"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich (223 page)

35.
At a meeting held on May 31, 1940, the chief executive of the Central Department of Finance—supported by Frank—demanded immediate measures to bring about the “elimination” (
Ausschaltung
) of the trustees, against whom the following criticisms were leveled: most of them had already been called in by the CdZ (head of the civil administration) and earned vast sums, and they administered up to 25 businesses, often employing their wives on high salaries (Frank, “Diary,” 1940). Economic conference held on 6 and 7 June 1940 (Frank, “Diary,” 1940, vol. 2); the “rapaciousness” of the trustees was apparent above all in their practice of founding companies (to avoid personal liability). According to details given at a session of the Economic Council on October 31, 1940, at that time there were 2,500 firms under the management of 1,200 trustees (Frank, “Diary,” 1940).

36.
“Report 1939–45,” spring 1945, vol. 133, BA Ostdok. 13 GG IX a/5 (see note 31), which also explains that the trustee administration of the Warsaw District desists “from all arbitrary acts” and neither “could nor would mitigate the effects on those concerned … of actions taken in the fulfillment of the task entrusted to them.” However, the actions taken were strictly “in accordance with the law.” The final decision about Jewish assets lay with those who had the political say about the fate of the Jews.

37.
Already under the Military Administration, the head of the civil administration (CdZ) had arbitrarily ordered the seizure of Jewish firms whose owners had fled; the inventories were sold and the proceeds “placed in safekeeping” at the disposal of the Reich—letter from
Landrat
Sanok to head of the Civil Administration Kraków, October 5, 1939 (IfZ, Bestand Milbf., Ma-682, Bl. 0770). Regarding Jewish movable property, cf. letter from the government of the General Government, according to which the SS was to place at the disposal of the government the totality of Jewish movable property—whatever was in storage—as well as assets accruing from (police) seizures (Nuremberg doc., PS-2819).

38.
Value in January 1944, 180 million reichsmarks (quoted from Arndt, expert report, “Entziehung und Verbringung Jüdischen Vermögens”). Much higher values are mentioned in the next note.

39.
See Emmerich, chief executive of the Central Department of Economics, July 13, 1942 (Frank, “Diary,” 1942, 3:365). According to this account, there were 50,000 Jewish properties, of which 42,000 were donated to the municipalities in the manner described. The value of the properties (in January 1943) was 1.5 million złoty (equivalent to about 750 million reichsmarks) (budget discussion on January 23, 1943, Frank, “Diary,” 3:522 ff., 527).

40.
Cf. directive of the state secretary of the government of the General Government of May 16, 1941, in which the chief officers of the lower administrative authorities were made responsible for the orderly conduct of renovation work (ZS, Polen 256, 111 f.).

41.
General instruction no. 18/6 of December 15, 1942 (Nuremberg doc., NO-1943).

42.
For more details, see Arndt, “Entziehung und Verbringung jüdischen Vermögens,” expert report, 111 f., with numerous examples (e.g., Nuremberg doc., NO-724; PS-4024).

43.
Budget discussion on January 26, 1943, in Warsaw (Frank, “Diary,” 1943, 3:522 ff., 527), which betrays considerable uncertainty as to the legal position—the governors had no idea what to do with the seized real estate. Nevertheless, they reported that they had already issued administrative regulations in pursuance of the directive issued on December 15, 1942, by the
Reichsführer
-SS.

44.
Letter from SS-
Obergruppenführer
Oswald Pohl, head of the Central Department of Economic Administration (WVHA), to Frank, January 15, 1944 (Nuremberg doc., NO-5368), which includes the following comment: “I have not been informed about the outcome of the negotiations; however, it is clear that there has been no clarification of the competences.”

45.
Letter from Pohl to Frank, January 15, 1944, ibid.

46.
Frank, “Diary,” February 12, 1944, vol. 3).

47.
Decree on Fiscal Law and Fiscal Administration of November 17, 1939 (
VBl.GG
[1939]: 60). According to this, German “tax inspectors” working for the district administrations had supervisory powers. According to a statement made by the chief executive of the Department of Finance in the office of the governor general during a meeting of departmental heads on December 1, 1939 (Frank, “Diary”) there was one fiscal inspector for every 5–6 of the total of 125 Polish tax offices, which continued to function to the “complete satisfaction of the fiscal administration.” Only the customs offices were entirely staffed by Germans.

48.
Cf. letter from the Reich minister of finance to the Reich minister and head of the Reich Chancellery, May 7, 1942 (Nuremberg doc., NG-1328).

49.
Decree on the Increase in Real Property Tax of March 16, 1940 (
VBl.GG
1 [1940]: 109).

50.
Decree on the Levying of a Residence Tax of January 27, 1940 (
VBl.GG
1 [1940]: 211 f.).

51.
Decree on the Raising of a War Levy in Addition to the Residence Tax, April 16, 1942 (
VBl.GG
[1942]: 202).

52.
Amending decree of October 29, 1941 (
VBl.GG
[1941]: 617 f.). The rate was reduced through the revised version of the Decree on the Levying of a Residence Tax of December 6, 1941 (
VBl.GG
[1941]: 721 ff.); the lowest rate dropped to 12 złoty per annum.

53.
Decree of October 29, 1941 (
VBl.GG
[1941]: 617 f.).

54.
Decree on the Raising of a War Levy in Addition to the Residence Tax, April 16, 1942 (
VBl.GG
[1942]: 202).

55.
At least in Warsaw; cf.
Mitteilungsblatt der Stadt Warschau
, January 28, 1941 (Institute for Western Studies, Pozna
).

56.
Decree on the Withdrawal of Tax Exemption and Tax Privilege for Jewish Associations, issued on November 23, 1939 (
VBl.GG
[1939]: 60).

Part One. Section 3. C. III. Civil Service Law

1.
In this respect, see the “Principles for the Conduct of Germans in Poland,” published by the head of the Governor General’s Office on April 24, 1940 (
Doc. Occ
. 6:381 ff.), which applied in particular to all members of the administration. In addition, the explicit warning to public servants to avoid all contact with Poles and Czechs was reiterated in a letter from the head of the Governor General’s Office to all departments in-house and all district chiefs, October 11, 1940, Bühler trial XVI, K. 198 (reproduced in
Doc. Occ
. 6:380 ff.). Cf. “Diensttagebuch,” April 30, 1941, 372, IfZ: “The governor general requests State Secretary Bühler to ascertain once more whether the ban on personal contacts between German officials and employees of the administration and Poles has been breached in any way serious enough to warrant punishment. The occasion of this inquiry should be used to reiterate the ban with the utmost vigor.” Civil servants were also forbidden to learn the Polish language—indictment brought by the Polish government in the Nuremberg process, charge no. 12, sheet 10 (Nuremberg doc., PS-3226, in English).

2.
“The Governor General has repeatedly impressed upon officials, employees, and workers in the General Government that it is their bounden duty strictly to avoid intercourse of any kind with Poles and Czechs. He based this injunction on the consideration that
Deutschtum
in the General Government, as a self-contained entity in all its expressions, was subject … to the law of the National Socialist weltanschauung” (letter, October 11, 1941, “Diensttagebuch”).

3.
Letter from the office of the governor general (Bühler) to all departments and district chiefs, October 11, 1940 (
Doc. Occ
. 6:380 ff.); also employees in public service “who had personal contacts with Poles and Czechs … [would be subject] to the severest official sanctions.”

4.
Ibid., referring to a corresponding directive from the Führer.

5.
See also the decree of January 17, 1940 (
VBl.GG
1 [1940]: 13 f.).

6.
First Decree on the Payment of Emoluments to Reappointed Polish Officials and Employees of November 3, 1939 (
VBl.GG
[1939]: 28). However, the government of the General Government was empowered to make exceptions for certain groups or pay categories (decree of February 20, 1940, (
VBl.GG
1[1940]: 375). Report by F. Siebert, “Hauptabteilung Innere Verwaltung der Regierung des GG,” November 11, 1959 (BA Ostkok. 13 GG, no. 1 b/5). The inadequate remuneration of the Polish police, who had worked to the complete satisfaction of the administration, had contributed “very significantly” to the nonfunctioning of the administration.

7.
Decree issued by the government of the General Government on January 31, 1941 (ZS, Polen 256 Bl. 3).

8.
Decree on the Dismissal … of Reappointed Officials of the Former Polish State, July 31, 1942 (
VBl.GG
[1942]: 427 ff.); under the terms of the decree, all reappointed officials who “no longer give an assurance to the German administration that they will exercise their official duties conscientiously, in a spirit of unconditional obedience” were to be dismissed (sec. 1, par. 1). Nor would anyone dismissed in such circumstances be entitled to a pension. Economies were also foreseen: married women who had been reappointed were to be dismissed “if the level of family income was sufficient for their continuing needs” (sec. 4, par. 1), i.e., if the husband’s salary was sufficient.

9.
Report, F. Siebert, “Hauptabteilung Innere Verwaltung der Regierung des GG.”

Part One. Section 3. C. IV. 1. Professions Requiring State Licensing

1.
The right of accreditation of lawyers belongs in principle to the realm of judicial administration, the topic of part 2 of this volume. However, because the discriminatory practices of the authorities under special law had a particular impact on the legal code pertaining to attorneys, the subject is dealt with here.

2.
See, for example, a circular from the Central Department of Finance dated December 5, 1942 (BA R 22/5074), according to which tax consultants received accreditation in the General Government only if the services were carried out personally and entirely within the General Government. This meant that the prerequisite for gaining accreditation was to give up practicing in the Reich and that the license to practice there had to be withdrawn by the appropriate judicial authorities.

3.
See Decree on German Lawyers in the General Government, September 13, 1940 (
VBl.GG
1 [1940]: 297; Weh,
Übersicht über das Recht des Generalgouvernements
[loose-leaf collection] [1943], C 135), which stated that there was no right to accreditation. A clause forbidding German lawyers from continuing to practice in the Reich was written in for ethnic-political reasons: those practicing in the General Government were “ambassadors of
Deutschtum
in the outpost of the Eastern lands” (circular from the Central Department of Justice, February 17, 1942, and Main Commission Warsaw, Archive, Regierung des General Government/Hauptabteilung Justiz V/7) and therefore were not subordinate to the Chamber of Lawyers in their birthplace, but—like notaries—(Decree on German Notaries in the General Government of December 17, 1941,
VBl.GG
[1941]: 731; and Weh,
Übersicht über das Recht des Generalgouvernements
, C 138; Reich German and ethnic German (
volksdeutsche
) lawyers were entitled to appointment as notary publics in the General Government) they were subject to the authority of the
judicial administration
(sec. 3 of the decree of September 13, 1940,
VBl.GG
1 [1940]: 297; Weh,
Übersicht über das Recht des Generalgouvernements
, C 135).

4.
Circular from Central Department of Justice, February 17, 1942 (Main Commission Warsaw, Archive, Regierung des General Government/Hauptabteilung Justiz V/7); Wolfgramm, “Deutsche Rechtsanwälte” (1942), 1429.

5.
Wolfgramm, “Deutsche Rechtsanwälte,” 1428, referring to the circular from the Central Department of Justice of February 17, 1942 (Main Commission Warsaw, Archive, Regierung des General Government/Hauptabteilung Justiz V/7); according to this, German officials had complained that German lawyers were representing the interests of “non-Germans” who “were not even within the scope of jurisdiction,” for example in connection with confiscation of assets. In one case, it was reported, there had even been an attempt to exempt property owned by a “non-German” from incorporation in the Jewish quarter. This led to the cited ban on representing Polish interests.

6.
Wolfgramm, “Deutsche Rechtsanwälte,” 1429: “We need have no qualms about German lawyers representing Poles; indeed, it is even desirable, since they are duty bound to serve the establishment of truth.”