dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
clarification of the state of affairs and the question of guilt, is neither justified with regard to the future of the one involved nor with respect to the reduction of its moral effect. Therefore it must be expected that protective custody is only to be employed in really pressing and substantial cases.
I request that the county leaders be instructed orally to avoid any written communications; special emphasis on secrecy.
Protective Custody (Regulations)
Through the circular of the 25 January 1938, the Reich Minister of the Interior has issued new regulations regarding the introduction of protective custody. In the following, I announce the wording of this decree for confidential information.
Berlin 25 Jan. 1938
The Reich Minister of the Interior
The following regulations regarding protective custody go into effect on the 1 February 1938. At the same time, the following are rescinded:
a. My decree of 12 April 1934-I 3311 A/28.2 along with the supplement of 26 April 1934 and 10 July 1934 (directed to governments of the states and to the Reich statthalters).
b. My decree of 12 April 1935-VI B 757A/3014 along with the supplementary decree of 1 June 1935 VI B 11568/3014 (directed to the governments of the states, Reichstatthalter, Prussian presidents of government districts).
c. My decree of 17 June 1935-III P 3311/329 (directed to the state government and the Reichstatthalter.)
d. The decree of office of Secret State Police of 3 July 1934-B Nr. 19582 II I D (directed to the presidents of the Prussian government districts).
e. The decree of the Political Police Commander of the Lands of the 9 Sept 1935-B. Nr. 37840/35 II 1 D (direct to the Political police of the states and the Prussian State Police offices).
Article 1 Admissibility
Protective custody can be decreed as a coercive measure of the Secret State Police against persons who endanger the security of the people and the state through their attitude, in order to counter all aspirations of enemies of the people and state.
of the states and the Prussian State Police offices). Article 1 Admissibility Protective custody can be decreed as a coercive measure of the Secret State Police against persons who endanger the security of the people and the state through their attitude, in order to counter all aspirations of enemies of the people and state.
Protective Custody shall not be decreed for penal purposes or as a substitute for punitive arrest. Punishable offenses have to be decided finally by the courts.
Article 2 Competence
1. The Secret State Police exclusively is competent for the application of protective custody.
2. Motions in behalf of the application of protective custody have to be directed to the Secret State police through the State police offices. Every motion has to be substantiated in detail; the statements of the arrested person have to be considered in it. A copy of the hearing of the person temporarily apprehended has to be forwarded immediately.
3. Protective custody may only be inflicted if the accused has previously had a hearing on offenses imputed to him.
Article 3 Temporary Arrest
1. The Secret State police bureau, the offices of the State police director and of the State Police are authorized under the provisions of par. 1 to order the temporary arrest of persons:
a. If it is feared that the freedom will be abused for activities hostile to the state.
b. If danger of under-cover activities exists.
c. If there is suspicion of escape.
2. The accused has to be notified at the latest within 24 hours after the arrest. He is to be heard on the grounds for the infliction of the temporary arrest according to protocol.
3. A temporarily arrested person has to be released at the latest after an elapse of 10 days from the day of apprehension if the Secret State police bureau has in the meantime not decreed protective custody (5).
Article 6 Execution
The protective custody has to be executed generally in the State Concentration Camps.
Article 7 Duration
1. Protective custody shall only be upheld as long as it serves its purpose.
day of apprehension if the Secret State police bureau has in the meantime not decreed protective custody (5). Article 6 Execution The protective custody has to be executed generally in the State Concentration Camps. Article 7 Duration 1. Protective custody shall only be upheld as long as it serves its purpose.
2. The Secret State police bureau authorizes release from protective custody. For that reason the bureau investigates periodically but not exceeding 3 months, whether the protective custody should be cancelled. The release must have taken place, at the latest, on the third day after the lifting of the protective custody.
Article 8 Foreigners
As a matter of principle deportation procedure has to be carried out against foreigners who have been taken into protective custody unless particular reasons interfere.
Article 9 Executory Regulations
The Chief of the Security Police issues the necessary regulations for the execution.
Source:
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Document No. 1724-PS
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Next Document
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1724-PS
Press conference on August 4, 1938 headed by Regional Leader [Gauamtsleiter] Schoeller
Duration: 1 hour
[Page 1, par. 4]
The breaking up of the synagogue (information must still be secret).
On August 10, 1938 at 10 o'clock A. M. the breakup of the synagogues will commence. Gauleiter Julius Streicher will personally set the crane into motion with which the Jewish symbols (Star of David etc.) will be torn down. This should be arranged in a big way. Closer details are still unknown.
Source:
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Document No. 1725-PS
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Next Document
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1725-PS
1935 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART I, PAGE 502
Ordinance on Enforcement of the Law for Securing the Unity of Party and State of 29 March 1935
By virtue of the law for securing the unity of Party and State of 1 December 1933 (RGBl I, 1016) I order:
ARTICLE 1
1. The NSDAP and the Hitler Youth Movement, Inc. are to be expunged in the corporation register. The property of these corporations has without liquidation become the property of the NSDAP as a corporation of public law.
2. The land deeds and other public records are to be corrected free of charge on request.
3. Until the decree of the statute of the NSDAP (Article 1, Section 2 of the Law for Securing the Unity of Party and State of 1 December 1933), the previous statute of the National Socialist German Workers' Corporation, Inc., is applicable in this sense to the NSDAP as a corporation of public law.
ARTICLE 2
The SA,
The SS,
The National Socialist Driver Corps [Kraftfahrkorps].
The Hitler Youth (including the Jungfolk, the League of German Girls and Jungmaedel).
The National Socialist German Student League,
The National Socialist German Women's Auxiliary [Frauenschaft], are components of the party.
ARTICLE 3
The National Socialist League of German Physicians, Inc.,
The League of National Socialist German Jurists, Inc.
The National Socialist Teachers' League, Inc.,
The National Socialist People's Welfare, Inc.,
The National Socialist War Veterans' Administration, Inc.,
The Reich League of German Officials, Inc.,
The National Socialist League of German Technologists,
The German Labor Front (including the National Socialist foundation "Kraft durch Freude")
are the organizations affiliated to the NSDAP.
ARTICLE 4
1. The components of the NSDAP possess no legal character of their own and no property of their own.
2
Inc., The National Socialist League of German Technologists, The German Labor Front (including the National Socialist foundation "Kraft durch Freude") are the organizations affiliated to the NSDAP. ARTICLE 4 1. The components of the NSDAP possess no legal character of their own and no property of their own. 2. The NSDAP forms with its components as a corporation of public law, a unit for the domain of the entire organization, with reference to property rights. Therefore the entire corporation is exclusively obligated and justified as to property rights.
3. The Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP is the Plenipotentiary of the Fuehrer in all legal matters relating to property of the NSDAP. The Plenipotentiary rights include the right to assign sub-powers of attorney generally or for individual matters.
ARTICLE 5
1. The affiliated organizations can possess their own legal character.
2. The affiliated organizations are subject to the financial supervision of the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP.
3. The other legally determined supervisory rights are not touched by the financial supervision of the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP.
ARTICLE 6
All authorities have to assist the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP and his agent in the fulfillment of his duties and to conform with the requests of the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, which go to them on the basis of this order.
ARTICLE 7
1. The first enforcement order of 23 March 1934 (Voelkischer Beobachter, Munich edition No. 86 of 27 March 1934 and Berlin edition No. 87 of 28 March 1934) on the law for securing unity of party and state dated 1 December 1933 is abrogated.
2. Likewise all previous orders and regulations contrary to the above enforcement order on the law for securing unity of party and state of 1 December 1933 are abrogated.
ARTICLE 8
1. The Deputy of the Fuehrer issues terms for enforcement and supplementing Articles 2 and 3 of this order. The Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP issues the remaining terms for execution of this order.
2
order on the law for securing unity of party and state of 1 December 1933 are abrogated. ARTICLE 8 1. The Deputy of the Fuehrer issues terms for enforcement and supplementing Articles 2 and 3 of this order. The Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP issues the remaining terms for execution of this order. 2. This law takes effect on the day following its announcement.
Berlin, 29 March 1935
The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor
Adolf Hitler
The Deputy of the Fuehrer
R. Hess
Reich Minister without Portfolio
The Reich Minister of the Interior
Frick
Source:
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Document No. 1726-PS
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Next Document
COPY OF DOCUMENT 1726-PS
STATEMENT OF THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT IN VIEW OF THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE GERMAN MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
Enclosure "h" entitled: Central Bureau for Statistics
THE DEPORTATION OF NETHERLANDS WORKMEN TO GERMANY [Pages 1-3].
The enlistment of working labourers took quite a different course. Many big and reasonably large business concerns, especially in the metal industry, were visited by German commissions who appointed workmen for deportation. This combing out of the concerns was called the "Sauckel-action", so named after its leader, who was charged with the appointment of foreign workmen in Germany.
The employers had to cancel the contracts with the appointed workmen temporarily, and the latter were forced to register at the labour offices, which then took care of the deportation under supervision of German "Fachberater".
Workmen who refused (relatively few) were prosecuted by the "Sicherheitsdienst" (SD). If captured by this service, they were mostly lodged for some time in one of the infamous prisoners camps in the Netherlands and eventually put to work in Germany.
In this prosecution the "Sicherheitsdienst" was supported by the German Police Service, which was connected with the labour offices, and was composed of members of the N.S.B. and the like.
At the end of April 1942 the deportation of working labourers started on a grand scale. Consequently in the months of May and June the number of deportees amounted to not less than 22,000, resp. 24,000 of which many were metal workers.
After that the action slackened somewhat, but in October 1942 another top was reached (2,600). After the big concerns, the smaller ones had, in their turn, to give up their personnel.
in the months of May and June the number of deportees amounted to not less than 22,000, resp. 24,000 of which many were metal workers. After that the action slackened somewhat, but in October 1942 another top was reached (2,600). After the big concerns, the smaller ones had, in their turn, to give up their personnel.
This changed in November 1944. The Germans then started a ruthless campaign for man-power, passing by the labour offices. Without warning, they lined off whole quarters of the towns, seized people in the streets or in the houses and deported them.
In Rotterdam and Schiedam where these raids (razzia's) took place on 10 and 11 November, the amount of people thus deported was estimated at 50,000 and 5,000 respectively.
In other places where the raids were held later, the numbers were much lower, because one was forewarned by the events. The exact figures are not known as they have never been published by the occupants.
The people thus seized were put to work partly in the Netherlands, partly in Germany.
The events of the war then took such a turn that further deportations did not take place. But still in the North and East of the country, many men, up to 60 years, were seized and forced to build defence works in the neighbourhood of their homes.
Source:
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946
Previous Document
Volume IV Menu
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV Document No. 1741-PS Previous Document Volume IV Menu Next Document PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1741-PS PART 3 S BLN NR 51 7 AUG 8 AUG 0800- TO the Chairman of the German-French Economic Commission, Ambassador HEMMEN, Wiesbaden Hotel 4 Jahreszeiten. [Rubber Stamp] German Armistice Delegation for Economy Wiesbaden 8 AUGUST 1940 NO. 30 Incl. 1. NO. 70- Enclosed, I forward to you a copy of the draft of the note on occupation costs, which corresponds to the decisions made in the meeting of the H.P.A. on 31 July, and which in the meantime has the consent of the Chief of the OKW. I request to forward the note now. By Order /S/ WIEHL. NOTE: For the Chairman of French Delegation with the German Armistice Commission General Huntziger My General: By order of my government, I have the honor to inform you of the following: 1 According to Article 18 of the German French Armistice Agreement of 22 June 1940, the costs for the maintenance of the German occupational troops on French soil are to be borne by the French government. To carry out this term, an early settlement is necessary. 2 Considering the impossibility to calculate the coasts accurately at present, until further notice, daily installments of at least 20 million marks are necessary. These installments may be paid in French francs, Reichcredit checks [Reichskassen Scheinen] or other values, to be agreed on. The conversion of French francs has been fixed on a currency ratio at 1:30, subject to a later different settlement. The billeting of the German occupation troops on French soil is not included in the settlement of installments. The billet owners will be compensated for the billeting costs by the French government outside of the settlement of installments. 3 The settlement is in force from the period beginning 25 June 1940. The back payments are due with the settlement of installments. The further amounts are to be paid every time for a period of ten days in advance. 4 Certificates of requisition for material in kind, issued by the German occupation, exclusive of billeting, as far as they have been issued after the coming into force of the settlement of installments, will be registered as payment for the cost of the occupation by the French
ten days in advance. 4 Certificates of requisition for material in kind, issued by the German occupation, exclusive of billeting, as far as they have been issued after the coming into force of the settlement of installments, will be registered as payment for the cost of the occupation by the French government. However, the certificates of requisition, which were issued by the German occupational troops before the coming into force of the settlement of installments, are to be redeemed by the French government without deducting it from the costs of occupation. I request my General to confirm to me the receipt of this note, and to notify me about the measures which the French government has made about the execution of the above settlement. Permit me, My General, to express my utmost respect, PART 6 Wiesbaden No. 29 17.9.40 2010 Secret Teletype Foreign Berlin Secret Del. No. 120. In your teletype No. 171 of 12 September, concerning occupation expenses, it is stated in number 2 that it is the wish of the Reich Finance Ministry to inform the French delegation explicitly "that the installments did not constitute a settlement by a lump sum, but that they would have to be adapted to the actual necessities arising from the current war situation and the current requirements of the occupation troops". I hesitate considerably, to communicate this request to the French delegation for the following two reasons: In my notes of 8 August 1940-Del. W. 280 of 15 August 1940-Del W. 331-and of 20 August 1940-Del. W. 408, the idea of installments has always been expressed clearly. The idea of a settlement by a lump sum has never been discussed with the French. The French delegation has therefore no reason, up to now, to assume that the installments constituted a settlement by a lump sum. The instruction requested by the Reich Finance Ministry would, on the contrary, only arouse the idea of a settlement by a lump sum in the minds of the French, which I consider as disastrous. General von Stuelpnagel informed me more officially, that numerous German Divisions have been transferred to the East from France. This fact cannot remain unknown to the French permanently. He draw my attention to that fact because he thought
by a lump sum in the minds of the French, which I consider as disastrous. General von Stuelpnagel informed me more officially, that numerous German Divisions have been transferred to the East from France. This fact cannot remain unknown to the French permanently. He draw my attention to that fact because he thought that this decrease of the armed forces in France would certainly influence the amount of the occupation expenses. The transmission of the communication to the French delegation at present in the wording "as necessitated by the current war situation and the current requirements of the occupation troops" as desired by the Reich Finance Ministry, contains the further danger, that the French delegation would claim a reduction of the installments because of the decrease in the number of troops. I ask you for your decision. Signed: HEMMEN 2015 NR 29 Received BO AUSW AMT (Foreign Office) Berlin. PART 7 Wiesbaden 23 October 1940 Armistice Commission for Economic Affairs The President of the French Delegation for Economic Affairs French Delegation To Monsieur Hemmen Minister Plenipotentiary President of the German Armistice Delegation for Economic Affairs. No. 6318/DE [Rubber Stamp] German Armistice Delegation for Economic Affairs Wiesbaden 24 October 1940 No. 1532 Enclosures Sir: By order of my government I have the honor to communicate the following to you: In a note dated the 12th of October, the German government answered a note of the 26th of August in which the French government had made a formal protest against the payments demanded from her to cover the expenses of the German occupation troops in France. The German government refuses all discussion, both on the distinction between "occupation troops" and "operational troops", and on the rate of exchange between Reichsmarks and francs. It further refuses or denies the French government the right to watch and receive information about the way in which the sums paid for the costs of occupation are used, as well as about the requisitioning of lodgings and economic requisitions. The French government profoundly regrets this reply. It considers, in fact, that events have fully justified the position it took up. After having recalled once more the essential distinction
sums paid for the costs of occupation are used, as well as about the requisitioning of lodgings and economic requisitions. The French government profoundly regrets this reply. It considers, in fact, that events have fully justified the position it took up. After having recalled once more the essential distinction which it makes between "occupation troops" and "operational troops", the French government pointed out to the government of the Reich the two considerations which, in its opinion, make a fresh examination of the problem necessary. 1. Facts have shown that the rate of exchange fixed for the conversion of the Reichsmark into francs was too high. This rate of exchange did not take into account the respective levels of prices in France and Germany at the time when it was fixed. It anticipated a very considerable rise in French prices, which the German authorities considered inevitable. Actually this rise did not take place and the buying power of the franc remains much higher, than that implied by the maintenance of the present parity. The French government is all the more surprised at its protest against the rate of exchange between francs and Reichsmarks not having had any results, as it had itself suggested, in case the rate were modified, a formula allowing the pay and allowances received by the German troops for their expenses in France to remain at the figures at present paid in francs. An immediate consequence of the rate of exchange of 20 francs to the mark is that the sum demanded on account, for the maintenance of the occupation troops, which is reckoned in Reichsmarks, is out of all proportion to the real expenses of these troops. As a matter of fact, the credit balance of the account opened by the Bank of France for the German military administration is enough to cover the costs of occupation for a long time to come. 2. It is obvious that the payments demanded by the government of the Reich should be reduced in proportion to the number of German troops in France. But it is clear that this number has diminished considerably since the daily payment was fixed. The French government is all the more justified in arguing from the above facts, as it is faced by an extremely serious economic