to set the National Council going again through an emergency decree of the Federal president. Instead of this, in the meantime, all possible legal measures were based upon the enabling act for war economy, which was entirely contrary to the realm of authorization of this law and entirely against the constitution. An especially notorious abuse of the enabling act for war economy was the employment of the enabling act for war economy for the issuance of the aforementioned decree with which the rules of procedure of the National Council were changed.

As it turned out, the National Council summoned on this basis no longer had the composition with which it had emerged from the last elections; on the contrary it was only a rump-parliament, because all mandates of the Social Democratic Labor Party in the meantime were also declared void by a decree of February 16, 1934 (RGBl. I Nr 100/1934) also based upon the before-mentioned enabling act for war economy.

This rump-parliament assembled on 30 April 1934 for a conference in which solemn declarations were made by the Gross Deutsche Volkspartei and the Landbund—the two parties with outspoken National character—in which the constitutional legality of the whole procedure was expressly disputed, after which all delegates of the two named parties left the conference, with the exception of one delegate of the Landbund who at the same time was holding a public office, so that for the further discussions and resolutions only the before-mentioned one delegate of the Landbund and the delegates of the Christian-Social-Party and the Heimatschutz remained who together comprised only 76 delegates.

These 76 delegates now passed the so called Federal Constitutional Law concerning extraordinary measures within the jurisdiction of the constitution (RGBl. I Nr. 255/1934). Through Art. I of which the above mentioned decrees of Art. 50 of the Federal Constitutional Law of 1929 concerning the co-operation of the National Council in National treaties were cancelled. This constituted, in addition to the unconstitutional manner of the summons, a further very substantial violation of the constitution, in that—as has been mentioned already in the beginning—according to Art. 44, section 1, of the Federal Constitutional Law in the version of 1929, constitutional laws could only be passed in the presence of at least one half of the members of the National Council with a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, but the National Council consisted, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the election rules of 165 delegates and therefore the presence of at least 83 delegates would have been required in order to pass upon a resolution changing the constitution.

After the federal constitutional law of 30 April 1934 had also been presented to the Federal Council which for the same reasons as the National Council, held sessions as a rump body, and it had issued no protest, it was announced yet on 30 April 1934, causing the day of its taking effect to be 1 May 1934.

Already during the night of 30 April to 1 May 1934, the exchange of ratifications prepared with the Papal Nuntio took place and already on the 1 May 1934 the concordat was made public in the federal gazette.

From the preceding explanation it is evident, that the Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria has been concluded under circumstances which offer the possibility to represent, with reasons which cannot be contradicted, the point of view that the conclusion of the Concordat was completely in violation of the constitution and therefore no legal validity can be attributed to the Concordat. In this respect it has to be noted that the fact that the Concordat was concluded in violation of the constitution was regarded as a fact already at that time in all serious judicial circles in Austria. (Compare in this respect particularly also the remarks referring to the Concordat made in the work of Guerke on "The Austrian Constitution of 1934" in the archive of public law, new edition, volume 25, page 178 pp.).

This point of view would open up the following additional path:

The Reich government declares to the Holy See on the basis of these facts that, after examining the legal angle, it had come to the conclusion that for the reason stated it could not recognize the Concordat any longer and is combining with that also with the effect "ex nunc" and with simultaneous legal settlement of the questions remaining unclarified through the abrogation of the Concordat, the abolition of the Austrian legal regulations referring to the Concordat (Federal law RGBl II, Nr. 8/1934 in the version of RGBl Nr. 134/1935 and decree RGBl II Nr. 13/1934).

2. The Concordat has expired automatically, through the reunion of Austria with the German Reich, because Austria has vanished as independent state, has obtained the constitutional position of a German state and therefore lost the position as a subject of international law. This point of view which by reason of logic can surely only be takenretroactive to 13 March 1938, would be based more exactly on the following:

Within the international legal sphere there is no general legal succession of the territorial successor into the rights and duties of the territorial predecessor. It rather has to be scrutinized in each case separately, whether a legal succession in accordance with international law occurs. With the fall of the territorial predecessor, the bilateral state treaties concluded by him are as a rule void. However some exceptions to this principle are recognized: National practice has shown that state treaties will be renewed tacitly by the territorial successor simply by administering them further. But a new state may also be forced, in order to obtain desired recognition, to take over certain state treaties. A generalduty in accordance with international lawfor the fulfillment of obligations resulting from treaties made by the territorial predecessor, exists, however, only in the following cases: As a rule, state treaties which concern the territory of the state taken over as such, that is, so-called "ratifizierte" treaties (border treaties, treaties on rivers and roads of communication), will also fall to the territorial successor. Furthermore, those Concordats which have in accordance with customary law found recognition beyond the sphere of the partners of the treaty, will also be valid for the territorial successor. Lastly, rules can be established through a collective treaty which determines a certain order for a group of states. Those norms also remain in effect in case of territorial changes within that group and therefore also fall to the territorial successor. (Compare Verdross, international law 1937, Page 71.)

The following additional consequences would be combined with the conceptions mentioned above:

To 1: The establishment of the unconstitutional conclusion of the Concordat would first of all represent a strong moral verdict against the whole past system connected with the names Dollfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria, which could be politically very desirable for various reasons.

The attitude of the Reich government toward the other bilateral State treaties signed by Austria would not be prejudiced as no other state treaty of more importance was signed under the same circumstances as the Concordat. One would prefer this procedure in the expected discussions with other countries, some of which (Jugoslavia, Poland, England) have already referred to their stipulated rights in Austria.

The declaration that the Concordat will not be acknowledged on the grounds of unconstitutionality and the repeal of the connected Austrian legal provisions with "ex nunc" effect would not influence the validity of the legal acts based on the Concordat (especially on the field of matrimonial law as to states rights). An express legalization of the past is therefore not required.

Furthermore one could arrive at the point where the conception could be maintained that former Austrian territory, in contrast to remaining Reich territory, had become entirely free of the Concordat, an interpretation which would be especially unwelcome to the Holy See for various reasons, and would force open the entire question of the future relationship between the Reich and the Holy See with all the resulting consequences in favor of the Reich in eventual further conferences with the Holy See.

To 2: On a former occasion the church adopted this point of view, as the Reich- and Prussian Minister for church affairs has already pointed out in his letter to the Foreign Office of 22 March 1938.

Thus in a statement to the secret consistory of 21 November 1921 Pope Benedict XV discussed the question of the validity and tenure of the Concordats, since retroactive effects had arisen from the changes in state territories and organizations produced by the world war. Therein the Pope distinguished between countries which were newly created, countries with considerable territorial expansion, and countries which have changed so completely that they could not be considered the same "moral person". According to Pope Benedict XV opinion all these three classes of countries have "lost their privileges granted in former Concordats". It is quite evident, that Austria, after it became a part of the German Reich since March 13, 1938, cannot be considered the "same moral person" as before.

It has not yet been decided how the bilateral Austrian state Treaties of noneconomical nature which have been listed in the letter of the Foreign Office of April 6, 1938—R VII. 38 will be handled. One cannot yet perceive whether the Reich will take over one or the other of these treaties. This would no doubt be made use of by the Holy See to insist on the succession of the Reich as to the Austrian Concordat. On the other hand application of the theory of international law relating to succession of states as discussed above may lead to unnecessary suspicions in other cases, in which the Reich intends to bring about a peaceful solution with the other partner to the agreement.

If one is of the opinion that the Austrian Concordat is abolished by the actual reunion of Austria with the Reich then the question comes up whether, on account of the same fact of territorial expansion, the Concordat of the Reich logically would have to be regarded as applying to Austria too.

The Reich Concordat was, as far as I know, not expressly extended to the Saar-District, after the reembodiment of the latter into Germany; there can be no doubt, however, that the Reich Concordat has formal validity in the Saar-District today. Even though the Saar-District unlike the Federal State of Austria—had not concluded a Concordat of its own with the Holy See prior to its reembodiment, there can be no doubt as to the former independent legal competence in accordance with international law of the Saar-District. In view of a comparison with the Saar-District and the possible conclusion to be drawn with regard to Austria it seems advisable not to claim the expiration of the Concordat on the grounds that the Austrian independent state has ceased to exist.

The Austrian Concordat however, has established very incisive regulations in the sphere of matrimonial law as pointed out by the Reich Minister for Church Affairs, according to which the Canon Law alone is competent for marriages of Catholics; this law has the validity of a civil law; the publishing of bans and the laying down of obstacles to matrimony are stipulated according to Canon Law; Catholic Church authorities and law courts are competent for matrimonial affairs; the parson is a registrar at the same time. Should the Concordat therefore be considered as having expired as of March 13, 1938 a number of most complicated legal questions would arise; in particular the question as to what legal validity should be given to catholic matrimonies concluded in Austria after March 13, 1938 and which other legal consequences are to be considered as connected with such matrimonies. It would be regrettable should one have to draw the conclusion that legal acts based on the expired Concordat had subsequently to be sanctioned by the state.

On weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the two conceptions both of which can be supported by good legal arguments I should like to speak in favour of the conception explained under 1.

I shall be glad if you will inform me of your opinion about the question raised by May 15, 1938. I am quite aware of the fact that in view of its great political importance the decision can only be made by the Fuehrer and Reich chancellor.

After receipt of your communication I reserve the right to summon a conference.

Signed: Frick

SECRETD. RM.d.J. Berlin, May 13, 1938Special DeliveryTo The REICH AND PRUSSIAN MINISTER OF THE INTERIORc/o Ministerialrat Dr. Hoche

Subject: Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria.

Re: Communication of the 5th of this monthTO THE OFFICE May 14, 1938signed: Templev(?)5/14/Nr. 1-176/38 1014 g;Despatched May 14, 1938signed: Templev [?]Not later than today

Your communication, as per description on the margin was received here on the 9th of May. Considering the importance a proper handling of this matter carries for the official business under my jurisdiction I shall be unable to announce a final statement before the 15th of this month.

I therefore request that the time allotted me for a reply to the communication be tacitly extended to May 25.

for the office 5/14/38, 10 o'clock I.V.EK.(S) [Illegible]Final regulation of 5/23/38 with V a 146/38 g page 13V a 138/38 g

V a 138/38 g

1.Note: Of the 4 spare copies which were procured I have given one to Ministerialrat Ficker and at the same time one to KGR Kaulbach because of the question of canonical law and at the same time for the minister.

Ministerialrat Ruppert, who has already offered a preliminary opinion, wants to express his conclusive opinion at a later date, since, he will presumably not be present by the end of the week, because of his vacation.

The report on the matter will probably be made to Secretary of State, Dr. Schlegelberger's, on Saturday the 21st, the report to the minister's on the 23rd of May. The matter should be fully prepared by that time.

2. The office is requested to refer on Monday May 16 the occurrences, including any opinions of the Ministries concerned to Min-Rat Dr. Kriege who is handling the matter.

Berlin, May 14, 1938

Presented upon arrival from the Reich and Prussian Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs on May 11, 1938.

The 4 duplicates have been placed in the file of papers to be destroyed.

To: Mr. Kriege, Counsellor of the Ministry of Interior, respectfully submitted:

Mr. Thees has asked me to give my opinion on the letter of the Ministry of Interior, dated 5.5, regarding the Austrian Concordat, insofar as the letter pertains to my sphere.

With regard to the reform work in the field of matrimonial law and, in close connection with it, the creation of a uniform matrimonial law for Greater Germany, two points are of decisive importance:

a.The Concordat must not offer any impediment as soon as this matrimonial law comes into force.

b.The legislation for the execution of the Concordat, namely the law of 4.5.1934, has to remain in force until this time.

This result, decisive for any further action, cannot be achieved, in my opinion, on the basis of the first proposal of the Ministry of Interior. If the Concordat were null and void on account of unconstitutionality, then the same would apply to the legislation for its execution; the marriages based on the law of 4.5.1934 would be void and would have to be sanctioned with retroactive force. It is not clear to me how, on the basis of this reasoning, the Ministry of Interior can achieve a non-retroactive result in the nullification (p. 5).

There remains, therefore, the second solution proposed by the Ministry of Interior. If the Concordat excludes state succession, it seems to me, nevertheless, that the expiration of the law of 4.5.1934 does not result with effective date of 13.3.38. Even if an international pact expires, it seems to me that the legislation for the execution would bind the subjects until it was abrogated by an act of the state. The statements on page 9 of the letter are inaccurate insofar as the marriages which were contracted after 13.3 were not contracted by virtue of the expired Concordat, but by virtue of the law of 4.5.1934. Accordingly, it seems to me that continuing effect of the law of 4.5.1934 can be achieved in this way.

/S/ Ficker 18/5

SECRETReich and Prussian Ministry for Church AffairsBerlin W.8., 3, Leipzigerstrasse, 11th May 1938[stamp]Reich Ministry of Justice, 13th May 1938.Sect. V.Re: Austrian Concordat.Communication of the Reich Minister of the Interior, May 5, 1938I 176/38 1014 gVa 138/38g (Contents noted for the Minister)

The question whether the Austrian Concordat should be considered by the Reich Government as having been illegal and invalid from the very start, or as having been abolished by the revolution or whether it should be expressly cancelled can not be decided from a legal point of view but has to be decided from a political point of view.

This political decision can only be taken by the Fuehrer. Suggestions to this effect will be made to him by the Ministers competent in questions of foreign policy and of church affairs, i.e., by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Minister for Church Affairs, who have already contacted each other for this purpose.

Also the question of the Reich Concordats to Austria (which, by the way, is utterly unbearable) is not a legal but a political matter. The question of the continuation of the Reich Concordat and of the "state"—Concordats is connected with this problem. Here, too, the decision rests with the Fuehrer.

With regard to the execution of the necessary laws in Austria, resp. to the introduction of Reich laws in Austria the only decisive factor is the political interest of the Reich, whereby the Austrian Concordat will be considered as non-existent.

Signed: KERRL.To:

a.The Reich Minister of the Interiorb.The Ministry of Foreign Affairsc.The Reich Minister of Justice

a.The Reich Minister of the Interior

b.The Ministry of Foreign Affairs

c.The Reich Minister of Justice

d.The Reich Minister of Educatione.The Deputy of the Fuehrerf.The Reich Leader of SS troops and Chief of the German Policeg.The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancery

d.The Reich Minister of Education

e.The Deputy of the Fuehrer

f.The Reich Leader of SS troops and Chief of the German Police

g.The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancery

(In connection with a 146/38g) Va- 139/38g

SECRETThe Reich and Prussian Minister of Education, etc.Berlin W8, May 17, 1938Z II a Nr. 10074 Geh/38 Reich Ministry of JusticeMay 18, 1938Dept. V Off. a

In reference to the communication of May 5, 1938—I 176/38, 1014 g, V a 138/38 g, re: Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria.

I agree with your conception in the final analyses.

The Austrian concordat did not—according to your arguments—enter into a due constitutional existence and is therefore without legal effect. However, in contradistinction to your arguments, I believe it correct to assume that the treaty was void from the beginning (ab initio) and not from now on. Therefore all legal acts which have taken place up to the day of establishment of invalidity of the Austrian concordat would have to be sanctioned retroactively.

Looking at both possibilities, as presented by you, the Austrian concordat is void ab initio, in the first case as represented by you and also by me from the very beginning, in the second case from March 13, 1938 on. For legal considerations, in both cases, the subsequent sanctioning of any legal acts, carried out meanwhile, is absolutely required.

By registered mail.

1. Reich Minister and Prussian Minister of the Interior, Attention: Min. Buerodirektor Stoppel or acting deputy.2a. Reich Minister and Prussian Minister for Church Affairs, Attention Regierungsrat Urlacher or acting deputy.b. The Foreign Deputy Office, Attention Amts- and Hofrat Schimpke or acting deputy.c. Reich Minister of Justice, Attention Min. Buerodirektor Stadermann or acting deputy.

1. Reich Minister and Prussian Minister of the Interior, Attention: Min. Buerodirektor Stoppel or acting deputy.

2a. Reich Minister and Prussian Minister for Church Affairs, Attention Regierungsrat Urlacher or acting deputy.

b. The Foreign Deputy Office, Attention Amts- and Hofrat Schimpke or acting deputy.

c. Reich Minister of Justice, Attention Min. Buerodirektor Stadermann or acting deputy.

d. Deputy of the Fuehrer, Attention SS-Oberfuehrer Knoblauch or acting deputy.e. Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, Attention SS-Untersturmfuehrer Reg.Rat Dr. Tanzmann or acting deputy.

d. Deputy of the Fuehrer, Attention SS-Oberfuehrer Knoblauch or acting deputy.

e. Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, Attention SS-Untersturmfuehrer Reg.Rat Dr. Tanzmann or acting deputy.

to 2 Duplicate for taking note of.[In long hand:] Dr. KriegeV a 146/38/1 Encl. (2 dupl) Duplicate to fileE 26

The first possibility, the establishment of the legal invalidity of the Austrian Concordat, has in its favor, as ably shown by you, that a moral condemnation of the past system in Austria is brought about. This system seized the power without a mandate of the Austrian people and concluded the concordat without authorization on the part of the Austrian people. Further, I don't think, that we have to fear the effects upon the Saarland, which you indicated. However, it seems to me of the utmost importance, that the treaties, concluded by Austria with other states, have not been concluded under similar circumstances; therefore these states do not have to fear similar consequences, a fact, which should be pointed out at the time of the declaration of the invalidity of the Austrian concordat.

However, I think it advisable, to refer while dealing with the Curia, especially since this point of view was also advocated by Pope Benedict XV in his statement of November 21, 1921, before the Secret Consistory (Geheimkonsistorium).

I also take the position that Austria is without any concordat after the establishment of the invalidity of the Austrian concordat. I do not consider an extension of the Reich-concordat to Austria appropriate from the point of view of my office.

By authority of the State Secretary.

Signed KUNISCHCertified:[signature illegible]Verwaltungssekretaer

19 May 1938

1. Minister of Education, signed Kunisch, May 17, secret, sends copy of his letter of May 17th to the Minister of the Interior, concerning the Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria.

I agree with your concept as far as results are concerned.

The Austrian Concordat is devoid of legal validity, since it was not concluded in an orderly fashion and in accordance with the constitution, as apparent from your explanations. However, I shall have to differ with you on the point that the contract is not merely invalid "ex nunc" (from now on) but "ex tunc", i.e., from the very beginning. The necessity arises therewith to sanction retroactively all legal acts executed by reason of the Concordat till the date when invalidity of the Austrian Concordat was proven.

Entering upon the two possibilities explained by you, the Austrian Concordat would therefore be invalid "ex tunc", as far as your first case and also mine is concerned from the very beginning, and in the second case as of 13 March 1938. In both cases the need arises on the basis of judicial-political considerations for retroactive sanction of legal acts executed in the meantime.

The first possibility, the proof of the constitutional invalidity of the Austrian Concordat, carries a moral condemnation of the former system in Austria, as you have explained so fittingly: a system that without the mandate of the Austrian people had usurped the power of state and concluded a Concordat without the official approval (legitimation) of the Austrian people. I should add, that I have no fear of possible conclusions a posteriori concerning the Saar-District, which you have mentioned. I consider it of highest importance that other treaties concluded with other States by Austria were not made under similar circumstances, thus those States had no reason to fear similar repercussions for themselves, a fact which should be emphasized immediately upon presentation of proof of the invalidity of the Austrian Concordat.

However, I consider it correct procedure, that we should assist the Curia (Kurie) by showing them the second possibility, specially that this conception was advocated by Pope Benedictus XV in his declaration of 21 November 1921 before the Secret Consistorium.

I also support the viewpoint that after proof has been presented of the invalidity of the Austrian Concordat, Austria will be free of concordats. An extension of the Reich Concordat to include Austria I would not consider advisable or within the interest of my sphere of competence.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 682-PS

DISCUSSION OF THIERACK WITH DR. GOEBBELS ON SEPT. 14, 1942 IN BERLIN

1—2.15 p.m.

2. With regard to the destruction of asocial life, Dr. Goebbels is of the opinion that the following groups should be exterminated: Jews and gypsies unconditionally, Poles who have to serve 3-4 years of penal servitude, and Czechs and Germans who are sentenced to death or penal servitude for life or to security custody [Sicherungsvorwahrung] for life. The idea of exterminating them by labor is the best. For the rest however, except in the aforementioned cases, every case has to be dealt with individually. In this case, of course, Czechs and Germans have to be differently judged. There may be cases where a German sentenced to 15 years of penal servitude is not to be considered asocial, but in contrast to this a person sentenced to penal servitude up to 8 years may be.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 686-PS

Copy to RK 26272 B

Decree of the Fuehrer and Reichs Chancellor to strengthen German folkdom

Oct 7th 1939.

The consequences of the Versailles Treaty have been removed in Europe. Now the Greater German Reich has the possibility of admitting into its territory, Germans who had to live abroad, and to resettle them, and to arrange the settlement of the groups of people, within her sphere of interest, in a way that there will be better distinction between them. I entrust the Reichsfuehrer SS with the execution of this task according to the following regulations:

The Reichsfuehrer SS has the obligation in accordance with my directives:

1. to bring back for final return into the Reich all German nationals and racial Germans in the foreign countries;

2. to eliminate the harmful influence of such alien parts of the population, which represent a danger to the Reich and German folk community;

3. the forming of new German settlements by resettling and in particular by settling of the returning German citizens and racial Germans from abroad.

The Reichsfuehrer SS is authorized to take all necessary general and administrative measures for the execution of this obligation.

The Reichsfuehrer SS can assign certain living areas to the parts of the population in question in order to execute the tasks given to him in Article I, No. 2.

In the occupied former Polish territories the Administration Chief of the East [Verwaltungschef Ober-Ost] carries out the tasks assigned to the Reichsfuehrer SS according to the latter's general orders. The Verwaltungschef Ober-Ost and the subordinated chiefs of administration of the military districts are responsible for the execution. Then measures have to be adjusted to the requirements of the military leadership.

Persons who are furnished special orders in execution of this task, are not subject to military jurisdiction in that respect.

III

The tasks assigned to the Reichsfuehrer SS, so far as the reorganization of German farmers is concerned will be executed by the Reich Minister for Nutrition and Agriculture following the general directives of the Reichsfuehrer SS.

Otherwise the Reichsfuehrer SS will make use, within the territory of the German Reich, for the execution of his task of the existing authorities and institutions of the Reich, the states and the communities as well as all other public institutions and the existing settlement societies.

In case an agreement required by law and administrative organization cannot be reached about a measure to be taken, between the Reichsfuehrer SS and the competent higher Reichs-authority in the operational territory of the Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, my decision has to be sought through the Reich Minister and the Chief of the Reich Chancellory.

Negotiations with foreign governments and other authorities as well as with racial Germans, as long as they are still abroad, will be conducted in cooperation with the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs [Reichsminister des Auswaertigen].

If land is required for the settlement within Germany of returning German citizens and racial Germans the law on providing land for purposes of the army of March 29th, 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt I page 467) and its executive regulations will be applied to provide the necessary land. The tasks of the Reich agency for providing land [Reichsstelle fuer Landbeschaffung] will be taken over by the agency designated by the Reichsfuehrer SS.

The Reichsminister for Finance will provide the Reichsfuehrer SS with the necessary means for the execution of the measures.

Berlin 7 October 1939The Fuehrer and Reichschancellorsigned: Adolf Hitler.The Chairman of the Council of Ministersfor all Defenses of the Reichsigned: GoeringGeneral Field MarshalThe Reich Minister and the Chief of theReich Chancellerysigned: Dr. LammersThe Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forcessigned: Keitel.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 695-PS

SECRETCopyBerlin—SchoenebergBadensche Strasse 51, March 24, 1942Armed forces high commandz 2f 24. 73 AWA/prisoners of war [general?] (Ia),p. 389/428Reference:

a.armed forces high command/prisoners of war No. 3058/41 g of September 1941.

b.armed forces high command/prisoners of war No. 3624/41 g of November 2, 1941.

1. Treatment of Soviet prisoners of war.

The necessity of increased use of the labor of Soviet prisoners of war necessitates a new regulation of their treatment. The statutes in reference to this matter are repealed, and the following regulation is in effect in the future for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war:

A. Treatment of Soviet Prisoners of War in General

Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of National Socialist Germany. The Soviet soldier must on principle be considered a carrier of Bolshevism. Therefore it answers political necessity and the authority and dignity of the German armed forces, for every German soldier to keep his distance from the Soviet prisoners of war.

With cool and correct treatment, avoidance of violence and insults, and protection from public curiosity, the work done by the Soviet prisoners of war can be increased. It is forbidden to carry out retaliatory measures against them.

On the other hand, any attempted fraternization is to be rejected. Even the public must at all times be aware of the feeling of pride and superiority of the German soldier detailed to guard Soviet prisoners of war.

Ruthless and energetic action in cases of uncooperativeness, refusal to work, and negligence in work, especially toward Bolshevist agitators, is to be ordered; insubordination or active resistance must be completely removedimmediatelywith a weapon (bayonet, gun-butt, or firearm, no sticks). The decree concerning use of arms by the armed forces is to be interpreted strictly. Whoever does not use his weapon or does not use it energetically enough in seeing that an order is carried out is liable to punishment (see [volume?] VI, 12). Notation: also page 8).

2.All traffic between the Soviet prisoners of war and the civilian population is to be prevented.Special attention is to be given to the separation of the captured officers, which has in general already been carried out by the field army, in the territory of the armed forces commanders and in the Reich territory; especially since Soviet officers for understandable reasons frequently pass themselves off as enlisted men. Any communication between the Soviet officers and men, even by signs, must be made impossible. (see [volume?] V).

3. Acamp police corpsis to be formed within the camps and the larger labor details of suitable Soviet prisoners of war. This police corps will be appointed and supervised by commandants to keep order and maintain discipline.

B. Individual Instructions

I.Food and clothing:

4. According to principle all prisoners of war receive equal treatment. In regard to the feeding of Soviet prisoners of war, however, the rates established in the armed forces high command statute Az. 62 f Va/AG V III/V 3 (V d) of February 27, 1942, is in effect in the home war area.

If the food is prepared without loss of food value and if the distribution times are sensibly spaced throughout the day, these food rations are adequate to feed the prisoners of war. Points to be especially considered in preparing food are contained in the "Collection of orders No. 11".

Especially in winter, the food is to be served warm if possible and is to be distributed as often as possible during the day. The contractors should distribute warm food not only after work but also in pauses in the work. The suitable feeding of the Soviet prisoners of war is especially important, since their physical efficiency is low, partly as a result of years of undernourishment, partly as a result of food difficulties in the Soviet army and as a result of war events.

Since the prisoners of war recover more easily on individual fare outside the camps than on mass feeding in the camps, it is recommended that Soviet prisoners be put to work even if they are not yet completely fit for work. Full achievement cannot, of course, be expected in that case (compare army high command of 19 February 1942, Az. 2f 24. 17 b prisoners of war Org. (III b) No. 678/42).

As far as possible, foreigntobaccogoods will be made available for Soviet prisoners of war in the camps. German tobacco is not to be given to Soviet prisoners of war.

The matter ofclothingwas settled by decree army high command Az. 2f 24. 23a prisoners of war (II, 2) No. 5632/41 of 22 August 1941. According to this, the clothing debit of the Soviets corresponds to that of the other prisoners of war.

II.Work:

5. As a result of the general labor situation, the employment of the Soviet prisoners of war, including officers, derives decisive significance. In principle it is permitted everywhere, unless there are objections for reasons of defense in individual cases. (Compare enclosed statute Az. 2f 24. 17 b, chief of prisoners of war [organization?] III b No. 1474/42 of 1 April 1942, and No. 1396/42 of 9 April 1942)

In general labor columns of at least 20 men are to be provided for. Inindustrialeconomy, however, it is permissible in cases of urgent business necessity to use smaller labor details down to 5 men in various departments of the * * * concern, even in "protected" concerns. However, in such cases the employment of smaller groups requires the special approval of the competent defense post and of the armament command. A prerequisite is the presence of an adequate number of reliable foremen who have been investigated in regard to defense as "auxiliary guards".

The employment of officers requires the special approval of the army high command in each case.

The responsibility for the orderly employment of the Soviet prisoners of war in the Reich rests exclusively on the bureaus ordering their employment:

a.Armed forces high command, chief of prisoners of war affairs;

b.Reich minister for armament and munitions;

c.General plenipotentiary for the labor supply in the four-year plan.

The borrowing of Soviet prisoners of war is regulated for the Reich by statute Az. 2f 24. 27a prisoners of war (II, 2) No. 6999/41 of 29 September 1941, and supplementary statutes:

Back to Index Next