Report by the Chief Party Judge on the events of November 9 and 10.
Report by the Chief Party Judge on the events of November 9 and 10.
Source : Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Vol. 5, (Washington 1946), pp. 868-876.
Munich 13 February 1939 National Socialist German Labour Party The Chief Party Judge To General Field Marshal Herman Goering Berlin W. 8, Leipziger Street 3 FILE
Dear Party Member Goering! I enclose the report of my special senate about the procedure hitherto concluded concerning the excesses on the occasion of the anti-Jewish operations of 9 and 10 November 1938. Heil Hitler ! (signed) Walter Buch, SECRET National Socialist German Labour Party Supreme Party court (Oberstes Parteigericht) The Chief of the Central Office Munich 33 Telephone 50812-50815, 50825 File no. 47 (Dictation) Symbol ΓÇô Sch/R CONFIDENTIAL
Report about the events and judicial proceedings in connection with the antisemitic demonstrations of 9 November 1938.
On the evening of 9 November 1938, Reich Propaganda Minister Party Member Dr. Goebbels told the party leaders assembled at a social evening in the old town hall in Munich, that in the districts [ Gaue ] of Kurhessen and Magdeburg-Anhalt it had come to demonstrations against Jews, during which Jewish shops were demolished and synagogues were set on fire. The Fuehrer, at Goebbels's suggestion, had decided that such demonstrations were not to be prepared or organised by the Party, but so far as they originated spontaneously, they were not to be discouraged either. In other respects, Party Member Dr. Goebbels carried out the purport of what was prescribed in the teletype of the Reich propaganda administration of 10 November 1938 (12:30 to 1 o'clock) (Enclosure 2) It was probably understood by all Party leaders present, from the oral instructions of the Reich propaganda minister, that the Party should not appear outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations but in reality should organise and execute them. Instructions in this sense were telephoned immediately (thus a considerable time before transmission of the first teletype) to the bureaux of their district [ Gaue ] by a large part of the Party members present…. At the end of November 1938, the chief Party Court, through reports from several district ( Gau) courts, heard that these demonstrations of 9 November 1938 had to a considerable extent gone as far as plundering and killing of Jews and that they had already been the object of investigation by the police and the state prosecutor. The deputy Fuehrer agreed with the interpretation of the chief Party Court, that known transgressions in any case should be investigated under the jurisdiction of the party. Because of the obvious connection between the events to be judged and the instructions which Reich Propaganda Minister Party Member Dr. Goebbels gave in the town hall at the social evening. Without investigation and evaluation of this connection, a just judgement did not appear possible. This investigation, however, could not be left to innumerable state courts, especially as the demonstrations had meanwhile been presented to the public as the spontaneous expression of the people's sentiments. According to the conception of the Supreme Party Court [ Oberstes Parteigericht ] it must, as a matter of principle, be impossible for political offences to be determined and judged by the state court without the Party having the possibility of first obtaining clarification about the happenings, so that, if occasion arises, the Fuehrer could be asked in good time to cancel the proceedings at the state court. This concerns matters, which primarily concern the interests of the Party and which even though this be only from the viewpoint of the perpetrator, are desired by the Party. Due to such considerations, Army General [ Generalfeldmarschall ] Party Member Goering, as deputy Fuehrer, has entrusted the Secret State Police and the Party jurisdiction with the investigation of excesses. The Party's Supreme Court has reserved for itself the investigation of killings, severe mistreatment and moral transgressions. On the basis of state police inquiries, the judges of the Supreme Party Court, who were present with their alternates [ zweifacher Besetzung ] held quick trials of those cases about which facts were ascertained up to 17 January 1939. Gau leaders and Group leaders of the branches served as jurors at the trials and decisions. The decisions, which, for reasons to be discussed later, contain only portions of the statements of the facts, are attached. Party Member Frey Heinrich, Party Member since 1932, residing in Rheinhaused, Horst Wessel Street 23, was ejected from the Party because of a moral crime and race violation perpetrated upon the thirteen year old school girl Ruth Kalter. Frey is in custody and has been handed over to the criminal court (Enclosure 5). Party Member Gerstner Gustav, Party membership number 3,135,242, SA-sergeant [ Oberscharfuehrer ], residing at Niederwern, at present district court prison Wuerzburg, was expelled from the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and SA because of theft. Gerstner is in custody and has been handed over to the public court because suspected of race violation. (Enclosure 6)…. 4. Party Member Norgall Franz, Party membership number 342,751, SA-2nd Lt. [ Sturmfuehrer ], residing at 58 Neuhoefer street, Heilsberg (East Prussia), was given a warning and sentenced to three years deprivation of the right to hold public office because of disciplinary violation, namely the killing of the Jewish couple Seelig in Heilsberg contrary to orders. (Enclosure 8)… 16. Proceedings against Party Members Aichinger Hans, SS-Captain [ Hauptsturmfuehrer ], residing at 9 Seilergasse, Innsbruck, and Hofgartner walter, SS-Untersrurmfuehrer residing at 21 Gavelsberger Street, Innsbruck, for killing the Jews Graubart, Dr. Bauer, and Berger, have already been quashed on the basis of inquiries on the part of the State Police and individual interrogations of the Supreme court of the Party (Enclosure 20). With regard to cases 3-16 the Supreme Party Court asks the Fuehrer to quash the proceedings in the State Criminal Courts. The Reich Minister of Justice has been informed of this petition and the decisions on which it was based handed down by the Party's Supreme Court. Cases 4-16 are killings committed by order, committed on the basis of a vague or presumed order, committed without orders but motivated by hatred against Jews or in the opinion that vengeance ought to be taken for the death of Party Member vom Rath upon the wish of the leaders, or killings motivated by a resolution suddenly formed in the excitement of the situation. The professed object of the entire action was the innermost reason, as well as the thought that reprisals had to be made in some form or other, on behalf of Party Member vom Rath. If a clearly defined order is at hand...the request to quash the proceedings against the immediate perpetrator needs no further argument. The order must shift the responsibility from the person who acted to the person who gave the order. Furthermore, the men often had to fight down strongest inner restraints in order to carry out the order. As was repeatedly expressed by the culprits, it is not our SA and SS men's affair to force their way into bedrooms by night, dressed in civilian clothes in order personally to do away with a despised political foe by his wife's side or together with his wife. Investigation into the circumstances under which the orders were given has shown that in all these cases a misunderstanding arose in some link or other of the chain of command [ Befehlskette ], especially due to the fact that it was a matter of course to the National Socialist who was active in the days of the Party struggle that in drives in which the Party does not wish to appear as the organiser, orders are not given with final clarity and with full details. He is therefore used to deducing more from what he reads in such an order than is said literally, just as it had frequently become the practice on the part of the person issuing the order in the interest of the Party to refrain from saying everythand to hint what he meant to achieve with the specific order – especially when it concerned illegal political demonstrations. Therefore Party Member Dr. Goebbels' instruction that the Party was not to organise this demonstration was most likely interpreted by each Party leader present in the town-hall to mean that the Party should not appear as the organiser. Party Member Dr. Goebbels probably meant it in that way for politically interested and active circles, who might participate in such demonstrations are members of the Party and its branches. Naturally, they could be mobilised only through offices of the Party and its branches. Thus, a series of subordinate leaders understood some unfortunately phrased orders which reached them orally or by phone to mean that Jewish blood would now have to flow for the blood of Party Member vom Rath, that at any rate the leadership did not attach importance to the life of a Jew, for example, not the Jew Gruenspan but all Jewry was guilty of the death of Party Member vom Rath. The German people were therefore taking revenge on all Jewry, the synagogues were burning in the entire Reich, Jewish residences and businesses were to be laid waste, life and property of Aryans had to be protected, foreign Jews were not to be harassed. The drive was being carried out by order of the Fuehrer; the police were withdrawn; pistols were to be brought, and at the least resistance, the weapon was to be used without consideration, as each SA man would certainly know what he had to do etc…<BR>
It is another question, whether an intentionally ambiguous order, given with the expectation that the order's recipient would recognise the intention and would act accordingly, is not an example of the discipline of the past. In times of struggle, such an order may, in individual cases, be necessary, in order to achieve political success without giving the government any possibility of discovering the origin of the Party. This viewpoint is now obsolete. The public, down to the last man, realises that political drives like those of 9 November were organised and directed by the Party, whether this is admitted or not…
